saith thus First for the point of will worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applyed must expresly be set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case pag. 205. This about Infantbaptism touches but a circumstance of age Answ. T is true the main question is whether infants are to be baptized But they that deny it do so not meerly because of their age but because they appear not ordinarily to be disciples of Christ or believers or capable of these in act Their admission by baptism is questioned because of their nondiscipleship not precisely by reason of their age Mr. B. in his Appendix to his plain scripture proof c. pag. 302. And that in so material a thing as Infantbaptism and so about the proper subject of so great an ordinance and if you judge Infantbaptism a meer circumstance you are much mistaken If the question about Infantbaptism touch but a circumstance of age then the question about Infant-communion toucheth but a circumstance of age and if men may without precept or example in the new Testament of Infant baptism be acquitted from willworship because it toucheth but a circumstance of age by the same reason they may be acquitted from willworship who give Infants the Communion because it toucheth but a circumstance of age Our Lord Christ and his Apostles having determined who are to be baptized it is manifest willworship or humane Invention to baptize others than he and they have appointed and it is so much the worse because it is not onely about the proper subject of so great an ordinance but also the main end and use of baptism by altering of which the ordinance is quite changed into another thing and the Church of God exceedingly corrupted But letting that passe admission of Infants into the Church Mr. B. saith is fully determined in the old Testament if he mean not the Christian visible Church he speaks ambiguously and if his words be meant of the Christion visible Churah of which onely is the question then it is as fully determined in the old Testament that Infants should be admitted into the visible Church Christian as most things in the Bible as that God made heaven and earth idols are vanities fornication a sin c. But surely none will believe Mr. B. in this but he that is so simple as to believe every word Me thinks he should not have said such a word at Bewdly where he saith in his History were many antient stayd Christians that would not as children be tâ—st up and down and carried too and fro with every wind of doctrine except he presumed they would take what he said as true without trial Formerly this was the received doctrine that Baptism was the sacrament of admission into the Christian Church that Baptism and the Lords supper were the sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ himself that Circumcision and the Passeover and the whole Jewish Church policy are abrogated which if true it is very bold to say that Infants are to be admitted into the visible Church Christian is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible when there is not a word in all the old Testament about the age or way of admission into the visible Church Christian. But where doth Mr. B. find this admission so fully determined in the old Testament In the dispute at Bewdly he denied the precept of Circumcision to be the ordinance of visible church-membership And in my Praecursor Sect. 6 I say as yet I can fiâ—d no such law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-mem-bership save what is injoyned concerning Circumcision To w th he replies in his Praefestinantis morator What not yet And yet dare you boast so confidently of your prepared confutation yet can you find no law that made women Church-members nor the uncircumcised males in the wilderness O the power of prejudice Whereto I say though I boast not of my prepared confutation but speak of it modestly yet I find no cause to be lesse confident of my prepared confutation because of these frivolous interogations of Mr. B. It is not the power of prejudice which is the reason why I find not a law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership but because I do not see or read of law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership besides that of Circumcision either upon my own search or Mr. Bs. or others shewing I asked once a Preacher at Bewdley where it was he told me it was Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. I told him I find a relation of a fact of a thing that was done but not a word of any law ordinance precept or command determining thus it shall be this shall be done c. or any other form of speech that imports a law ordinance precept statute or command to make female infants visible Churchmembers much lesse do I find an appointment law ordinance that some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church which Mr. B. should have proved to be unrepealed according to his assertion cap. 5. 26. except the law of Circumcising infants And therefore my confutation of Mr. Bs. argument cap. 5. might be sufficient if I only denied such an ordinance or appointment till it be shewed I do confess my weakness in my answering at Bewdley in that I permitted Mr. B. to run on in the proof of an ordinance unrepealed afore he had shewed me where that ordinance is but I perceived therein what I feared still that I should not in a verball dispute observe what was necessary to be heeded But I may say with truth Mr. B. either understands not what is meant by a law ordinance appointment liable to repeal or still binding or loves to pervert words from the genuine sense as he did the word accuse or else he is unwilling to speak plainly who being provoked to shew in what text of Scripture that pretended law ordinance appointment is doth not yet shew it And for his assertion here it exceeds all faith that infant admission into the Church meaning the visible Church Christian should be as fully determined in the old Testament at most things in the Bible But wherever Mr. B. imagines it is fully determined in the old Testament the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith chap. 25. Art 4. allege but one text out of the old Testament viz. Gen. 17. 7. 9. for admission of Infants by Baptism into the visible Church and if Mr. M. their Champion in this Point expresse their minds they deduce Infant-baptism from this principle All Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of
the Ceremonies of the Jewish Church nor for the fooleries of the Popish Synagogue but for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ of which those ceremoni's were prenunciative and are ceased not because they were evil but because we have the substance and truth of them which is much better non quia damnata sed quia in melius mutata August Answ. The objection was Arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants is the way to introduce Judaism and to subject the Church again to the whole burthen of Jewish Ceremonies Mr. Churches answer is Arguing from the Iewish types for the substance of those shadowes c. Which answer is either meerly impertinent or else he conceives arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants to be arguing from the Jewish type for the substance of the shadow Which if he stand to then he must make Circumcision the type and Baptism of infants the substance of Circumcision which sure is not according to Scripture which makes Christ the body of which the ceremonies and among them Circumcision was a shadow Col. 2. 17. Nor doth Mr. Church prove any thing that he saith but vainly dictate when he makes arguing for infant Baptism from Circumcision to be arguing for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ and makes Circumcision a ceremony prenunciative of infant Baptism against which and the whole way of arguing from the use of Jewish rites to Christian from analogy without other institution I further reason 7. Protestant Divines do frequently deny the Jewish Sacraments to be types or figures of ours Ames Bellarm. ener tom 3. lib. 1. cap. 3. th 11. Sacramenta externa sunt figurae figuras figurarum non instituit Deus that they figured or represented Christ and his grace not other Sacraments Cap. 4. th 13. Absque ulla ratione asseritur circumcisionem fuisse figuram baptismi sacramentum non est signum visibilis sacramenti sed invisibilis gratiae Therefore no right arguing by analogy from a Jewish rite to a Christian which must suppose one to be a sign of the other which is denyed by them Mr. Church his speech is vain That the Apostle argues from the Sacrifices in the Iewish Church Rom. 12. 2. Heb. 13. 15. the offering of our selves and the sacrificing of praises which he calls the calves of the lips c. For 1. the Apostle doth not argue at all but only allusively calls the presenting of our bodies and giving thanks a sacrifice and the calves of our lips by reason of some resemblance which if it be arguing In the use of every Metaphor there is arguing 2. Were it arguing yet it is not to the purpose sith it is not any arguing from the use of one rite to another by analogy but from a rite to a moral duty to wit devotion and thanksgiving And when he adds And from sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime may the sealing of the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation be rightly argued sealing the promise being the substance of Circumcision and benefit intended by it and such arguing hath no colour of setting up Iudaism for arguing for the thing signified tends not to the introducement of antiquated Ceremonies he doth but write at random For if the reason of his assertion be pettinent then he must hold that sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation is the substance of circumcision and benefit intended by it But it is either unintelligible to me in what sense the sealing of the promise by baptism to infants of Christians can be the substance of circumcision and the benefit intended by it or else it is very absurd For then it will plainly follow 1. That till infantbaptism of Christians Circumcision was without its substance and the benefit intended by it 2. He makes infant baptism the thing signified by circumcision and the substance of circumcision and so one ceremony signifies and is the substance of another But however we judge of his unintelligible or absurd arguing it appears not by his answer but that the way of arguing by analogy from circumcision to baptism that is from the regulating our practice in a rite of the New Testament by a rite of the Old as obliging our consciences may and doth introduce Judaism and other evils as was objected Mr. Blake answer to my Letter pag. 97. seems to put by this arguing of mine by advising me to read over Bellermine and tell him then whether his arguments to lay the Sacraments of the Iews as low as types and to extol the Sacraments of Christians as their antitypes be not the self same that I and my party make use of to make so large a difference between circumcision and baptism Protestants deny them indeed to be types because they assirm they are in substance the same our doctrine keeps us at a distance from Bellarmine when you are in this reconciled to him making the same differences as he doth between Circumcision and Baptism Answ. Had M. Blake directed me to the place in Bellarmine he would have me seriously read over I should have done it But now not well knowing what place in Bellarmine he would have me read and the reading him all over and that seriously being a very tedious task I do not gratifie M. Blake in his request But to what he saith I reply I put sundry differences between Circumcision and Baptism in my Examen part 3. sect 9. which Mr. M. his Defence doth not shew to be false If they or any other I make be the same with Bellarmines and yet true Mr. Blake doth causelesly except against me for agreeing with Bellarmine sure it is no matter of blame to agree with the Devil himself in the truth it is no evill to believe there is one God because the Devils do so James 2. 19. But how this should reconcile me to Bellarmine in that which I except against him that he makes the Jews Sacraments Types of ours is to me unintelligible 2. Dr. Ames his words shew that therefore he denied that Circumcision was the figure or type of Baptism because a Sacrament is not a sign of a visible Sacrament but of invisible grace and that God hath not appointed figures of figures or types of types but types of some body or substance The reason M. Blake gives why they are not types because they are in substance the same I know not what Protestants do give whoever they be that do say so in my apprehension either they speak non-sense or false Sacraments being nothing but actions used to some ends according to appointment what substance they should have but the actions and the use I understand not Now that the actions are not the same it is manifest cutting off a little skin killing roasting eating a lamb being not the same with washing the body with water and breaking and eating bread
for Christians in the use of baptism 4. The institution and practise would have been conformable to it But the contrary appears 1. In their baptizing no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversion whereas the Iews baptized onely the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting not the infants of those who were baptized in infancy Selden l. 2. de Iure nat c. cap. 4. sed vero non aliter atque Israelitae ipsi filii proselytorum circumcidendi tantum erant nec quemadmodum parentes sive illi sive filiae baptizandae Nunquam enim solennis proselyti baptismus ille iterandus erat nec in ipso qui primo baptizatus tamet si apostata factus in ritus Iudaicos rediret nec in posteris So that if it be true that the Jewish baptism of Proselytes is the pattern of the Christian then no infant of Christian race is now to be baptized but such as were born when the first Gentile Ancestors were converted Yea the Jews were so far from baptizing any infants of proselytes born after theâ—r first convesion and baptism that they resolved as may be seen in Selden ubi supra and Dr. Hammond himself allegeth sect 109. if a woman great with childe become a proselyte and be baptized her childe needs not baptism when t is born So that whereas the Doctor brings the Iewish custom as a pattern for Christian baptism so as that it may be reasonably thought to belong to all that among the Jews were usually baptized his own arguing will prove that no infant of Christians now descerded from Christian Ancestors or born of parents formerly infidels after the parents were baptized should be baptized because it is against the Jewish custom of baptizing any childe of a Gâ—ntile infidel born after the parents were become proselytes and baptized But secondly besides this first and main thing wherein the Doctors patern is incorgruous to Christian baptism there are many more disparities which shew that the Iewish baptism of prâ—selytes was not the patern of Christan baptism As v. g. 1. The baptism of males must be also with Circumcision and an offering 2. There must be a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voyd Dr. Hammond sect 114. Among the Iews saith the Gemara Babylâ— the infants used to be baptized upon the profession or confession of the house of judgment the consistory and the Gloss saith the Triumviri are set over baptism and are necessary to it and so they become to him a father and Maimonides he must be baptized before the Triumviri 3. It was not to be on the Sabbath or feast day or in the night 4. The body must be washed not in a made receptacle of waters as a vessel or font but a natural one as a river pool well 5. No part of the body but must be washed if any scab or blood hardned or filth fâ—â—ck on the body so as that water could not come to the whole supersicies it was not accounted right baptism yet they allowed garments which separated not the water from the body 6. While the proselytes stood in the water the precepts of Moses were recited by the three Israelites skilfull in the Law and he was to take on him the observation of them all not one excepted or else not accounted a Proselyte 7. A woman proselyte was placed in the water unto the neck by women which baptized her while the three Israelites stood after the manner observing the baptism yet they were to turn away their faces and go away when the woman came out of the water 8. Elder Gentiles were made proselytes according to their own choice younger as males before thirteen years and a day old females before twelve and a day old according to the minde of their father or the court to which they were subject were admitted to Judaism The same right was of a natural foole Yet if a person under years when baptized did after as soon as he came to age renounce Judaism then he lost what privilege he had by baptism either by assent of the parent or the court 9. The baptism did give them interest in the policy of the Iews as other Israelites except some things peculiarly reserved to natural Israelites 10. Yet a servant without his Masters consent was not made free 11. A blessing was to be used at baptism but unless he were made free not by the servant but by the master 12. A young one as an infant whether taken or found the Israelite that possessed it might baptize it either into the state of an ingenuous person or freed person or a servant 13. They taught that a person baptized was so born again that lying with his own natural sister was no incest 14 If the person be privily baptized though before two yet he was not counted a Proselyte All which may be seen in Selden l. 2. de jure nat Gent. juxta discipl Ebr. cap. 2 3. 4. lib. 1. de Syned Ebr. cap. 3. So that if the baptism of Proselytes among the Iews be the patern of Christian baptism baptizing of women must be by women no one single Bishop or Presbyter must baptize but three at least there must be no private baptism no baptizing in Fonts or Basons no baptism without the whole body be washed and so as that no filth or scab hinder the water from coming to the skin there should be no infants baptized but at the first conversion of the parent no Iew should be baptized none baptized in the night on the Sabbath or other Feast-day In most of which Christ Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles varied from the Iews and therefore they took not their baptism for their patern and if they did not make the Jews baptism their patern in baptizing neither are we to do so but to follow the rule of Christs institution and the Apostles practice and not the Iews use which is not delivered in Scripture and much of it according to the superstition and dotages of their Rabbins and was not a meet religious Sacrament but a kinde of mixt rite partly religious and partly civil intitling to Civil as well as Ecclesiastical right and done by persons Civil rather than Ecclesiastical and so of a far different nature and use from the Christian baptism I think Dr. Hammond were he a Bishop would censure such baptizing as the Iews used as irregular and then he may well bear with Antipaedobaptists though they reject his new conceit of making the Iewish baptism our patern and thereupon grounding the baptizing of infants Himself in his Practical Catechism lib. 6. Sect. 2. allows of sprinkling though the Iewish custome was dipping yea they so precisely require it that it was not counted baptism except the whole body were washed and yet the Doctor confesseth that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under water
in my Apology pag. 6. that I rested wholly on 1 Cor. 7. 14. for many years and that Text Mr. B. cals a full plain Text and Dr. Hammond in effect builds all his proof for infant-baptism upon it and therefore Mr. B. might have perceived his mistake concerning me if he had heeded my books If some Divines have argued weakly for infant-baptism used some unfit phrases and brought some misapplied Scriptures as he saith I am sure Mr. B. had reason to number himself among them if he be not the man who hath in all these outstripped them I wish he had held his resolution of not heaping up many arguments it would have saved me much labor To his words Whatsoever Mr. T. may pretend among the simple I shall easily prove that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high to the Apostles days as there is any sufficient History extant to inform us and that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon Popish or heretical grounds I answer 1. That my pretences about the innovation of infant-baptism are not among the simple as he would insinuate but among the most learned for whose examination my allegations are obvious in print 2. That his assertion concerning the antiquity of infant-baptism is most inconsiderate there being nothing in Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Epiphanius and other the most approved Histories and Authors for his assertion And for those be brings the highest is Pope Hyginus whose words he alleged out of his Decree which I conceived had been in his Epistle decretal judged to be counterfeit but Mr. B. in his Praefestinant is morator lets fly at me Sect. 3. for my mistake I confess I have not Blondellus Surius Nicolinus Crab Binius Gratian but Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 2. l. 2. c. 5. saith Reliqua Decreta quae huic Episcopo tribuuntur ex Gratiano ad verbum quia prolixa non sunt referemus And then sets down five Decrees on the second of which he notes thus Ex hoc decreto elâ—â—et vanit as harum constitutionum quod falsò prioribus Episcopis Romanis tribuantur Quis enim credat c. Quare manifestum est haec Decreta longo tempore post Hyginum facta in Ecclesiam Dei jam superstitionibus Pontificiis contaminatam introducta esse Hujus farinae sunt proximè sequentia Decreta de rebus frivolis edita of which the last is In catechismo in baptismo in confirmatione unus pâ—trinus fieri potest si necessit as cogat non est tamen consuetudo Romana sed per singulos astus singula suscipiunt Whereby the Reader may perceive the Decree to be but a forgery and that if it were true yet it doth not mention the baptizing of infants sith Gossips were at the Baptism of elder persons though Dr. Hammond say in his Letter pag. 214. Godfathers have place onely in baptizing of Children as may be made appear by instances at the baptizing of some Sâ—xon Kings and otherwise and the Decree it self putting a Gossip in Catechism before a Gossip in Baptism makes it probable not to be meant of a Gossip to an infant baptized And lest it be thought Osiander is alone I will adjoyn the words of Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments first book at the year 175. The like that Telesphorus made them not is to be thought also of the rest not onely his Constitutions but also of the other ancient Biships and Martyrs which followed after him as of Hyginus anno 142. who succeeding him and dying also a Martyr as Volateranus lib. 22. declareth is said or rather feigned to bring in the cream one Godfather and Godmother in Baptism to ordain the dedication of Churches when as in his time so far it was off that any solemn Churches were standing in Rome that unneth the Christians could safely convent in their own houses Likewise the distincting the orders of Metropolitans Bishops and other degrees savour nothing less than of that time Doctor Prideaux one of Mr. Bs. own Authors for this Decree of Pope Hyginus about Gossips though he make mention of it where he speaks of that Pope Compend of History cap. 7. Sect. 3. interr 7. yet after among many of his inquiries this is the third Whether it be likely that these religious Popes in such extreme persecutions had liberty or list to think on making Cardinals or Gossips and introduce a rabble of beggarly Ceremonies And though I were mistaken in calling that decree of Hyginus the Decree in the Epistle yet I think the Authors which censured the decretal Epistles did comprehend the Decrees ascribed to those first Popes among those forged Writings under that name However what I have produced is enough to justifie my speeches in my Praecursor that the Decree ascribed to Pope Hyginus about Gossips is so manifest a forgery that I could hardly have imagined any learned Protestant would ever have alleged so notoriously forged a writing so that I need not answer Mr. Bs. allegation of this testimony as by currant consent of Historians assuring us that Hyginus Bishop of Rome did first ordain Godfathers and Godmothers at the baptizing of infants and his questions thereon but by telling him he hath reason to be ashamed of abusing men with this forgery after so much eviction of it by learned men being more like a brazen faced allegation than that he so censures me for without cause The next of his allegations is Justin Martyr from whom besides the bastard writing of Questions and Answers ad orthodoxos all the rest alleged pag. 156. by Mr. B. is manifestly impertinent and his genuine writing yields a good evidence against the use of infant-baptism as unknown to him as may appear by what is said before Mr. B. in his Praefestinantis morator says Sect. 3. Seeing you deny nothing in Justin Martyrs words you must yield that it was known to Mothers that their infants were of Gods kingdom and then certainly they were Church-members and known Disciples or Christians To which I reply that I have not Justin Martyr now by me and do doubt whether in that passage of the Epistle ad Zenam Serenum he did mean infants sith the term is children which may be meant of persons who are come to some age capable of understanding and if the words be meant of infants yet it may be very well conceived that the meaning is that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is the Kingdom of Glory and that not in respect of their present but future estate as when it is said Matth. 5. 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven that is they shall have a great reward in Heaven vers 12. And then it neither proves their present being of Gods visible Kingdom nor that they were Church-members and known Disciples or Christians and to be baptized This testimony for the antiquity of infant-baptism I remember
more considerable that all the three former Evangelists make full mention of these passages of Christ and therefore it is evident that they were not taken for small circumstantials but Doctrines of moment for the Churches information They are recorded also in Matth. 18. 2 3 4 c. Matth. 19. 13 14. Luke 9. 47. Luke 18. 16 17. I desire any tender conscienced Christian that is in doubt whether infants should be admitted members of the visible Church and would fain know what is the pleasure of Christ in this thing to reade over the Texts impartially and considerately and then bethink himself whether it be more likely that it will please Christ better to bring or solemnly admit infants into the Church or to shut them out and whether these words of Christ so plain and earnest will not be a better plea at Judgment for our admitting infants than any that ever the Anabaptists brought will be to them for refusing them Answ. Mr. B. wanting proof fals here to his Rhetorick which elsewhere he falsly chargeth on me as my fault but is indeed the chief part of his Book and prevails much with the most of Readers But it is the property of childish persons to be affrighted with such mormo's I grant that the passages of Christ were by the Evangelists taken not for small circumstantials but Doctrines of moment for the Churches information yet not teaching infants visible Church-membership and baptism What ever Christian I be I have read over the Texts impartially and considerately as I think this and other writings shew and I do declare in the presence of God that these passages do confirm me in this truth that it is not the will of Christ that infants should be baptized because he neither baptized nor appointed these to be baptized and that the words of Christ here are so impertinent that they are more likely to be a plea against infant baptizers who on such weak conjectures go against the plain institution of Christ Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. 16. and the constant use of the Apostles and first ages And I do further declare that on my most serious studies I do resolve notwithstanding the evasions they bring that the plea they make hence for infant baptism and that which is alleaged of their being Disciples visible Church-members in the Covenant doth as well tie them to admit them to the Lords supper as to baptism and that in refusing to admit them to baptism we have as good a plea and better at Judgment then they have in refusing to admit them to the Lords Supper Nor is it to me any other than a sad sign either of injudiciousness or slothfulnes in searching after the truth or prejudice or adhering to mens sayings out of reverence of their persons or faction or some such like evil quality both in Ministers and people even those of tender consciences that they still retain so gross an abuse as infant baptism is upon such weak reasons as they do and neglect yea and oppose the baptism of believers so manifestly Commanded by Christ and practised by his Apostles But I must follow Mr. B. But what saith Mr. T. against this why 1. He saith it was some extraordinary blessing to them that Christ intended Apol. p. 149. Answ. 1. it was a discovery of their title to the Kingdom of Heaven It was such an extraordinary blessing that included the ordinary If extraordinary blessing theâ— much more ordinary 2 It was such as the Disciples should have known that these should be admitted to or else Christ would not have been displeased Answ. It is true I give this reason why I conceive that of such included those infants as conceiving from the circumstances of the thing that Christ intended some extraordinary blessing to them and declaration concerning them And in my Examen pag. 147. I say Christs action in this business is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therfore yeilds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing infants by the ordinary Ministery no more than Christs whipping buyers out of the Temple though related by the four Evangelists for an ordinary practise answerable thereto Now this is not denied by Mr. B. But he says it was such an extraordinary blessing as included the ordinary if extraordinary blessing then much more ordinary But 1. these things are said without proof 2. Their falshood is shewed and the rest is answered before He adds But Mr. T. saith Apol. pag. 151. That the reason of Christs anger was their hindring him in his design not the knowledg they had of their present visible Title this is but a dream To which I answer 1. Mr. T. is as bold to speak of Christs thoughts without Book and to search the Searcher of hearts as if he were resolved to make Christs meaning be what he would have it 2. What Design was it that Christ had in hand Was it any other than the discovery of his mercy to the species of infants and to those among others and a presenting them as a Patern to his followers and to teach his Church humility and renovation and to leave them an assurance against Anabaptists that it is his pleasure that infants should not be kept from him Answ. 1. There was no such boldness in my speech as Mr. B. rashly and like a calumniator chargeth me with but such as must be granted true if we conceive Christ to have acted as a rational being that propounds an end or design in his actings 2. The last of the designs Mr. B. mentions assuring that it is his pleasure that infants should not be kept from him meaning by not baptizing them is his figment His design I knew without searching Christs heart immediately by reading his facts which shew his ends to be 1. the blessing those infants 2. Teaching Doctrine concerning such 3. Shewing himself thereby the great Prophet of his Church and bestower of blessings 3. Saith Mr. B. How did the Disciples hinder Christs design Not by hindring him immediately but by rebuking those that brought the infants 4. If this were no fault in them why should Christ be displeased and much displeased at it And how could it be their fault to hinder people from bringing infants to Christ if they might not know that they ought to be admitted And could they know of Christs private intents and designs Were there but this one consideration hence to be urged I duâ—st challenge Mr. T. to answer as far as modesty would permit a challenge that is if Christ had intended onely that humility or docibleness should be commended from these infants as an Emblem to his Disciples then it could be none of their fault to forbid bringing of them to Christ for how could they know what use Christ would make of them or by what Emblem he would teach them or when he would do it All the creatures in the world may be Emblems of some good and must they
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications to intimate as if any kinde of sanctification of a part of the body though but by sprinkling with water were baptism It is a like abuse when Christ bids baptize to sprinkle onely or pour water on the face as it would be when he bids to eat onely to chew in the mouth or when he bids to drink to wet the lips onely But that to sprinkle is not to baptize is elsewhere asserted Addition to the Apology Sect. 22. The Doctor goes on in his dictating way thus Fourthly it is known of the legal uncleannesses contrary to those their sanctifications that they were the cause of removing men from the congregation they that were so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean might not partake of the privileges of the Temple till they were washed and sanctifyed and that is proportionable also to the notion here given of it that the Christian children are holy i. e. not inherently they are not capable but in the account of God and men capable of separation for the service of God of being entered into the Church into Covenant which denominates men holy as the Gentiles as long as they were out of it were unclean and unholy Acts 10. now are they holy i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time to admit to baptism such infant-children of Parents of whom one is Christian though not of others Answ. It is sayd without proof that the uncleanness excluding from the Tabernacle and sanctification restoring are proportionable to the notion here given of childrens being excluded or included in the Church Why should Cornelius be counted out of the Church by God or men when God sayth He was a devout man and one that feared God with all his house who gave much alms to the people aend prayed to God always Acts 10. 2. It 's true he was excluded from the familiar society of the Jews according to their superstition and so unclean but not accounted by God to be out of the Church but in it That Christians children are denied to be capable of holiness inherently will not be granted him much less his paraphrase on the words now are they holy i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time to admit to baptism such infant children of parents c. It will not stand with his own exposition as hath been shewed and it makes the Apostle relate a matter of plain fact in obscure terms Augustin did disclaim this interpretation Hierom and Ambrose gave another and so did Tertullian de animâ cap. 39. what he adds is frivolous And to put all out of question the aneient Fathers which certainly knew the sacred Dialect call baptism sanctification So Cyprian Epist. 59. Eum qui natus est bapt zandum sanctificandum He that is born must be baptized and sanctified where baptizing is sanctifying of infants So Greg. Nazian Orat. 40. Edit Bill pag. 658. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is better to be sanctified without sense of it I. e. baptized in infancy when they are not sensible of it than to depart or die without the seal of baptism And again pag. 648. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be sanctified from the infancy I. e. baptized then And many the like For 1. That the Ancients of the third or fourth Century knew certainly the sacred Dialect especially the Latin Doctors me thinks the Doctor should know them better than to assert it He sure is not ignorant that in multitudes of things later writers do finde their many mistakes about the sacred Dialect and how few of them had any skil in Hebrew or Greek the Doctor is not ignorant I presume 2. In this very thing if those Fathers certainly knew the sacred Dialect and from their use Paul must be interpreted then the word sanctified not the word holy for the Doctor doth not shew they used the word holy for baptized but the word sanctified must be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as much as baptized and then the sense is The unbelieving husband is baptized by the wife and the unbelieving wife is baptized by the husband of the absurdity of which interpretation I need say no more The Doctor proceeds sect 37. thus This passage than being thus interpreted is a clear proof of the point in hand And were not this the importance of it there were no privilege imaginable no sanctity which could be attributed to the infants of Christians which would not belong to the infants of heathens also which yet is here distinctly affirmed of the one and denied of the other by the Apostle Answ. How absurd the Doctors interpretation is hath been shewed before yet were it granted him it would not be a clear proof for infant-infant-baptism unless your children were all one with your infants which will not be cleared till it be shewed that the Corinthian Christians had then no children but infants or that he meant no other under that term then the infants Which sure is not according to the Jewish pattern in which they baptized Proselytes children if females under twelve if males under thirteen not according to their will but of the Father or court to which they were subject I add if the Apostle should by holy understand a privilege where upon they were baptized he should conceive otherwise than the Jews did who conceived all unclean whom they baptized till by baptism they cleansed them and made them holy And for what he sayth that no privilege imaginable c. I answer 1. By denying that the Apostle there attributes a privilege or sanctity belonging to the infants of Christians which would not belong to the infants of heathens I have I conceive in the first part of this Review demonstrated the contrary against Mr. M Mr. B. c. 2. If there were a privilege attributed yet it might not be baptism For. 1 That belonged according to the Fathers opinion and practise to unbelievers children also if they were brought as I shew examen part 1. sect 7. 8 2. There are other imagined privileges or sanctities belonging to them as by some real actual inward holiness by others federal external holiness by others holiness in hope and expectation He goes on And as this evidently concludes such a custom known and acknowledged among Christians at that time so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptizing Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed And so though that Judaical practise taken alone were not deemed any demonstrative evidence that Christ thus instituted his baptism for the Gentiles yet being taken in conjunction with this Testimony of the Apostolical practise and the primitive usage it brings all the weight with it which a Divine Testimony imexpreted by practise can afford which is as great as any such matter can be capable of Answ. 1. It
is false that Christ founded his institution in the Jewish practise of baptizing proselytes and their children If he had done so he would have bid the Apostles baptize Disciples and their children as the Jews did There is not any thing that is brought by the Doctor that proves it yea if it were the minde of Chrst to baptize Disciples and their children as the Jews did Proselytes it would utterly overthrow all use of baptism of water after the first conversion of Progenitors to be Christs Disciples none but they and the children then born should be baptized all Disciples and their infants which descended from the first baptized should not be baptized with water being clean or holy without baptism For they baptized because they were unclean till baptized not because holy before Nor did they baptize any of the posterity of the first baptized though born but a few moneths after their first baptism So that this conceit of the Doctor would help much for the Socinian conceit as if water-water-baptism belonged onely to the age of the Apostles 2. It is false that there is any evidence in the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7. 14. of such a custom of baptizing Christians and their children as was among the Jews of baptizing the Preselytes and their infant's Nor do I think ever any of the Fathers did interpret the Apostles words as this Doctor doth Tertullians words in his Book de anima cap. 39. are not as the Doctor saith an exact parallel to the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7 14. as the Doctor renders and interprets it The terms candidati sanctitatis or designati sanctitatis or candidati sideâ— in Hieromes Epist. 153. to Paulinus do note not that they were baptized as the Doctor interprets Holy 1 Cor 7. 14. buâ— that they were in expectation as they that were seekers for Offices in Rome while they stood for the Offices were candidati in Whâ—e so the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptized Quod veluti ambiunt expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Ep. 153. to Paulinus or designed that is intended â—o be holy by the parents that is to â—e bred up to profess the Faith and so to be baptized Both which senses do indeed oppose the Doctors assertion and shew that they were not baptized in infancy And for that which the Doctor talks of Tertullian as saying they were holy that is baptized ex sâ—minis praerogativa from the praerogative of their birth it is a manifest mistake as the very reading the words shew For. 1. The holiness he ascribes to believers children was not onely by praerogative of birth but also ex institutions disciplina by the discipline of their instruction which is afore baptism 2. The praerogative of birth the very words of Tertullian shew to be no more but this that believers children were born without those idolatrous superstitions which were used in the birth of infidels children which he there particularly recites There is no one of the Fathers interprets Paul as the Dr. Ambrose and Hierom interpret the words of legitimation in birth Augustin what way soever he go â—aith expresly the words belong not to baptism 3. I is false that the Jewish practise in baptizing Proselytes and their children layd the foundation of infant-baptism neither the Scripture gives any hint thereof noâ— any of the Ancient Christian writers no not any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practise But the speeches of Tertullian de bapt cap. 8. of Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 40. de baptismo disswading from it except in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death the very decree of the Council in Cyprians 59. Epistle the speeches of Augustin Hierom against the Pelagians the words of the counterfeit Authors of the Book of Questions and answers to the Orthodox imposed on Justin Martyr qu. 56. The questions ad Antiochum imposed on Athanasius qu 114. the words of the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy imposed on Dionysius Areopagita the story of the baptism of Gregory Nazianzen the intended baptism of Augustin when in daâ—ger of death tom 1. confess lib. 1. cap. â—1 and other evidences dâ— shew that the Fathers took the baptism of infants not to have foundation in the Jews practise but in the conceit they had that baptism did regenerate give grace and save and that it was necessary for them to enter into the Kingdom and that they were in danger of perishing if they were not baptized and therfore they practised baptizing of infants in that caâ—e Which thing the Papists avouch at this day and in order thereto womens baptizing The Protestant reformers who composed the Common Prayer Book do appear to have had the like conceit in that in the preface before publique baptism they use the old reason from John 3. 5. Rom. 5. 12. for infant-baptism affirming infants to be regenerate and undoubtedly saved dying baptized allowing Midwives to baptize till the words lawfull Minister were added in the Rubrick after the conference at Hampton Court where had not King James over-ruled them the Bishops had not yelded to that reformation yet still they kept private baptism with that ridiculous use of propounding the questions of repentance and faith to the infant to which the sureties must answer in the childes behalf with profession of the childes desire to be baptized into the faith recited though the childe were then crying when the words were spoken and for the sureties they had no desire to be baptized and the Bishops and Presbyters requiring it would have censured them as Anabaptists had they indeed minded baptism according to Christs minde which thing was a meer mockery as Chamier calls it Yet in the Rubrick it self in the Common prayer Book in the title of Publique baptism it is confessed that the Ancient custom was of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsuntide baptizing is acknowledged to have been by dipping sprinkling or pouring water on the face I do conjecture by reports and such writings as I have seen was most after the conference at Hampton Court Dr. Hammond himself in his Practic Catech. lib. 1. sect 3. pag. 23. saith All men were instructed anciently in the foundamentals of faith before they were permitted to be baptized And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant-baptism brought by the Doctor because having sayd so much in my Examen part 1. and my Apology sect 16. I presume those that are not willing to be deceived will not be swayed with Dr. Hammonds Mr. Bs. Mr. Ms. friends or any other citations from them some being of meer counterfeit Authors as Justin Martyr Pope Hyginus Dionysius Areopagita Athanasius some suspected as Origens words some misinterpreted as Irenaeus and Tertullian some the very Authors shew that they maintained infant-baptism but in the case of danger of death as Tertullian and Nazianzen
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.
neither is any other than an humane device it cannot be proved that onely scandalous sin answers to leprosie original sin or sins of thoughts may as well be conceived to be signified by it and separating from the congregation may as well typifie exclusion from heaven as removal from the visible Church yea more agreeable to the end sith putting out of the Camp was not for amendment as excommunication was That excommunication which the Scripture in the New Testament mentions as belonging to Christians I grant is to be of women as well as men but we need not run to the Old Testament to prove it 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11 12 13. 2 Thess. 3. 6. 14. 2 Tim 3. 5. prove it If that Rev. 2. 20 belong to excommunication a woman is in express terms made liable to it I agree with Mr. Blake In all penalties for transgression in Scripture we find no regard had of distinction of sexe and by consequence it is not to be denied that women offending are within this censure so that by his own grant we need not run to analogy from ejecting the Lâ—per to prove excommunicating of women It is not true that 〈…〉 d unsay my words are plain distinguishing juâ—â—dical Excommunication of superious from social granting this latter though demurring about the former I have shewed my meaning plainly in the Addition of my Apology sect 17. 19. in my letter to Mr. Robert Baillee of Scotland what Mr. Blake holds in this point I cannot well tell Some conference I had with him in London made me doubtful whether he were not somewhat of Erastus his judgement in this point here he doth not say there is an institution of Excommunication as he is sure there is of Baptism But I deny if there be an institution of excommunition that it may be evinced from Num. 12. 14. that it reacheth both sexes much less that any precept may be thence gathered as obliging Christians in the use of excommunication If there were a rule thence obliging it would follow that excommunication is to be but seven dayes and then the excommunicate to be received in again What I said of ordering things by alterable rules of prudence is expressely meant of things concerning which we have not precise direction from Gods Word which I suppose Mr. Blake will not deny to be true though he is pleased to mention it as if it were mine and not his tenent He saith further I brought an instance not for a proof of it self but illustration of another proof from Divines arguing against non-residence from Ezek. 44. 8. This he saies is good after other arguments but of it self is not convincing Such arguments then are of validity when aright placed and marshalled orderly I hope this of mine then is of force it is not in the van but brings up the rear Answ. What I acknowledged that the argument was good after other arguments I mean to illustrate not to prove nor would I deny an argument from Circumcision of infants good to illustrate Baptism of infants if it were before proved from precept or Apostolical example manifested in express assertion or deduced by good consequences But the most of Paedobaptists make the argument from Circumcision their Achilles and by their texts and confession of a Committee of them it was the main if not the onely argument in the Assembly Mr. Bs arguments he puts in the van are no better as is briefly shewed Postscript sect 2. c. Yet for the text Ezek. 44. 8. upon better consideration it seems not fit to illustrate a proof against nonresidence sith the sin there charged was not leaving the Temple themselves but admitting at the will of the Prince other than of the Tribe of Levi to be in Gods sanctuary Num. 18. 4. yea even the uncircumcised and thereby Gods holy things were profaned and idolatry brought in And therefore the observation of the New Annot. of the second edition is that unlawful Ministers false in doctrine soul in life are not to be admitted but ejected But for Mr. Blakes rule there is no one text brought out of Gods Word to prove it that we may argue from analogy so as to infer a duty from an use in meer positive worship of the Old Testament now abolished in the use of a rite of the New without any other precept in the New Testament when we do not institute thence any piece of worship or the least part of the service of God but onely make it a help to a right understanding of the nature use and extent of that which is instituted Yea this rule seems to me to speak inconsistencies For he supposeth that analogy may not institute any piece of worship or the least part of the service of God yet allows direction from analogy in the nature extent and use of that which is instituted whereas the nature use and extent being the chief part or the very service it self and are determined in the institution Mat. 28. 19. if we may take direction from our conceived analogy in them we may not onely institute a piece of worship or the least part of the service of God which Mr. Blake denies but also the main part yea the very service itself which hath no greater parts than the nature use and extent So that Mr. Blakes first rule denying the use of analogy in the least part of Gods service yet allowing it in the nature use and extent of that which is instituted is but a rule destroying in one part what is built up in the other He adds further The second and third rules he saies are not set down from any declaration or example in the Scripture I desire him at his leisure to look again and he may see the second rule confirmed from the Apostles way of thus arguing 1 Cor. 9. and the Lord Christs Mat. 12. The third is confirmed by that reasoning of Christ with the Pharisees before mentioned compared with our reasoning with Antipaedobaptists Answ. I have looked again and I say still these are impertinently alleged by Mr. B. as being not one of them from such analogy as Mr. B. maintaines and I deny as I have before shewed and for Antipaedobaptists reasonings they are the fairest that can be keeping close to the confessed institution of Christ and practice of the Apostles and there is this objection which is fairly brought against Infant-baptism that there is no command or example for it in Scripture which cannot be brought against Infant circumcision and for the hypotheses of Paedobaptists from the Covenant seal succession to circumcision c. there is not one of them true as God willing shall be shewed in the process of this Review Mr. Blake goes on His second exception is These are very uncertain For no reason is given why they may not make a new worship who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament This very well answers Mr. T. his ingenuity to which
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-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
not alleged by any before Mr. B. and therefore besides the impertinency of the words as he himself allegeth them I see no need to search any further into it His allegation pag. 154. out of Iraeneus is impertinent wherein besides other frivolous inferences out of his words he tels us that Irenaeus cannot mean by sanctifying internal real sanctifying onely for then according to their exposition of Renascuntur it should be but Tautology q. d. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified or new born whereas had he heeded these words set down by himself this imagined Tautology had been seen to be his meer mistake for his words are Omnes venit per semet ipsum salvare He came to save men of all ages as Dr. Hammond renders it not as Mr. B. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified And yet if they had been thus he sanctifieth by himself all that are born again or sanctified by him it had not been a Tautology sith it is manifest that Irenaeus by per semetipsum meant by the patern or example of his own age and then it is no Tautology but hath this plain sense that all that are sanctified by Christ he came to sanctifie them by the patern or example of his own age and therefore lived in every age of a man which is the purport of Irenaeus his discourse in that place which is by all sorts of writers censured as his mistake Having said so much of Mr. Bs. mistakes and thereby sufficiently shewed that no writer in the two first Centuries mentions infant-baptism and therefore Mr. Bs. speech is most false that he shall easily prove that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as the Apostles days as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us I leave the examining of the testimonies for baptizing of infants or against them till I have finished the review of the dispute from Scripture testimonies and then I intend not onely to examine what Mr. B. hath scribled in his Plain Scripure Proof c. part 2. chap. 15. and in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 3. but also what Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Young as I am informed and what Dr. Hammond men better acquainted with the writings of the Ancients than Mr. B. or Mr. Bl. have said about the antiquity of infant-baptism and do no whit doubt but that I shall with the Lords assistance make good the assertions of the first part of my Examen that First infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pre ended Secondly that as it is now taught it is a late innovation meaning as it is taught by the Assembly Mr. M. and the reformed Churches called Calvinists As for Mr. Bs. assertion that he should easily prove that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon popish or heretical grounds if he mean the deferring it till a person were catechized and of years sufficient to answer by himself to the three questions about Repentance Faith and Obedience which were still put to the baptized it is not onely vain and inconsiderate but notoriously false it being the constant order of the Church to baptize after catechising and the baptizing of infants onely an exception from the common rule and order in case of danger of death till after Angustines days who flourished in the fifth Century The grounds on which Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen did perswade the delaying of Baptism were neither popish nor heretical as their words alleged in my Exercit. Sect. 22. shew But on the contrary the hastening of infant-baptism manifestly appears by the words of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen alleged there and of â—yrian and Augustine together with the relations of Gregory Nazianzens and Austins Baptism alleged in my Examen Part. 1. Sect. 7 8. to have come from the popish conceit that without Baptism infants could not come to Gods Kingdom or were damned I deny not deferring of Baptism to have been an abuse upon sundry misconceits set down in Mr. Ms. Defence pag. 22 23 24 25. but not one of them popish except that of washing away sins by it which was the very ground of hastening infant-baptism as appears from the passages forenamed by me That which made persons of years defer their own Baptism made them hasten the Baptism of their infants Whereas Mr. B. would have Mr. Cradocks Gospel Liberty read I have read it and do finde that neither in his second part chap. 12. nor here Mr. Cradock is well used by Mr. B. Mr. Cradock pag. 114. counts the custome of the Church the weakest rule to discern by and then onely he leaves Christians to it when there is no other light to go forward Mr. B. himself pag. 302. concludes against Mr. Bedford that in so material a thing as infant-baptism to hold Traditions Apostolical not contrary to Scripture-custome or which may not be confirmed from Scripture as our rule is prejudicial to Scripture and a complying with Papists Besides I need not say anymore than Mr. B. there saith about the uncertainty of Traditions unwritten and customes of the Ancients which may serve for the present till a fuller answer be made to that calumniating question in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 3. Do not you care to smite through Christianity so you may bring down infant-infant-baptism which he hath as much need to answer as my self for he shews pag. 303. by the uncertainty about Easter the mistake of Irenaeus about Christs age how uncertain the relations of the Ancients are about things not set down in Scripture And for the customes of Christians an Age or two after the Apostles Writers do shew many corrupt customes came in about Easter Lent Infant-communion sending the Communion to the absent mingling Water with Wine Monastick profession honoring of Martyrs about Baptism giving Milk and Honey to the baptized anointing them the use of the sign of the Cross which grew to a very great number in Augustines time so as that in his 119. Epistle to Januarius he complained as is before mentioned and yet they increased after in the heighth of Popery by reason of the innumerable company of humane Ceremonies insomuch as that the pure worship and truth of the Gospel was shadowed so much as that for the abundance of such leavs the fruit of the Gospel-worship and doctrine was very little or scarce discernible and Christian Religion was almost wholly placed in those Ceremonies And therefore however there were weight in that argument of the Apostle we have no such custome nor the Churches of God of those times yet especially in matters of Ceremonies and positive worship the former after the Apostles days much less the present customes of the holiest Saints and Churches should not be of any great weight in cases controverted except when they serve to expound some passages of the Scripture that are cleared by them Yet this will no whit infringe the validity of the testimony of the Ancients about the canonical books or right readings of the
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.
of newness of life and hope of resurrection Becman Exer. Theol. 17. pag. 257. Baptizari in mortem Christi dicimur quatenus stipulamur nos credere in Christum pro nobis mortuum ipsius exemplo veluti enâ—care peccatum ne nobis dominetur But this could not infants do therfore no insants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 1. Cor. 12. 13. For even by or in one Spirit have we been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and have been all made drink into one Spirit or as some copies have it have been all made to drink or drench into one drink into one Spirit That here baptism with water and the drinking the cup in the Lords Supper are meant is manifest the Apostle arguing from the end of those two rites for the union and communication between all Christians as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. he had done in the Lords Supper and Eph. 4. 4 5. he doth from baptism And without that allusion the phrase is not intelligible And the exception of the Antibaptists is vain that it is Spirit-baptism not water-baptism For it is indeed both Spirit-baptism from the Spirit as the cause and water-baptism together as the outward element Now hence three Arguments arise against infant baptism 1. All that were baptized into the body were baptized by one Spirit as the Concurrent cause as Mr. B. saith rightly in his plain Scripture proof c. page 342. that is together with the word as Ephes. 5. 26 is declared by preaching of which the Spirit was given Gal. 3 2. and this was presumed of all as 1 Thes. 1. 2. 4. and elsewhere And Mr. B. truly saith in the same place That it was all that were thus baptized into the body But I subsume infants were not thus baptized Ergo no infants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 2. All that were thus baptized were also made to drink or did drink themselves or were drencht by their own act in the receiving the cup in the Lords Supper unto one Spirit in communion and testification of one Spirit as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. But infants did not thus drink Ergo infants were not then baptized 3. All that were counted members of the body of Christ or the Church were thus baptized and made to drink But infants were not thus baptized and made to drink for if so they received the Lords Supper therefore were not then visible Church members and consequently ought not to be so counted now Gal. 3. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Where the Apostle proving that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ because they had put on Christ must needs intimate that it was by faith in Christ Jesus that they had put on Christ and then the Apostles speech is this As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have by faith in Christ Jesus put on Christ and consequently so many as were baptized were believers and therefore no infants were baptized for want of faith Ephes. 4. 4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one faith one baptism Whence I argue 1. They that have one baptism have also one faith But infants had not one faith Ergo they had not one baptism and consequently are not to have it now 2. One faith is placed before one baptism therefore faith went before baptism in the Apostles daies and consequently infants were not baptized 3. They that were counted of one body had one faith But infants had not one faith therefore they were not counted of one body that is Church-members Mr. Bs. words p. 342. confirm this Ephes. 4. 5. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so hath it one common baptism Eph. 5. 26. That he might sanctify it cleansing it with the washing of water by the word whence Mr. B Plain Script proof p. 342. inferres the whole Church of Christ must in duty be washed with water Now I argue 1. They who were washed with water were cleansed with the washing of water by the word which word is the word preached as where mention is made of baptism there mention is made of preaching of the word going before it and the word doth no where signifie the covenant or promise of God taken precisely or abstractively from the narration of Christs comming and invitation to repentance but altogether as it was preached as may be seen in Peters speech Acts 10. 36 37 38 c. But infants were not cleansed by the word therefore they were not cleansed by the washing of water 2. The whole Church was cleansed with the washing of water by the word But so were not infants therefore they were not parts of the Church and consequently are not now Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism wherein ye have also been raised together through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead Whence I argue They who were buried with Christ in baptism were also therein raised together through faith and consequently were believers But infants were not in baptism raised together through faith therefore they were not buried with Christ in baptism that is they were not baptized and by consequence ought not to be Tit. 3. 5. is usually expounded of baptism as by Mr. B. pag. 342 so by many others But if the washing there be meant of baptism it is such as was with regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost therfore not of infants whose regeneration and receiving was unknown Heb. 6. 1 2. Where the foundation is mentioned this order is observed first repentance then faith then baptism then laying on of hands then resurrection of the dead and lastly eternal judgement now if the Apostle kept a right order here used in teaching and according to the event of things as he seems to have done then repentance and faith went before baptism and so no infants baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. The baptism that saves is accompanyed with the answer of a good conscience towards God This saith Beza in his annot on that text alludes to the Custome of stipulating or promising at baptism by the baptised which if right as is probable then it is manifest that the baptized did answer at baptism which infants could not and therefore were not baptized SECT VI. Mr. Blakes exception against the Major that such institution or example as I require for infant-baptism is unnecessary is refelled AGainst these arguments chiefly the two first brought to prove that infants are not to be baptized according to the institution Matth. 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles besides what is alleged and refuted already many things are alleged Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 411. construes the objection
not an higher degree of folly And my speech is so agreeable to reason that if I be vertiginous in it I shall then begin to turn Sceptique and question whether any thing be certain As for what Mr. Blake saith about the rule of knowing a chosen believing nation giving title to infants of that nation to be baptized as the Jewish infants were circumcised I think there is no need to add any more to what I say in the Postscript s. 15. sith he confesseth page 67. as the nations are discipled so they are to be baptized and the infants of a nation are baptized by vertue of a privilege from their parents not from the nation Though Mr. Rutherfords words Temperate pleach 12. concl 1. arg 7. Due right of Presbyteries ch 4. sect 6. pâ— 260 261. do intimate that the children in a chosen nation are holy with the holiness of the chosen nation though father and mother be as wicked as the Jewes that slew Christ who were certainly unbelievers and they must stand to this if either they will justify the ordinary practice of baptizing any infants of any Atheâ—stical profane Scoâ—ters Persecutors Blasphemers of God and Religion if they were baptized in infancy and are called Christians or stand to their principle that the commission is to baptize all nations in the same latitude that the Jewes infants were to be circumcised which was and ought to be done though the parents were such as Ahab and Jezabel But however those of the Congregational way who say we are freed from the paedagogy of the Jewes and deny that now there are national Churches by institution as the Jews were and that it is sufficient now to make a member of the Church because one is by birth of this or any other nation as then it was because one was born of the nation of the Jewes as Mr. Burroughs vindic against Mr. Edwards aspersions pag. 23. me thinks should reject the interpretation oâ— making disciples all nations in like wise as the one nation of the Jews were circumcised which was by vertue of their birth according to Gods appointment as descended from Abraham or as joined to that people Yet Mr. Cobbet Just vindic part 2. ch 3. s. 4. argues thus All nations are the subject to be discipled and baptized by commission and therefore at least all the specifical parts of the nations all sorts of persons in the nations but not all of every sort To which I reply The consequence is not of any validity all nations therefore all sorts of the nations It follows not all nations shall serve him therefore all sorts of the nations all nations compassed me about therefore every sort of persons in a nation But saith Mr. Cobbet I would know then why the collective nations are mentioned under that title of nations rather than that of grown persons of the nations To which I answer the reason is because the thing said suffiently shews who of the nations are meant and it is very frequent to restrain the extent of speeches pro subject a materia as the matter spoken of will bear it with truth and sense And that this is usual in the use of the term nations is shewed before As for what Mr. William Cook saith in his Font uncovered page 14. children are not to be excluded Mat. 28. 19. because children are a very considerable and essential part of a nation it is frivolous For 1. If he mean by children infants it is false that infants are an essential part of a nation it is possible there may be a nation which may have for some time never an infant in it 2. If it were true yet it is not to his purpose till he proves that nations Mat. 28. 19. is not taken synecdochically for a part of the nations those that are of age to understand preaching of the Gospel but that it must comprehend every essential part in its full latitude And in like sort Mr. Nathanael Stephens his reasons taken not from the text but from his own conceit That nations must be taken as nation was in the application of it to the Jewish Church and that otherwise there should be a shortning of the Covenant they have been often answered and shewed to proceed upon such mistakes as these that the Church of Christians was to be modelized after the fashion of the Jewes and the use of baptism was to seal such a national Covenant and that title to a Covenant made by God gives right to baptism And for his instances page 9. of his Precept for infant-baptism to infringe our argument from John 4. 1. to prove that Mat. 28. 19. only disciples actually made are the subject appointed to be baptized they all proceed upon a mistake of the reason as if from the example there were gathered an universal rule whereas it is onely brought First to explain the meaning of the phrases Mat. 28. 19. of making disciples and baptizing them Secondly that example is brought not by it self alone as Mr. Stephens brings it but together with the institution and all the examples in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism irregular but his single instances do not infer And whereas page 10 11. he takes on him to shew a certain rule to know a discipled nation he should have added initiating infants of that nation to baptism and sets down their publique profession he cleers not the difficulty except he tell what profession and whose makes it a publique profession whether when the representative of it professeth or the King or the Major part or every person of understanding and if he mean these wayes or any other how he can acquit the Apostles from swerving from Christs rule never looking after any other than personal profession nor baptizing any infant upon his imagined rule and if as he speaks as the parents do now receive the faith so far they and theirs must go under the account of a discipled nation if they profess to bring up theirs in the faith then though the children and servants be professed infidels yet the parents and masters being believers and promising to educate theirs in Christianity these shall be baptizable because part of a discipled nation And when he saith Not only the families of those that truly believe but the families of others also that are willing to yield to the Christian education and to live under the tuition of a Godly Magistracy in the Commonwealth and the instruction of a powerful Ministery in the Church so far forth as they are willing to be guided by the Lawes and the Government of the Church of Christ and are no worse so far they must go under the notion of a discipled nation and parents and children both be the lawful subject of baptism He speaks nothing but riddles leaving it to his Reader to study what he means by so many so fars whether he thinks all these do amount to a profession of the faith whether these do make a man
Exod 23. 17 observes yet they appeared in the name of females and their females and children were in Covenant together with them Deut. 29. 11. so that as the rest of the prophecies to which Mr. T. hath nothing to say so these two prophecies against which he excepts speak fully for the discipling of nations in the New Testament times Answ. Mr. Blake construes my omitting to except against the allegation of the other prophecies besides Psalm 72. 11. Psalm 86. 9. as if I had nothing to reply whereas being indeed in that writing necessitated to be brief I thought best to answer those that seemed to have most shew for him But now he is answered in all I said I marvelled he was not ashamed to produce them as he did but he seems past shame He saith Vindic. foed pag. 329. That an eminently learned man lately observed that I had donum impudentiae Who that eminently learned man is I know not nor do I care Till there be given a reason of this censure it cannot better me but will have a shew of malignancy to me if not vanity also in the Censurer and Relator And ill will seldome speaks well He may bestow his censure more rightly elsewhere I say still it is a shameful thing to abuse Scriptures as Mr. Blake doth to understand by nations the whole of the nation even infants when if they be so understood the Scripture should in that sense be most palpably false for it should foretell a thing that neither was nor will be I conceive myself not ignorant of what Mr. Blake saith and though I grant all he saith yet it covers no part of his shame in abusing the text For even in his allusion the whole of the nation females and infants did not appear before the Lord and therefore were the extent of the prophecies as large as that they are conceived to allude to yet the whole of the nation even infants were not included And this is enough to shew the futility of his talk about discipling nations which in his sense never was Nor is there one reason given by Mr. Blake for his exposition and reasons sufficient are given for mine and I may retort Mr. Bls. words upon him All indifferent men may challenge their reason that heed him and when I am taken with such frivolous dictates as his are I expect my friends should conclude that I doat SECT X. That infants of believers are not disciples appointed to be baptized Mat. 28. 19. THe last exception against the minor in my Argument that infants of believers are not disciples of Christ appointed to be baptized Mat. 28. 19. is by denying it and asserting on the contrary that they are disciples and appointed there to be baptized But this is so sorry a shift so contrary to the notation and use of the word in the New Testament in the text to the Apostles practice which best expounds Christs commission to their own or fellows confession elsewhere that it looks like the putting a face on a thing when there is small hope to hold it Mr. Rutherford Divine right of Presbyteries page 268. See you doubt not of a warrant for baptizing children who are not disciples For then the Apostles from this place had no warrant to baptize the infants of believers Nevertheless because such men as Mr. Cotton and Mr. Baxter have put this text in the front to prove infant-baptism by it I shall lay down sundry arguments against that abuse of the text and then examine what they say about this That our Lord Christ did not mean by disciples to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. infants either of believers or unbelievers I prove 1. from the notation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a verbal noun which comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath learned Mr. B. Plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 92. acknowledgeth it to have denomination from the act of learning Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis pag. 205. They are still 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 Whence I argue They are not disciples as Mat. 28. 19. who do not learn or profess the learning of Christs doctrine But infants do not learn Christs doctrine Ergo they are not disciples The major is proved from the notation and use of the word before confessed and intimated in that speech of the Apostle Eph. 4. 20 which shews that to be a Disciple is to be one that learns Christ. The minor is manifest from the want of capacity to learn and from sense to which it is apparent that they regard not heed not understand not any thing of Christ as by other signs so by the difficulty to teach them when they come to years To this what Mr. M. replies is answered before Mr. B. part 1. chap. 2. saith You must understand that one may be called a disciple 1. in a large sense relatively as being of the number of those that belong to Christ as Master and King of the Church and destinated or devoted to his oversight and rule and teaching for the future thus believers infants are disciples of which I shall give you proof anone 2. Sometimes the word is taken in a narrower sense for those who are actually learners But commonly applied to men at age it includeth both relation and subordination and also actual learing but the former principally but applied to infants it intendeth the relation at present and actual learning as one end of it intended for the future To which I reply 1. I take it for granted that it is sometimes taken for those who are actually learners 2. That the term disciple commonly applied to men of age includes actual learning 3. That applyed to infants it intendeth the relation as present and actual learning as one end of it intended for the future Wherein letting passe the uncouth expression that the word in tendeth an end and taking his meaning I observe First that he makes the term disciples to be meant in one manner when it is said of men of age and another when of infants Which me thinks is as absurd as that he chargeth Mr. Bedford with pag. 300. that he made one end of baptism in the aged another in infants one covenant to parents and another to infants as if the aged were one sort of disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. and yet the same word includes another sort of disciples in a clean different sense It would be known of which sort of disciples he understands it for certainly there is but one sort of disciples there mentioned and if he will stand to his words in that place he must understand it of disciples upon instruction Secondly That he sets down the sense of a word and yet produceth no place for the present where the distinction
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
were onely doctrine it was put on none but those that could be taught Whereto I reply he may as well deny the Snow to be white as deny it Can any put Doctrine but on Persons that can be taught What is this but to hold that a Person may have Doctrine put on him that cannot be taught which is a meer contradiction all one as to say He may be taught that cannot be taught But he will forsooth give us some Reason of his denial as wise as the rest For 1. by putting he confesseth is meant an endeavour to put therefore it must be more than the bare doctrine Answ. 1. I confess not by putting is meant an endeavour to put though I confess that Peter accuâ—eth them onely of their endeavour to put the yoke 2. If I had confessed it yet Mr. Bs. Reason is foolish for it would rather follow that it is less than bare Doctrine the endeavour to put being less than putting Yet it is not true that I said The yoke notes bare Doctrine without any other effect but that the yoke notes doctrine command opinion of obligation and necessity and perhaps disquietness trouble care fear consequent However they that put the yoke by teaching did put doctrine on whom they put the yoke the putting the yoke being nothing but teaching That which follows And if by doctrine they prevail to perswade the people of the necessity of practice in so doing they put on them the both the mis-belief and mis-practice is as little to purpose For 1. to put on them the misbelief is to put on them the doctrine for doctrine is put on by being learned or believed 2. They that do prevail do put on the mispractice it may be in the event but not barely by their putting on their doctrine for it may be they may both teach and that effectually so as that the person do learn or mis-believe and yet not mis-practice through many intervenient impediments yea though he do mis-practice yet the mis-practice is not the terminus of his teaching nor is he the mis-practicer it is not his act logically or physically though it be his morally that is the fault of it be imputed to him as arising from the Doctrine be taught However if it be by perswading and by producing mis-belief and mis-practice they onely are the subjects of it who mis-believe and mis practice which being not verified of infants they are not meant by Disciples on whom the yoke is put But Mr. B. gives a Reason of his denial of the latter consequence and it is this 2. The latter consequence is as false For he that perswadeth a parent to circumcise himself and his childe doth as properly put that burden of Circumcision on the childe as on the parent Though he teach onely the parent yet by teaching the parent he puts the burden on both Answ. 1. If the putting the yoke be Teaching or perswading sure he onely is the subject of his putting the yoke who is the subject of his Teaching as if we say the killing there was wounding by the sword it folows he was not there said to be killed who was not wounded by the sword though it may be true also that another agent by another act may put the burden on one not taught 2. But were Mr. Bs. speech true yet it is nothing to his wiâ—less denial of the later consequence for the consequence is thus if the yoke were onely Doctrine it was put on none but those that could be taught which may be undeniable though it be granted that he that Teacheth onely tho parents yet puts the burden both on parent and child 3. Yea Mr. B. doth grant it by supposing that he Teacheth onely the parent that Doctrine is put onely on the parent For what is it to put Doctrine on any but to Teach him And therefore if the yoke were onely Doctrine sure it was put on none but such as could be taught unless we imagine that Doctrine can be put on those that cannot be taught which is all one in my apprehension as to say they may be taught who cannot be taught And therefore if there be any silly wranglings in the dispute between us sure Mr. B. doth wrangle here either as a silly man or as a most perverse man in denying this consequence and in his whole arguings about this Text when confessing the yoke to be not onely the Doctrine but the judgment and practise also of Circumcision and that the false Teachers would put it onely by Teaching yet doth imagine he can perswade his reader to be so silly as to conceive that they did any thing to infants or that infants are any of those Disciples mentioned Acts 15. 10. And here I shall inforce the arguments of my Antidote sect 6. The first is ad hominem He counts it a heinous offence that I take the word holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. in a different sense than it is used six hundred times in the Scripture and yet â—e takes the word Disciple used three hundred times in the New Testament and of those about one hundred in Lukes writings for one that is a Disciple by owning a Teacher and his Doctrine in another sense oâ— rather nonsense acception for one that is a Disciple in title incompleat without actual learning for present that is for a meer relative without a foundation and brings no place in any Author for this sense but this and therefore I may more justly use his conjuâ—ing speech p. 83. requiring men that are not of desper 〈◊〉 resolutions and prostituted consciences to consider faithfully how they can answer the Lord Christ for perverting so solemn an institution as that is Matth. 28. 19. by their baby sprinkling when the very words of Christ practise of the Apostles constant use of the word Disciples throughout the New Testament common consent of Interpreters shews Christ appointed Disciples onely to be baptized ordmarily who were made such by preaching the Gospel upon pretence that infants are called Disciples Acts 15. 10 in a sense different from what Luke useth it elsewhere even in the precedent and following chapters and that sense or rather nonsense self-contradicting acception devised of late by Mr. B. without any ancient Author I know or any reason from the Text. That which Mr. B. replies is as frivolous 1. He saith infants are called Disciples Acts. 11. 26. They are there part of Christians and Disciples but this is false there 's not a word in the Text that soundes to this sense that infants are any part of the Christians or Disciples there mentioned yea there is that which is plainly to the contrary v. 29. Then the Disciples every manaccording to his ability determined to send relief to the brethren If every one of the Disciples determined to send and no infants determined to send relief then no infants are part of the Disciples 2 Saith he the case is not alike In 1. Cor. 7. 14. I argued about the
as I have alleged above 4. Saith Mr. B. Or if all this be not enough yet look further where God himself tels you the reason why he cals them his servants who knows better than Mr. T. They are my servants which I brought out of Egypt c. Gods interest and mercifull choice of them and separation to himself is the reason When God cals us his servants it oftnâ—r signifieth the honor and privileges of that relation which in mercy he cals us to than any service we do him therein Are the Heavens Gods servants because he brought them out of Egypt and separated them to himself as a peculiar People Answ. Mr. B. is a strange man most shamefully dealing with me who suggests to the world of me as if I took no notice of that in the Text which in my Sermon as it is printed by himself pag. 181. was observed in the first place with advice to my hearers to mark it and urged it to that end that I might shew this was peculiar to the Hebrew children and therefore impertinently brought by Mr. B. to prove our infants Gods servants as there it is meant much less as God 's servants is a term equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. all which he seems not to take notice of but in stead thereof after a dictate or two without proof he puts to me this frivolous question Are the Heavens Gods servants because he brought them out of Egypt and separated them to himself as a peculiar people To which I answer no but what then cannot therefore the Heavens be said to be Gods servants passively that is at Gods dispose because they were not brought out of Egypt as the infants Levit. 25. 41. The reason is given there in respect of the subject why they were Gods servants when other people were not not on the part of the predicate as if none were servants but they that were brought out of Egypt Nebuchadnezzar is called Gods servant Jer. 43. 10. for going into Egypt there executing Gods will on the Egyptians though he had no intention of doing any thing for God 5. Saith Mr. B. yet if all this be not enough he that will see may be convinced from this The Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in a sense peculiar as chosen and separated from all other the Gentiles at age were not so Gods servants as the Jews infants were If God call these infants his servants in no other sense than the Heavens and the earth then it seems in the year of Jubilee men must release the earth from its service to them But Mr. T. knows that even the Gentile servants that were actively so were not to be released in the year of Jubilee and therefore the Jews and their infants are called Gods servants in another sense than the Heavens or the heathens either even as the chosen separated people of God and members of his family or else how could it be a reason for releasing them in the year of Jubilee any more than for releasing any other But no Scripture can be so plain but a man that hath a minde so disposed may finde some words of contradiction Answ. It is true and Mr. Bs. cavils about this Text apparently preve it But this with all the rest is not enough to convince me that the infants of the Jews are called Gods servants actively as the term Gods servant is equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. though I would see it yet I cannot no not by Mr. Bs. spectacles even by this last reason I confess that the Jews infants were Gods servants in a peculiar manner other than the Gentiles at years yea though godly as Cornelius Acts 10. 2. that God for this reason required their release from bondage at the Jubilee and yet why it should follow that if the Earth be called Gods servant passively as the Jews infants it must be released by men from service at the year of Jubilee I see not If it were formed into an Argument it would rest on this or the like Proposition They to whom the same thing is predicated in the same sense must have all other things predicated on them alike which is so absurd a thing that me thinks Mr. B. should disclaim it and yet his reason turns on that hinge To shew its absurdity Magistrates are called Gods Jehovah is called God in one sense in respect of rule else the term God should signifie nothing common to both Doth it therefore follow that what is said of Magistrates must be said of Jehovah that he must dy like men or else the term God cannot predicate on both in the same sense in which God is taken for one that rules This and such like mistakes of Mr. B. even then when he runs with full curreer shew his heedlesness and overliness in handling controversies which require a man of more insight in the meaning of the Scripture and more circumspect in observing the consequents on his sayings and reasonings than I finde him But I follow him not doubting to overtake him in long tunning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SECT XV. That Infants are not proved to be Christs Disciples from being Subjects to Christ Christians belonging to Christ Luke 9. 47 48. Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41. THe sum of the next Argument is Infants are capable of being Subjects of Chrsts kingdom therefore of being his Disciples The reason of the Consequence is that Christs Church is as properly called his Kingdom as his School all Subjects of Christ in his visible Kingdom are Christians all Christians Disciples according to Acts 11. 26. Infants are capable of being Subjects in any Kingdom on Earth nothing can be shewed to prove them uncapable they were actually Subjects of Christs Kingdom before his coming in the flesh To all which I answer It s enough to deny the consequence sith infants may be subjects which imports onely somthing passive whereas Disciple imports action which agrees not to infants But I distinguish subjects of Christs Kingdom may be so called from active or passive subjection visibly or invisibly by extraordinary or ordinary operation I deny infants to be subjects of Christs Kingdom actively visibly by ordinary operation through Preaching the word in which sense alone the term subject of Christs Kingdom is equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. and in which sense alone the consequence is true Though in common speech arising from the fond conceit as if baby-sprinkling made them Christians infants are called Christians yet in Scripture none are called Christians till they believe Christiani non naseuâ—â—ur sed fiunt Our Infants are children of Christians But not themselves Christians till they beleive in Christ. Acts 11. 26. is so far from proving infants called Christians or Disciples that both v. 26. 29. prove the contrary as was shewed above Though infants be reckoned as parts of human Kingdoms yet it follows not they are parts of Christs visible Kingdom or Church For then
as belonging to Christ and as a Disciple of Christ in Christs language is all one for they plainly express the same thing intended in all From whence I infer that if the same thing be intended in all and all express the same thing then is no other thing intended or expressed Luke 9. 48. than what is expressed and intended Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41. Matth. 10. 42. and then it is certain that Luke 9. 48. is not meant of a little infant in age nor the receiving such as agrees to such an infant sith it is certain that Matth. 18. 5. Marke 9 41. Matth. 10. 42. are not understood of either of these and it follows upon Mr. Bs. confession that some of these Texts speak not of infants that none of them speak of infants sith they all express and intend the same thing and thus Mr. Bs. own observation refuâ—es himself But saith he when they are baptized it is into his name Answ. Mr. B. it seems would have this the sense whosoever receiveth to Baptism in my name one little childe receiveth me to Baptism which should imply it to be a gratefull office to receive him to Baptism and the offending Matth. 18. 6. and despising v. 10. should be not admitting to Baptism and when it is sayd whosoever shall receive one such little one it would imply it to be a gratefull work for any person though no Minister to receive to Baptism and an ungrateful work for any to refuse to baptize I grant that in the places named to be such a little one Matth. 18. 5. to belong to Christ Mark 9. 41. to be a Disciple of Christ Matth. 10 42. note the same sort of persons yet I deny that proposition which is the hinge of Mr. Bs. proof every one that belongs to Christ is a Disciple of Christ For the holy Angels those yet uncalled whom his Father hath given him John 17. 10. belong to Christ and yet are not to be called Disciples of Christ. And therefore I infer that Mr. B. hath no encouragement from Christs exposition of these Texts to account infants Disciples and what he collects in his own fancy without the Text is frivolous and self contradicting so little worth the standing on that for my part I think this sheet of his Book what ever be said of the rest worth no more than a sheet that is made thur is piperisque â—ucullus yet he cannot forbear but must add more of this frivolous stuff In answer to this objection Infants cannot learn and therefore cannot be Disciples he adds thus much more 1. They can partake of the protection and provision of their Master as the children of those that the Israelites bought and enjoy the privileges of the family and school and be under his charge and dominion and that is enough to make them capable of being Disciples Answ. What privileges of Christs family and school infants enjoy I know not what ever they be what ever protection provision rule care is for them yet this is not enough to make them Disciples as Christ meant Mat. 28. 19. till they have learnt or profess learning of this Lesson that Jesus is the Christ all that is said here of Children may be said of slaves bought with money they are all then with him Disciples of Christ though professed infidels 2. They are saith he devoted to learning if they live however they are consecrated to him as their Master who can teach them hereafter and that is yet more Answ. I may add they may cry as Cyprian and his sixty six Bishops alleged for their Baptism and suck and smile and play with the mother and that is more than this but neither the one nor the other any thing to the denomination of a Disciple of Christ. 3. Saith he I wonder you should be more rigorous with Christ in this case than you are with men Is it not common to call the whole nation of the Turks both old and young by the name of Mahometans or Disciples of Mahomet Answ. What a pretty passage is this to set out a man as rigorous with Christ who expounds his words Matth. 28. 19. according to his constant language in all the Evangelists because he allows not infants to be called Disciples as if Christ forsooth did plead for infants discipleship and I were so stiff as that I would not yield to him But he thinks I will allow Mahometans children to be called Mahomets disciples for it is the common use and why not then we and our children by the name of Christians and Disciples of Christ. Answ. I confess I think the common use now is to call the Turks young and old Mahometans and in Chorographical relations English French c. are called Christian Nations old and young termed Christians but neither do I finde the common use to be to call infants either Mahomets or Christs Disciples nor if I did should this sway me at all to allow infants discipleship according to Matth. 28. 19. till Scripture use of the term Disciple applicable to that sense can be shewed But Mr. B. hath more of this childish arguing And when a man hired a Philosopher to teach him and all his children were they not all then Disciples of that Philosopher They are entered under him as their Master for future teaching are at present in the relation of Disciples Answ. It is no such strange thing to hear of a Physician taking a stipend to cure a man and all his children but to hear of a Philosopher hired to teach a man and all his children even his infant children and counting them Disciples and entering them under him as their master is so strange to me that it seems to me somewhat like a tale of a man of Gotham Yet if there were any such thing acted by wise men in sober sadness it is nothing to prove infants Disciples in Christs or his Apostles language But the prettiest part of this Comedy or poppet play of Mr. B. is yet behinde 4. Saith he And truly I wonder also that it should go so currant that infants are not capable of learning the mother is a Preacher to the infant partly by her action and gesture and partly by voice Answ. And why not by smiles and kisses and whipping But what then They can dishearten and take off from vices and teach them obedience Answ. T is true they can still them from crying but how they can take them off from vices and teach them obedience to Gods Command I am yet to learn it may be nurses may better inform me than Mr. B. Me thinks saith he we should not make an infant less docible than some brutes What doth Mr. B. mean by this Doth he think they that deny infants to be Disciples allow brutes to be Disciples A parret I think will sooner learn some words of Christs than an infant yet I think neither learn any thing of the Doctrine of Christ till they understand it But I am
Assertion is manifest in that though it is more to be of the invisible Church than of the visible yet that which denominates a person of the visible Church doth not agree always to a member of the invisible Church But Mr. B. thinks the contrary to be true and accordingly frames an explication of what it is to be a member of the Church visible which I must not call a definition for that is excepted against by him Praefestin Morator sect 11. as if in Logick any descriptions or explications of words or things were not usually called definitions though imperfect Let 's examine it however He tels us here what it is to be a visible Church-member which because he doth elsewhere more fully express I shall have an eye on the writings elsewhere and so much the rather because in this mistake of his lieth much of the fallacy of Mr. Bs. second Argument In his Praefest Morator sect 11. He saith when he distinguisheth the Church into visible and invisible He doth not divide the genus into the species sed aequivocum in sua aequivocata but I think he is mistaken in this for then a term is equivocal as Arist. Categ in the beginning tels us When the name is onely common but not the reason of being or the definition according to that name but the definition of the Church of Christ even that which Mr. B. himself saith All Divines are agreed on plain Scripture c. pag. 82. that it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world doth agree to the visible Church and therefore the term Church of Christ is not an equivocal term but a genus whether univocal or analogum And I add saith he that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical or that the name is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible Answ. I grant that the Church invisible is famosius or primarium Analogatum that is the invisible Church is more truly or in a greater degree of propriety Christs Church than the visible yet do not think the name of the Church is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible For the original meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Church being an assembly or meeting or congregation of people in one place who are an object visible I conceive that the term Church first agrees to the visible Church and secondarily to the invisible yea in exact speech the invisible Church now are called the Church in order to their meeting or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or General assembly at the last day for Heb. 12. 23. these are joined together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the General assembly and Church or as it is termed 2 Thess. 2. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our gathering together unto Christ at which time the visible Church and invisible will be all one visible company 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one sheepfold one Shâ—pheard John 10. 16. nor do I conceive the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical but because by their words and actions discernible by sense they own Christ as their Lord without any consideration of their election or reprobation sincerity or hypocrisy Christs approbation or non-approbation of them And that the seeming to other men to be of the invisible Church is not the reason of the appellation of a visible Church or Church-member I gather hence becaus a person may seem to be of the invisible Church yea may be known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect as for instance Jacob and John Baptist in their mothers womb seemed yea were known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect Luke 1. 15. yet not of the visible For sure they were not visible Church-members when they were not visible men Yea there may be many visible men who may seem with great probability upon signs of their conversion wrought on them to be of the invisible Church and not of the visible as a number of Indians hearing Mr. Eliat or Mr. Mayhew preach and shewing affection by tears smiting of their breasts lifting up their eys to Heaven and such like actions have seemed from these sensible expressions of their own to be elect persons such as God intended to save and yet I think no man will say that at that time they were visible Church-members till they afterwards made profession of faith in Christ. Mr. B. goeth on thus So that if you ask me whether it be certain or onely probable that infants are members of the visible Church I say certain Answ. If Mr. B. mean it of the sorts or as he cals it species of infants it may easily appear by this Review that it is so far from being certain that infants are members of the visible Church Christian that it hath scarse a shew of probability If he mean it of the individuals I say that according to Mr. Bs. own sayings there is no certainty that any infant is a visible Church-member For according to him to be a member of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven But this belonging in seeming appearance or to the judgment of man is uncertain it s but a judgment of probability which any man hath of any mans belonging to the invisible Church Mr. B. himself plain Scripture c. p. 73. sayth Therefore even Cardinal Cuâ—anus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis as receiving its members on conjectural signs Therefore there is no certainty of it that any particular infant is a visible Church-member If it be sayd that the seeming is certain though it be not certain that they belong to the invisible Church I reply so it may be sayd that if Turks infants seem to be of the visible Church though to a fool or frantick man the seeming is certain But I suppose Mr. B. means that it is certain and not onely probable to considerate men to whom things are not certain of which they have not certain evidence that infants are visible Church-members But this understanding it of particulars is not certain upon any good evidence that they are members of the Church invisible and therefore it is not certain they are visible church-members sith by Mr. Bs. description to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible Church and therefore as the seeming to be of the invisible Church is so is the visibility both uncertain and as most probable and so all baptizing of infants is upon uncertain grounds and therefore a man cannot do it in faith he being uncertain he doth his duty which thing is also made good elsewhere from Mr. Bs. concessions Antipaedobapt part 1. sect 35. But Mr. B. thinks he hath sure grounds and therefore
he added If you ask me what is it that directly or immediatly constituteth them such members I answer their visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ This performed by the parent for them is it on their part supposing Christs title to them and the offer of himself in Covenant Answ. I grant that the visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ doth make the persons so ingaging freely seriously soberly and understandingly visible Church-members But that the parents performing this for the childe doth make the infants such directly and immediately is an assertion not proved by Mr. B. nor is it true nor consistent with the descriptions of the visible Church and sayings about it which Protestants of note give nor doth it as here and elsewhere set down by Mr. B. yield any sure ground to know certainly any particular infant to be a visible Church-member That I may make good these in their order Two things are supposed and one thing named as directly and immediately constituting infants visible Church-members The things supposed are 1. Christs title to them 2. The offer of himself in Covenant to them But there is nothing but ambiguity in these expressions For 1. it is uncertain whether he mean that these are supposed when the parent doth perform the engagement for the childe that Christ hath a title to them and that he doth offer himself in Covenant to them or whether he mean that the parents engagement doth constitute the childe a visible Church member if Christ have a title to it and offer himself in Covenant to it If in the former sense then it had been enough to have mentioned the parents act without that supposition if in the later then what ever the parents act be yet no man is certain of the childes visible Church-membership by it alone without the other two 2. What title of Christ to them he means whether by election and gift of his Father to him or by his Spirit which he that hath not is none of his Rom. 8. 9. or what other title he means I am uncertain 3. What Covenant he means whether the absolute Covenant of grace belonging to the elect or the conditional Covenant to all upon condition of faith or the national Covenant made to Abraham and the people of Israel oâ— what other besides I cannot tell how to determine 4. How the Covenant is offered except by Preaching to them or by some secret work of the Spirit I cannot imagine 5. It is somewhat uncertain whether the external engagement that may make the infant a visible Church-member must not be of a parent that is a real and sincere believer or whether a dogmatical faith serves turn Sure in his plain Scrip. c. chap. 29. part 1. He makes a real faith necessary in the parent to that sanctification without which the childe is not holy that is a visible Church-member 6. Whether he make the parents engagement to constitute immediately infants born or unborn also visible Church-members is uncertain Le ts see what we can gather elsewhere I cannot for present find a place where he more fully expresseth himself than in his plain scrip c. pag. 336. of the first edition whereas saith he some stick at it that I make the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent I answer them 1. That it is evident in all the Scripture that God putteth a very great difference between the children of the faithfull and other mens Which I grant but withall that this is true onely of the sincerely faithfull and not onely inexternal profession and yet not so as to count any a visible Church-member in the Christian Church for the parents faith 2. Saith he that he maketh such promises to them and giveth them such privileges as I have exprest in this Book But if he mean by the promises those of the Covenant of grace I say they are made onely to elect and true believers if other promises of temporal blessings they are not made to the children of meer seeming believers but true believers nor do they at all reach to visible Church-membership or Justification of children These privileges are no where promised to the children of believing Christians though sincere meerly because of their parents faith And therefore that which he adds 3. That this is to them as they are the children of the people who believe is false And when he saith 4. And that he never requireth any condition inherent in the infant that I finde in Scripture yet others conceive an inherent condition required in an infant Heb. 12. 14. and elsewhere But he adds And doth not this plainly tell us that the parents faith is the condition if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the father entering it for him and his Deut. 29. If the parent be not a believer the childe is left out And what other condition can be imagined Answ. If the Scripture had required no inherent condition in the infant yet it had not followed that the parents faith is the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification For there are other ways to wit their election Christs death for them which are a vouched as sufficient to their justification without the consideration either of any inherent condition in the infant or the parents faith Nor is it true that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering it for him and his and that if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out For if it be meant of the Covenant of grace it is most false that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant Esau was the childe of Isaac a believer Ishmael of Abraham yet neither entered into the Covenant of grace neither justified by the parents faith if it were so then they were entered into the Covenant of grace and justified and after outâ—d which infers falling from grace Not is there any such Covenant of visible Church-membership which if the parent be a believer the childe iâ— entered in Nor is there a word Deut. 29. to prove it There is nothing there set down but a narration of Moses his â—enewing the Covenant with the children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. It is true it is said v. 10 11 12 13. They stood all before the Lord the Commandors and the men then the litle ones wives strangers hewers of wood drawers of water that they might enter into Covenant but that 1. The parents peculiarly as parents did enter into Covenant for their children appears not but rather that the entering of the Covenant was by the Rulers in behalf of the subject as the league with the Gibeonites was by the Princes in behalf of Israel whereto they were bound Josh. 9. 15 19.
therefore permit the bringing of all to Christ Christ had not told them his design before hand to teach them by these Emblems and when they knew his minde they desisted Answ. They might know Prophets did bless persons even little ones they knew that Matth. 18. 2. Christ had before familiarly used a little childe and so was not averse from them they knew or might know that Christ was the great Prophet that was to come into the world that he made it his work to do good that he did permit all sorts of persons that came for healing or other blessings to come to him and therefore it was their fault to hinder Christ in this design and to hinder any that came to him for his blessing I neither say that his design was onely to teach humility by these as an Emblem nor that they knew or might know what use Christ would make of these infants Mr. Bs. challenge is upon a mistake as if I affirmed that Christ would have those infants brought onely to teach humility by them when the very words he cites are to the contrary I am weary with answering such meer cavils of a man who if he were not set on wrangling might by heeding my words answer himself 5. Saith he If it had been onely for the present design then Christ would have spoke but of those individual infants and have said Suffer those now to come But it appears from the Text 1. that it was not those individuals more than others that the Disciples were offended at or disliked should be brought but the species or those infants because infants 2. And that Christ doth not onely speak against their hindring those individuals but the species and lays them down a rule and command for the future as well as for the present that they should suffer little children to come to him and not forbid them Answ. It is in all the Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes the children then brought and no other though I deny not but this fact and the reason thereof were a rule for the future as well as for the present yet not either for the Apostles or any Successors to lay hands on them or baptize them but for them if any more infants were thus brought to Christs person that his own hands might be layd on them that they should permit it 6. Saith Mr. B. And he doth not command this upon the reason of any private design but because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Answ. Mr. B. still mistakes me as if I had said private design that is a design proper to those infants onely whereas my words were present design which I shew before what it was and thereby it may be easily conceived I meant such a design as tended to shew his Office readiness to do good and interest that infants and such as were like them might have to the Kingdom of Heaven 7. Saith he And where Mr. T. saith It was not from any knowledg they had of their present visible title I answer Who said it was Did Mr. Blake No but it was a thing the Disciples ought to have known that infants are welcom to Christ and that of such is the Kingdom and therefore because of such is his Kingdom they should not be kept from him God will not be much displeased with men for being ignorant of that which they ought not to know Answ. Mr. Blake in his Answer to my letter had said pag. 90. They the infants brought to Christ had a present visible title such as the Apostles ought to have known and this he gives as the reason why Christ was so much displeased with the Disciples forbidding them to be brought To which my words are rightly opposed Nor is any thing put on Mr. Blake But his own words If Mr. B. will not say that Christs anger was from any knowledg the Apostles had of the infants present visible title then he must acknowledg the Apostles had no knowledg of the visible Church-membership of infants then or visible title to one Church privilege which shews that in Christs Church no infants were then counted visible Church members else these could not but know it Nor is there any thing in the Text that shews that Christ was angry with them for not knowing this nor did this teaching inform them in this nor did Christ admit them as Mr. Blake saith to a Church privilege nor if it were true that the blessing were a Church privilege common to all Church-members yet infants were as capable of baptism as of it sith the institution of baptism is otherwise To me it is a strong presumption that the Apostles understood not Christs words and deeds as importing Church privilege conferred on those infants which did infer a title to baptism as Mr. Blake imagins in that the Apostles did not baptize them which is confessed by some paedobaptists and appears both in that no such thing is enjoyned them by Christ or related as done by them and what was done to them is related as done by Christ himself who did not baptize John 4. 2. and it is said Matth. 19. 15. when he had put his hands on them he departed thence and with him his Disciples as appears by the speeches of them upon occasion of the yong mans conference with Christ which presently followed Now if the Apostles knew not such baptizability of infants there is no likelihood that Christs words or blessing proved such baptizability If they did know it and yet did them not right no doubt Christ would have been more angry for their not baptizing them then for rebuking those that brought them And whereas Mr. B. blesseth Christ for his discovery concerning infants as he construes it I bless God that hath shewed me the frivolousnes of Mr. Bs. arguings and I say of such as are led away with such trifling reasons as the Apostles sayd 1 Cor 14. 38. If any man be ignorant let him be ignorant As for his observation in the close of the chapter it s like the rest For Christs calling his Disciples little children and the Apostles so calling Christians shews love and tendernes but not that infants are visible Church-members no more then Christs calling the same his Lambs and sheep John 21. 15 16 c. shews that sheep and Lambs are visible Church-members Thus much for answer of that chapter of M. B. SECT XVIII The 41. Chapter of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Foed about Christs speech of little children Matth. 19. 14. is answered and my sayings in my Postscript vindicated MR. Blake since the publishing of my Postscript to my Apology in reply to his Answer to my letter in his Book intituled Vindic. foed c. 41 43. sect 1. hath published somewhat that is to be further examined He saith They looked upon Christ as it seems as a great Prophet highly in favour with God and such were wont to bless in the name of God and their blessing was highly prized and
and they were baptized and this must be a rule to us now about baptism of water appointed by Christ which was sayd of het similitudinary baptism then sith the same are meant by Fathers v. 3 4. and they are sayd to eat the same spiritual meat and drink which was Christ which is manifestly meant of the Lords Supper by the same reason which Mr. Bailee brings infants must not be excluded from the Lords Supper Yea but saith Dr. Homes They did not eat all the Lords Supper Refut They did all eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink which if he deny to be meant of the Lords Supper he deserts Protestants and other Divines acknowledging it and may be refuted from the scope of the Apostle which is to shew that they had in a sort in respect of signification and use the same Sacraments with ours and yet were not secured thereby when they sinned But Mr. Cobbet says There must be a Synecdoche in the later not all the Fathers simply being meant but such as were capable of making a spiriual use thereof Refut If all our Fathers must be meant Synecdochically v. 3 4. then also in v. 2. it being the same term in either and the sense of them v. 5. being meant of as many v. 3 4 as v. 2. Yea but there 's a bar put against infants receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28. Refut There are more bars and more express put against infants baptism Acts 8. 37. Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. Ephes. 4. 5 c. which it seems Paedobaptists will leap over or break down notwithstanding they are so plainly set up by Christ and his Apostles to prevent their infant-baptism That which Mr. Ainsworth in his Dialogue brings out of Psalm 77. 17. to prove that the Israelites were indeed formally baptized with water is upon mistake that the water there poured out was on the Israelites whereas his own Annotations on the places and the words of the Psalm refer it to what was done to the Egyptians Exod. 14. 24 25. And thus Junius and others conceive it Yet were it granted him there must be a Synecdoche in the term all the Fathers for the reasons given and otherwise beasts as well as infants must be sayd to be baptized SECT XXII Mr. Blakes Argument from Gal. 4. 29. is answered MR. Blake had in his Birth-privilege pag. 9. argued from Gal 4. 29. for infant-baptism and his passages in his arguing I censured as very gross in my Examen part 3. sect 2. which he seeks to make good Answer to my Letter cap. 4. to which I reply in my Postscript sect Yet he hath thought good to reinforce his allegation of that Text and in his Vindic. Foed cap. 43. sect 1. he argues thus Fourthly They that by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church have right to baptism but infants by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church Gal. 4. 29. Infants therefore ought to be baptized To which I answer if he mean by the Church the Church Christian visible and by being in the bosom of it having actual visible Church membership I grant the major and deny the minor and for the Text Gal. 4. 29 alleged to prove it am no more induced by Mr. Bls. arguings to believe that it makes to his purpose than I am to think the Snow is black For if it were to his purpose the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have this sense even so now infants by virtue of birth according to the flesh as being the children of a believer by natural generation are visible members in the Christian Church v. g. of Galatia which is as far from the meaning of the Apostle as East from West if either I or those Interpreters I meet with have not lost their common sense This I prove from the true supplement which must make up the words complete sense This will be understood by considering that the whole verse is a compound proposition of that sort which Logicians call comparative as 1 Cor. 15. 22. The terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do shew it to be a comparative proposition and therein are two parts the first called the Protasis then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit that is for I think Mr. Bl. will not gain say this exposition Ishmael who was born after the flesh being the son of 〈◊〉 the bond-woman persecuted whether by mocking or by some crafty undermining device as Heinsius conceives Isaac who was born after the Spirit by Divine virtue according to the promise as Grotius I conceive rightly explains it The other part is called the Apodosis or rendering wherein that which answers to the forepart first held out is expressed now that always notes some agreement correspondence parity or likeness whether in quantity quality action c. But according to Mr. Bls. apodosis or reddition there is no such answerableness or likeness as hath the shew of a comparison of things equal or alike as this is as the affirmative terms shew For who would conceive any better then nonsence in such a speech as this even as Ishmael persecuted Isaac so the children of Christian believers are visible members in the Christian Church it were all one as to say even as Esau hated Jacob so godly men are heirs of Heaven or have access to God the absurdity of which is so gross that I am amazed Mr. Bl. doth not see it or will not confess it there being no likeness or shew of answerablenes either in the compared subjects or in the compared predicates Not in the subjects For in the forepart the term he that was born after the flesh is taken in the worser part as a term importing debasement bondage a curse but in Mr. Bls. own expression Vindic. foed ch 40. the term he that is born after the flesh notes in the better part a natural seed that inheriâ—s outward privilges yea and that no small one to be a visible Church-member by vertue of birth after the flesh And then in the predicates there is less answerablenes For what answerablenes between persecuting him that was born after the Spirit who resembles the true believer and having right to outward privileges as visible Church-membership and baptism by being born of a believer according to the flesh by natural generation and this competent to infants But the supplement is this Even so now the Jew who is carnal seeking righteousness by observing the Law and nâ—â— through the Spirit waiting for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith now persecuteth by words and deeds the Christian believer whether Jew or Gentile who is born after the Spirit that is who by the Spirit doth wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith Gal. 5 5. This supplement is cleared to be genuine from the scope and series of the Apostles Doctrine before and
words for I do not say positively as he cites them but comparatively thus for it is more likely that imposition of hands for Ordination which was still in use and to continue to be used should be there meant than laying on of hands for confirmation after baptism of infants which hath no Rule nor Example in Scripture 2. Saith Dr. Homes Those gifts usual onely in that little time of the Apostles were not to be joyned with and put among the first Principles of Christian Religion to be taught young ones to fit them for baptism or to give an account of their faith after baptism Answ. Those Principles Heb. 6. 1 2. are not sayd to be taught to little ones in age but in knowledg of Christian Religion nor are they sayd to be taught to fit them for baptism or to give account of their faith after baptism they may be principles and a foundation though they were taught them after baptism and to establish themselves rather than to give account to others Now for what reason the knowledg of these might be a part of the beginnings of the Doctrine of Christ to young Christians is given above And there is in the Text that which may induce us to conceive the giving the spirit by laying on of hands meant because v. 4. they that were enlightned which many even of the Ancients understood of baptism commonly called by the Greeks inlightning are sayd to have tasted of the heavenly gift and to be partakers of the Holy Ghost which seems to be meant in respect of these gifts and Paul Acts 19. 2. propounded this as a Catechism question to certain Disciples at Ephesus Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed But I rested not on it because the other of laying on of hands for Ordination seemed to me more likely then 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley It s not likely to be meant of laying on of hands for Ordination 1. Because that 's not fit to be taught younglings children novices as milk Heb. 5. 12. If this be milk viz. the Doctrine of Church-discipline Church-officers Church-goverment c. what shall we call oâ— count strong meat To this was answered that however all the Doctrine about Church-discipline might be unfit to be taught novices yet laying on hands for Ordination being an outward riâ—e of continued use it might be needfull to be taught younglings in Christian profession To this Dr. Homes replies that no ingenuous man weâ—ghing and pondering things will think that little children should be taught as one of the first elements of Christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers To which I say many even of later Writers whom me thinks the Doctor should not deny to be ingenuous men do refer the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. to Ordination Dicson on Heb. 6. 2. Ames Bell. Ener tom 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. th 8. Cartwright Answ. to Rh. Annot. in locum Thomas Hooker Survey part 1. cap. 1. pag. 7. Noyes the Temple measured pag. 70. Hudson Essence and Unity of the Church pag. 9. and Vindic. pag. 22. Dr. Hammond of the Keys cap. 4. sect 28. Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4 cap. 10. sect 38. recites the opinions of Papists as differing some referring to Confirmation some to Ordination some to giving the Holy Ghost The New Annot. Diodati speak as uncertain to which to refer it Grotius refers it to all rites besides baptism and the Lords Supper in Confirmation Ordination curing the sick reconciling penitents blessing the married and therefore whether little children were taught the Doctrine thereof or no many ingenuous men conceive it meant Heb. 6. 2. 2. Though it might be conceived unfit for little children in age to be taught yet it may nevertheless be fit to be taught younglings in Christianity meant Heb. 5. 12. It seems to me to be as fit to be taught little children as the Doctrine of Confirmation and may be as easily learned by them as the points about the Resurrection of the Dead and eternal Judgment 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley The very putting these two together baptisms and laying on of hands seems in Calvins judgment to import some relation that the one should have to the other as in the other Principles which are by pairs To this I answered that baptism and imposition of hands might be fitly coupled being both Ordinances for initiation the one into the profession of Christianity the other into sacred function To this Dr. Homes replies that imposition of hands initiâ—teâ— but few and that long after they are Church members and that Marriage might better be coupled with baptism or imposition of hands and the Lords Supper Answ. If all this were granted yet the answer stands good that the joyning proves not Mr. Brinsleys sense necessary which is enough for my purpose to shew the insufficiency of his Argument But Dr. Homes thinks to blow away all by avouching his and Mr. Brinsleys interpretation which he cals a naked and honest explication of the Text. And that is that the Doctrine of baptisms is the Doctrine which the catechized of the heathens recited afore their baptism and the Doctrine of laying on of hands was the Doctrine which infants of believers before baptized in their infancy after they were past childhood rehearsed before the Church upon which they were received into the Church by imposition of hands Answ He may well call it a naked interpretation because it is brought into the world without proof there being nothing in the Text for it and all the shew of proof is onely the opinion of some late writers mistaken about the practise of antiquity Yea me thinks if the Doctor with his brethren of the congregational way as it is called did believe this interpretation to be genuine they should admit their infant-sprinkled members by laying on of hands which yet I hear not that they do But against this interpretation are these reasons 1. In it is supposed that the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands is not the Doctrine concerning those rites but the Doctrine recited when those rites were used But the Doctrine then recited being the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment and the profession of repentance from dead works and faith towards God if the Doctrine of baptisms and the laying on of hands be the Doctrine recited by the baptized and confirmed at the use of those rites it will be the same with the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment repentance from dead works and faith towards God and so those several principles will be confounded 2. The Doctrine of baptisms was that which in those to whom the Apostles wrote was layd before which is intimated in the words v. 1. not laying again But they were Hebrews therefore not as the Doctor Heathens that recited it at baptism 3. There 's no distinction in the Text as if some recited the Doctrine at baptism and others who had been baptized in infancy recited
it at laying on of hands but the same persons had the Doctrine of both layd in them 4. There 's not a word of reciting the Doctrine at the several rites by the taught but the laying of the foundation of the Doctrine of those rites by the Teachers 5. The Doctrine of baptisms whether by them be meant those of John and Christ or other and of laying on of hands is more likely and more generally conceived to be concerning the use of baptism and laying on of hands But the Doctrine of the use of these was not recited by either sort of catechized persons though both sorts were taught both doctrines 6. The placing the words the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands in the middle between faith and resurrection of the dead is against the Doctors sense sith the Doctrine of baptisms being joyned by apposition to faith and repentance the sense must be that repentance and faith were the Doctrine recited at baptism not the resurection of the dead which comes after if the Doctors sense were right 7. This order leads us to conceive that the writer of that Epistle did orderly place the elements of Christianity in which Christians were instructed to wit repentance and faith before baptism then the baptism of water and the laying on of hands for the obtaining the Spirit by prayer after baptism and then the declaration of what they were to expect the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement wherein sentence should pass on them concerning their everlasting state 8. The terms of repentance of faith of the doctrine of the resurrection of judgement are all governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foundation as if they were possessed of it as the Grammarians speak the word Doctrine is not joyned by apposition to faith as if the sense were which is the Doctrine of baptisms which must be the sense if the Doctors interpretation be right 9. Those interpreters which are brought as giving us that sense which Dr. Homes and Mr. Brinsley allâ—ge are but late writers and such as speak onely by ghess without proving the antiquity of the use they mention out of ancient writers or alleging any ancient writer expounding the Text Heb. 6. 2. â—s referring to that use Dr. Homes recites p. 59 60. the words of Pareus Calvin Bullinger Marlorat Hofman Theophylact Mr. Cotton of all which there is none afore the 16. Century but Theophylact placed by Dr. Usher at the year 10 70. and his words with the words of Hofman and Marlorat do not at all speak of the use of laying hands on children of believers baptized in infancy and Bullingers words apply the laying on of hands to the ordination of Pastors So heedlesly did Dr. Homes write his Animaâ—versions that his own authors he allegeth are not for him or else against him And for Mr. Cotton he sayth onely There be that conceive and that not improbable there was such an use and that some judicious Divines have conceived that use to be the reason of reckoning the laying on of hands among the Principles Heb. 6. 2. and he brings it to prove that then Elders were not without laying on of hands for all Church-members had hands layd on them and so might more freely lay hands on others which speech if true and the inference be good then women who were Church-members had hands layd on them and might more freely lay hands on others But the New England Elders of whom I think Mr. Cotton was one if not the very Penner of those answers in the Answer to the 32. Question pag. 69. say If it were not so then one of these would follow either that the Officers must minister without any Ordination at all which is against 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 6. 2. So that there it is referred to the same laying on of hands which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. which is indeed a very common exposition of interpreters It is true Calvin and Pareus refer it to the use Mr. Brinsley mentions yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect 39. allegeth with Salmeron Justinian Calvin Beza Aretius Piscator concerning the initial laying on of hands upon the catechized to prepare them to receive baptism for which use Dr. Hammond in his letter of resolut pag. 195. brings some places of the ancients and Calvin in his institutions l. 4. cap. 19. sect 4. disallows Hieroms judgment conceiving that the laying on of hands for confirmation was an Apostolical Ordinance Beza saith that the Doctrine Heb. 6. 1 2. was delivered when they met either to baptize or lay on hands on infants or adult persons so that he speaks as one not fully resolved And indeed interpreters as is shewed above are not agreed whether to refer it to laying on hands on the baptized or the ordained yet very few of the Protestants refer it to the laying on of hands for confirmation of them that were baptized in infancy and the 25. Article of the Church of England makes Confirmation one of those things which have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles I sayd in my Exercit. sect 14. that if Hierom. tom 2 in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture yet he allegeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it but the Examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands in the Acts of the Apostles To this Dr. Homes replies 1. That however the antiquity holds good that imposition of hands was used to be after applied to them that have been baptized To which I say This being granted yet as I shew there and here the use of baptizing infants is not proved thereby nor doth Hierom confirm Mr. Brinsleys Exposition 2. Sayth Dr. Homes In that place he quotes other places than the Acts of the Apostles and speaks to our purpose thus and then reciting some words of Hierom adds so Hieronymus Wherefore he supposeth imposition of hands may be on them that had the Spirit in baptism before which is not denied by me nor do I see what that is to Dr. Homes his purpose to prove that the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. is meant of believers infants before baptized and then upon their own profession received into the Church by imposition of hands Yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 41. allegeth Hierom as referring the imposition of hands to the time of baptism not some years after I sayd in my Exercit. pag. 23. but if it were supposed that this imposition of hands meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptized yet this proves not the baptism of infants in the Apostles days unless it could be proved that it was used after the baptism of infants onely for a confirmation either of the baptism or the baptized On the contrary it is apparent out of Tertullian de corona militis cap. 3. that in the primitive times the baptized did make his confession sub manâ—â— antistiâ—is the
his life-time and settled a little before his Ascension hath nothing in the patern whence it is copied out nothing in the copy it self as it is set down in the New Testament i. e. in the words of the institution or in his or the Apostles practice which doth any way exclude the Christians children from being part of that indefinite number that ought to be baptized or for whom baptism was instituted by Christ. That there is nothing exclusive of them in the patern the Jewish custom of baptism hath been sufficiently evidenced by the several branches of that already insisted on Answ. I like the Doctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect ways of proving infant baptism he mentions and doubt not to shew his own to be no better than those he relinquisheth The substance of his proof is this as I conceive The Jews were wont when they admitted Proselytes to baptize them and their children and this is discernible to be the patern of Christian baptism and that Christs institution was but a copy according to that patern and therefore infants to be baptized the Apostles and the first Churches practise shewing it to be so Concerning which I say 1. It seems baptism was a custome of all nations as well as the Jews Grot. Annot. in Matth. 3. 6. conceives that for as much as strangers washed not circumcised were obliged by those Laws onely which God had given to all mankinde it is easie to be understood that baptism was among old institutions arising as I think after the great deluge in memory of the world purged Whence that famous speech among the Greeks The sea washeth away all the evils of men Surely we read even in the Epistle of of Peter that baptism is answerable to the deluge And Annot. in Matth. 28. 19. yea with prosane nations it was of old used that they who would be initiated were first washed all over their body no doubt testifying thereby their purpose of innocency 2. By the passages cited by the same Author in Matth 28. 19. Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Augustin allegeth those nations custome for their practise nor do I know that ever Dr. Hammond or any other hath alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers that might evince that the custome of baptizing or baptizing infants was derived from the Jews initiating proselytes by baptisme but some passages in the Fathers shew rather that they took it as instead of Circumcision Mr. Selden de Syned Ebrae Lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 40 41. mentions some who have conceived that the Iewish baptism in initiating Proselytes was in imitation of Christs example though he do not beleive it and that Schickardus conceives they added a certain Baptism to Circumcision to difference them from Samaritans which I allege to shew that notwithstanding the Doctors supposition that the whole fabrick of baptism is discernible to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the Jews yet many will conceive it needs more proof than the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers I for my part conceive that there was a custom of baptizing proselytes afore Christs incarnation among the later Jews but that either it should begin from Jacobs injunction to his houshold Gen. 35 2. or Gods Command Exod. 19. 10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving the Law though the Jewish Doctors allege these for it I do not conceive those places speaking of washing Jews by nature not proselytes whereas the Jews baptized not Jews by nature as Selden l. 2 cap 4. de Jure nat ac Gent. juxta discipl Ebrae Sayth but by profession nor do I conceive Mr. Seldens exposition in his Book de Syned l. 1. cap. 3. that the sea was some vessel or receptacle of waters wherein they washed their bodies before the giving of the Law Exod. 19. 10. but the read sea For as the drinking of the rock is a relation of an accident of Gods providence for them signifying to them the Lords supper so their passing through the sea declares not what they were injoyned to do but what God did for them that under the cloud they passed through the sea to signify to them the same thing that baptism doth to us our safe passage to life by Christ nor do I think Dr. Hammonds exposiâ—ion sect 7. pag. 181. right that they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea v. 2 i. e. were by these two great solemnities the cloud that gave them light by night and a guard by day and the sea that was a wall to defend them and a devouriâ—g deep to their enemies received and initiated into Gods Cove 〈…〉 der the conduct of Moses as since they are wont to be iniâ—â—â—â—ed by baptism For when it is said our Fathers were baptized it is not meaâ—t were baptized as siâ—ce Proselytes were baptized among the Jews but as Christians were baptized even as when he sayth v. 3. and they did all eat the same spiritual meat it is meant they did all eat the same spiritual meat with us Christians that is they had Christ signified to them by the Manna they did eat as we eat Christ spiritually in the Lords Supper There 's no more an allusion to a custom of the Jews in the one then in the other bu a narration of what happened to them by Gods providence which the Apostle interprets as signs to them of the same thing that baptism and the Lords supper are to us Christians And therefore I conceive that the Scripture doth not make the customary use of baptizing Proselytes by the Jews as a thing from God or eyed by Christ as his pattern but that the custom of baptizing proselytes was a tradition of the Elders as the baptisms mentioned Mark 7. 3 4. and many other things they held Nor do I think it true that the customary use of the Jews in baptizing proselytes and their children was the pattern of Christs institution of baptism and the Apostles and first Churches practise For according to the custom of the Jews set down out of Maimony and other Jewish Rabbins by Mr. Selden l. 2. de Jure natur ac gent. c. cap. 4 lib. 1. de syned Ebr. cap. 3. John Baptist and Christs Apostles should have baptized no native Jews but onely Gentiles that embraced the faith for after the baptism Exod. 19. 10. the Jews did not baptize Jews but onely proselytes Whereas not onely John Baptist but also the Apostles both before and after the ascension of Christ did baptize Jews as well as Gentiles upon their profession of repentance and faith in Christ as being agreeable to Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. 2. Christ would not have avouched the baptism of John to be from Heaven and not from men if it had been in imitation of and conformity to the Jewish custom 3. It is likely some where or other some intimation would have been given of that custom as the Directory
I shew in my Examen part 1. sect 8. But I need say no more to refute this exposition being the most unlikely of all that I have hitherto met with He tels us Sect. 34. What is thought fit to be brought for the eluding and avoiding this interpretation will be most fitly considered anon in answer to the Anabaptists plea. Answ. The falsly so called Anabaptists have not allowed Dr. Jeremiah Taylour to make their plea nor do they all if any of them frame their plea as he lays it yet it is shewed above that the Reply Dr. Hammond makes to overthrow their pretended answer overthrows his own exposition But he goes on Mean while for the confirming of it it may be remembered what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy is known to signify in the sacred dialect not onely an inherent but a relative holiness being separate or set apart to God discriminated from common ordinary things or persons and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation the office of a Prophet or the like so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be members of the Church into which all are initiated by baptism And accordingly all visible professors and not onely those that are sincerely such are in Ezra 9. 2. the holy seed and in the Epistles of the Apostles called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Answ. This being all granted confirms not Dr. Hammonds exposition now they are holy that is admitted to Christian baptism The Doctor knows its no good argument à genere ad speciem affirmative the children are holy that is set a part for God discriminated from common ordinary things or persons Ergo they are set apart by the special way of baptism And it being granted that all visible professors and not onely those that are sincerely such are in Ezra 9. 2. the holy seed and in the Epistles of Paul called holy though that term Ezra 9. 2. hath a far different notion as I shew in this Review Antipaed part 1. sect 13 25. from what the Doctor imagines yet till the Doctor prove infants to be visible professors he hath not confirmed that the taking of holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. for infants admitted to baptism is agreeable to the Apostles language He adds Sect. 35. And secondly how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean is used by St. Peter Acts 10. 14. for those that must not as he conceived be received into the Church as God 's having cleansed is Gods reputing them fit to be partakers of that privilege Whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptism may be expressed by those phrases Answ. I deny not the fitness of the expressing receiving and not receiving to baptism by the terms of holy and unclean if the Holy Ghost had so thought good But suâ—e the Doctor is mistaken in the notion of unclean Acts 10. 14. For it is plain from Acts 11. 3. that an unclean person is in that place one that was not onely out of the Church but also one that a Jew conceived he might neither go into nor eat with him yea though he were a Proselyte of the Gate and owned the God of Israel Now then if the same notion of unclean and holy be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as is Acts 10. 14. an unclean person is one that a man may not go into nor eat with which applied to infants is ridiculous else if the unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been sanctified that is brought to the faith by the conversation and diligence of the believer your children had been unclean that is such as they might not go in to nor eat with them but now their inâ—ants are holy such as they might go in to and eat with them Thirdly sayth he how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is ordinarily to sanctifie doth among the Jews whence this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken as when the high Priests washing his hands and his feet ten times on the day of Expiation is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ten sanctifications Joma cap. 3. sect 3. which being the word which denotes the washing some part of the body and distinguished in use from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the immersion of the whole body may perhaps be an intimation that the primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body but that sprinkling of some part the literal importance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications might be sufficient Answ. If this reason were good it would rather confirm this exposition The unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified by the Wife that is the unbelieving Husband hath been baptized by the Wife or washed than this the children are baptized for they are noâ— sayd to be sanctified but to be holy And then the Apostle relates it as a thing oft used among Christians that believing Wives did baptize or wash unbelieving Husbands which so expounded is a plain testimony for womens baptism of their own unbelieving Husbands so hath better ground from this Text than infant baptism What the Doctor draws in besides the business to put some colour on their sprinkling instead of baptism is but a fig-leaf too narrow to cover the nakedness of their practice The Doctor himself pag. 180. makes the baptism which was a Jewish solemnity the washing of the whole body And Sect. 71. pag. 185 186. he sayth Jethro was made a Proselyte by immersion or baptism in waters and the manner of this immersion is sayd to be that they should be set up to the neck in water And pag. 184. Unless he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized he is a Gentile And out of Arrian the Jewish Proselyte is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dipped and he that is onely so in shew not in deed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counterfeit baptized person In his Pract. Catech. lib. 6. sect 2. By Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should be received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under water three times His words following intimating as if sprinkling were appointed by Christ instead of it are his own figment Pag. 35. he makes the ancient manner of putting the person under water and then taking him out again to denote dying and rising again with more of the like confessions and even in this place sayth the washing some part of the body is distinguished in use from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Greek word Baptism which is immersion of the whole body And yet the Doctor is not ashamed to say that primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body which me thinks he should hardly believe himself in and because the besprinkling of some part which I think is not true if sprinkling by water and not bloud or ashes be meant for the Priests in their sanctifications dipped their hands and feet in water is called 〈◊〉