say Be it subsequent directory or what ever else he will call it Mr. Blake might easily perceive by my words Examen pag. 28 29. and elsewhere I take the word institution for any appointment by precept command or example approved either express or gathered by good consequence if any of these wayes an institution of Infant-baptism can be shewed out of the New Testament without the analogy of Circumcision I should not make any doubt of it and therefore it is but unnecessary wrangling which he useth about the word institution Let him shew any subsequent directory for Infant-baptism as is for Infant-circumcision without the analogy of Circumcision and I am satisfied Yet to shew the vanity of his speeches and arguings I shall a little scanne them He denies an institution of Infant-circumcision Gent. 17. 10. he saith it is but asubsequent directory for the particular day Answ. Ausonius Popma de differ verborum l. 3. Institutines sunt praecepia quibus docentur homines atque instituuntur In this general acception a directory is an institution But were it taken strictly for a command establishing that â—ite surely v. 12. not onely the particular day was appointed but the person also to wit the Infant of eight dayes old among Abrahams people and all the verses 10 11 12 13 14. together are termed sanctio circumcisionis by Pareus in his Commentary But we find not the institution with restriction to Infancy saith Mr. Blake Ans. True nor did I ever say the institution was restrained to Infancy or that there was an institution only for children of eight dayes nor do I deny that the precept Gen. 17. 10. was more general than that it should be restrained to the eighth day yet v. 12. the circumcising of infants was limited to the eighth day Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediv. part 1. pag. 135. For some particular occasions of worship God was pleased of old to determine some time exclusively as the eighth day from the birth of a child for Circumcision and the eighth day for the sacrificing of the firstling males of cattel neither sooner nor later Nor do there want those among Protestant Divines who make it unlawful to do it before or after but will-worship except in cases of necessity as in the wilderness c. in which case the rule holds God will have mercy and not sacrifice and the thing might be done afterwards as in the circumcision of those who were born in time of their travel in the wilderness But to have altered the time of a mans own motion without such necessity had been will-worship as it was charged on Jeroboam 1 Kings 12. 33. that he sacrificed in the moneth he had devised of his own heart What Mr. Blake saith there is in the New-Testament-times an institution of baptism for all in Covenant without difference of age or sex is false except by being in Covenant he understand not being in Covenant by Gods promise onely or others faith or undertaking for them but by their own act of Covenanting that is engaging themselves in their own persons by their own act to be Christs Disciples or believers in him there being no institution in the New Testament times of baptizing any other than Disciples or Believers in Christ. Mr. Blake adds I instanced in the Apostles argument from analogy for Ministers maintenance 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 18. Mr. Tombs answers The Apostle doth not by bare analogy conclude Ministers maintenance but from the Lords ordinance He does conlude it then by his confession from analogy though not barely from analogy Neither have any one of Mr. T s Antagonists concluded Infant baptism barely from analogy of Circumcision There are other arguments which wait for his answer so that this instance stands Answ. My Confession was not that the Apostle argued from any such analogy as Paedobaptists conclude Infants-baptism from to wit the rule of Circumcision thus Circumcision was appointed to Infants in Covenant therefore Baptism is appointed to Infants in Covenant they having the same main and principle end to seal the Covenant of grace which is Mr. Blakes own arguing which is from a ceremonial rite of the Old Testament to a ceremonial rite of the New without precept or example of Christ or his Apostles For 1. The Apostles argument 1 Cor. 9. 9. seems not to me to be from analogy but a testimony explained So Mr. Dicson in his Com. Arg. 3. a testimonto legis de pabulo bovi trituranti dando quod ostendit dictum esse in gratiam omnium laborantium in aliorum usum potissimum in ministerio Diodati The end of Gods Law is not to shew how cattel should be fed but to command equity to be used in just rewarding of those who labour for us Mr. Blake himself vindic foederis pag. 406. Thirdly he argues from the command of the Law 2. If it be from any analogy it is in things that have a parity of equity and so it is in moral things which are perpetual not in meer positive rites 3. It is an analogy which the Apostle delivered to us not analogy made by men not guided by an infallible spirit as is the inference of Paedobaptism from Circumcision and therefore is not of force to oblige mens consciences I have shewed before that the Paedobaptists main argument is barely from such analogy and for other arguments waiting for mine answer either they are answered before sufficiently oâ— God assisting will have answer in this Review Mr. Blakes arguments vindic foede ch 43. sect 1. require no longer answer The first is the same with Mr. Bs. second And the Major is to be denied if by unless order be given to the contrary be meant of order given to the contrary in formal positive terms such as this Thou shalt nor baptize Infants If it be meant of order given to the contrary either in express formal prohibitive terms or equipollent the Minor is to be denied In the second the Major is to be denyed and in like manner the third distinguishing the term holy In the fourth both the Major and the Minor and so likewise the fifth explaining the term church privileges In the sixth the Major is to be denyed if understood of the invisible Kingdom of God only if of the visible the Minor is to be denyed In the other two additionals the Major if universal is to be denyed and the Minor is true of infants of unbelievers as well as believers And for the last Argument the matter is as easily answered as the form For the Major Those that are to be saved are to be added to the Church by baptism Act 2. 47. is to be limited by the text v. 41. thus when they willingly receive the word If no larger answer be given Mr. B. to these arguments yet this will be enough to shew they are without much difficulty answerable Mr. Bs. proofs likewise God assisting shall have fuller answer than they deserve though were it not for his
old man that hath not filled his daies For the chiâ—â— shall dy an hundred years old but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed How shall the child dy as at an hundred years old but that he is so well instructed and inlightned by Christ and thereby as capable of enterance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old Ans. 1. Were M. Cottons paraphrase granted yet the conclusion followes not thence that therefore infants are disciples to be baptized according to Mat. 28. 19. or as he speaks children of the Church For to be so well instructed and enlightned by Christ and thereby as capable of entrance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old may agree by extraordinary inspiration to one that is only of the invisible Church and not of the visible Church as disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. 2. Mr. Cotton when he saith how shall the child by as at an hundred years old doth slâ—ly intimate as if as were in the text whereas it is not so but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the child or boy shall dy an hundred years old or the son of an hundred years Which without any allegory hath a plain sense as the New Annotations expresse it He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he dy Which was accomplished in the return from the captivity according to the prophecy of Zechariah ch 8. Vide Grotius 4. and therefore we need not run to any allego annot in Zeâ— rical interpretation nor refer it to the times of 8. 4. the Messiah either after the resurrection or afore of which Hieronym in Locum 3. Were an allegory allowed yet not only in Hierom but also in Calvin Piscator and others there are vaâ—iety of senses different from Mr. Cotton so that in alleging these texts he trifled more than became so grave a man But he goes on thus The Apostle Peter reckoneth infants of the Church for disciples Acts 15. 10. If the infants of the Church had not been disciples the false Apostles could have pretended no power to have â—ut that ordinance upon them Answ. 1. infants of the Church is a phrase the Scripture useth not and iâ— serves only to possess the unwary reader with this conceit as if the children of believers inchurched as they speak were children of the Church whereas none is a child of the Church till taught the Gospel and made a believer 2. It is untruly suggested as if the false Apostles pretended power to circumcise infants of Christian disciples from this chat the infants were disciples But ver 1. 5. shew plainly that they alleged that the Gentile disciples were tied to observe the law of Moses and so to be circumcised both they and their children But saith he Peter acknowlegeth them disciples but the yoke of circumcision was too heavy for them as drawing upon them the yoke of the Ceremonial Law Answ. There is not a word of Peter acknowledging the infants disciples but the believing parents nor is the yoke of circumcision said to be too heavy for them now as if it were not so 〈◊〉 but it 〈…〉 such as neither the Apostles nor their Fathers Were able to bear much less Gentiles But 〈…〉 Christ Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. 〈…〉 is the Kingdome of God which argueth that even little children are members of the Church here Answ. It is proved in my Postscriptâ— 20. that Matth. 19. 14. the Kingdom of heaven in Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. the Kingdom of God is meant of the Kingdom of Glory But it follows not that therefore infants are members of the Church here many belonging to the invisible Church which belong not to the visible and vice versâ as abortives still born infants converts at the point of death c. are of the Kingdom of Glory who are never members of the visible Church here But saith he Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child to wit as a little child receiveth it for so much the Grammer construction requireth he shall in no wise enter therein Answ. It is untrue that the Grammar construction requireth that it should be understood thus that a little child receiveth the Kingdom of God but only this is meant that none shall enter into the Kingdom of God but such as have such an humble mind free from ambition as a little child hath as our Lord himself expounds it Mat. 18. 3 4. But saith he Christs testimony of them and his carriage towards them shew that little children born in the Church are accounted disciples of Christ and therefore commanded to be baptized with their believing parents Answ. Mr. Cotton himself confesseth that it doth not appear that their Fathers who brought them were baptized themselves how are they then said to be children born in the Church or to be baptized according to rule wherefore his own words shew it to be uncertainly and therefore insufficiently alleged to prove that the infants of believers are among the blessed ones of Christ such as of whom his Church and and Kingdom consisteth and so come under the fellowship of his disciples whom Christ commandeth to be baptized And in very truth in that there is nothing apparent whether the parents brought them or others whether the parents were disciples or not nor is any thing at all ascribed to the parents but to Christs indulgence in this action and it appears Christ did not command them to be baptized nor spake any thing as intituling them to discipleship and baptism though he said Of such is the Kingdom of God this text is not only impertinently brought to prove the discipleship and baptizability of believers infants but also makes to the contrary that infants are not disciples nor baptizable sith if they had been so Christ would have so declared on this occasion which was opportune for it But there is yet another argument in that chapter of Mr. Cottons and it is to this effect That the Commission Mat. 28. 19. appoints believing parents to be baptized and would infer that in Gods account and in Scripture phrase parents themselves are not reputed of God to be baptized if their children remain unbaptized Answ. But will any man believe Mr. Cotton in this that in Scripture phrase parents are not reputed of God to be baptized if their children remain unbaptized Scripture speaks of thousands baptized and mentions not the baptizing of any of their children under that relation as their children shall we believe Mr. Cotton that those phrases of Scripture that say they were baptized speak false and that they were not reputed of God to be baptized because there is no mention of their childrens baptism many believers were baptized their children being infidels Mat. 10. 35. were not the parents reputed in Gods account baptized because the children were against it But let us hear Mr. Cottons goodly proof in his own words Surely saith he in the old
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
natural fools yea the mostungodly professed unbelievers must be subjects of Christs visible Kingdom or Church because such are subjects of human kingdoms I have seen Ephes. 5. 24. and see nothing there for Mr. Bs. purpose but against him there being no subjection there meant but what is willing which infants have not except by extraordinary operation unknown Infants whether of believers or unbelievers are capable of being Christs subjects passively or actively by extraordinary secret invisible and unknown operation but not actively visibly by ordinary means for want of the use of reason This consequence will never be proved by Mr. B. Infants were members of the Jewish Church therefore visible Church members of the Christian Church To this argument Infants were Disciples in the Jewish Church Ergo God will shew the like mercy now I answer by denying his antecedent which he would prove from John 9. 28. we are Moses Disciples in opposition to Jesus Disciples But infants were Moses his Disciples This proposition I deny and Mr. B. hath brought nothing to prove it The Text mentions none as Moses Disciples but persons of years and therefore there 's no need of further answer to his argument 3. My third argument saith Mr. B. to prove some infants are Disciples is this from Christs own words If Christ would have some children received as Disciples then they are Disciples But Christ would have some such received as Disciples Therefore some such are Disciples All the question is of the antecedent and that is plain in Luke 9. 47 48. compared which Matth. 18. 5. and Mark 9. 41. He that receiveth this childe in my name receiveth me Here observe 1. It was the childe himself that Christ would have received 2. He would have him received in his name now that can mean no less than as a Disciple when they are baptized it is into his Name And that which in Luke is called receiving in Christs name is expressed in Mark one that belongeth to Christ and in Matthew in the name of a Disciple though some of these places speak of infants some of others yet compared they plainly tell you this that to receive in Christs Name and 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 So that Christ hath encouraged me to receive children in his Name Luke 9. 47. And he expoundeth it to me that this is to receive them as belonging to him and as Disciples I know some frivolous answers are made to this but they are not worth the standing on Mr. Blakes Argument hence remaineth as good as unanswered Answ. What Mr. Blake alleged in his Birth privilege p. 21 about these Texts was answered in my Examen pag. 134. and what he replied in his Answer to my Letter cap. 11. sect 5. was refelled in my Postscript pag. 145 146 all which I have reviewed with what Mr. Blake refers to in his Repulse of Mr. Blackwood pag. 16 17 18 19 20. and do not finde wherein my answer in my Postscript is deficient and therefore see no reason to be moved by Mr. Bs. vain talk that Mr. Blakes Argument hence remains as good as unanswered and do conceive it more abundantly answered than such a far-fetch'd argument deserved Yet Mr. B. brings it again into the field and Mr. Blake Vindic. Foederis pag. 414. says he will forbear to make any rejoynder to the Reply of my Apology pag. 145. because Mr. B. hath here done it for him Now what saith Mr. B. He saith I know some frrivolous answers are made to this but they are not worth the standing on To which I reply if the Answers be more frivolous than the Argument they are not indeed worth standing on But let us see what kinde of Argument it is 1. Mr. B. should have concluded that Some Infants are Disciples and he concludes that Some Children are Disciples or else he means by some such in the minor and conclusion others than by some Children in the major now some Infants and some Children are not all one 2. The phrase in the middle term received as Disciples may be understood two ways 1. thus that Christ would have them received as being Disciples and in this sense I grant the Consequence but deny the minor understood of some infants 2. That he would have them received with such tenderness and love as is given to Disciples though they be not Disciples And in this sense I might grant the minor and deny the Consequence of the major though I think the minor is not true in that sense And to Mr. Bs. proof of this I say 1. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 47. doth not note an infant always For Jairus his Daughter though twelve years old is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little childe Mark 5. 41 42. And yet that age might be a patern of humility seldom are children of that age ambitious though they be impatient And that the little childe Matth. 18. 2. was not an infant but a person of some years is made probable in that Christ is said to call him and to set him or make him stand in the midst of them 2. Beza saith Perhaps it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such a little childe So the Syriack Interpreter reades and it is very probable by comparing it with Matth. 18. 5. where the words of Christ are related and there it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one such little childe and Mark 9. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of such children 3. But if the reading be allowed as the Copies now have it yet it is not unusual that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as on the other side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 2 Cor. 2. 6. all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So in the same Chapter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 26. is not meant of one particular person but of one so qualified and in like manner 2 Tim. 3. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from these turn away that is as our Translators well render it from such turn away and v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered of this sort There are more of the like 2 Thess. 3. 14. 2 John 7. 1 John 2. 22. Luke 8. 14 15 21 c. So Grotius in Luc. 9. 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ut apud Matthaeum quomodo hic Syrus interpretatur And this may be confirmed by reason thus If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 9. 48. must be expounded of this little childe then the speech of Christ is to be understood onely of that one individual little childe and no other for in that sense it is a Pronoun demonstrative and so notes a demonstrative individual as Logicians speak and so it shall note not onely the childe himself as Mr. B. observes but even that
baptized afore they are believers or repenting persons which is absurd and contrary to the Scripture Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. c. and contrary to the order of Christ that persons should be made Disciples afore they were baptized Matth. 28 19. 3. Because it is altogether inexplicable how the use of water can be a cause either principal or instrumental to work a new birth or inward change on the soul If it be sayd that it is by virtue of Gods promise it is meet that promise should be shewed that at by or upon the use of baptism God hath promised to regenerate persons That it is a sign of regeneration will not be I suppose denyed for it is made the sign of repentance which is all one with regeneration and therefore called the baptism of repentance Acts 19. 4. because as Beza on v. 3. baptism was symbolum resipiscentiae the token of repentance And so in like manner it was the sign of faith and therefore the Apostle Gal. 3. 27. saith That as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ that is had by the sign of baptism testified their putting on Christ by faith And in this sense it is termed the washing of regeneration if baptism be meant by it Tit. 3. 5. because by that washing the person baptized testifies his regeneration And Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death that is we by being under water testifie our dying to sin conformably to Christs death and burial And in this sense Paul is bid Acts 22. 16. to wash away his sins that is by baptism to testifie his purging from his sins And so Christ is said to sanctifie and cleanse his Church with washing of water Ephes. 5. 26. that is as Beza Annot in locum as representing what he entirely doth effect within Mr. Iames Cranford in his Epistle to Mr. Thomas Bedford printed at the end of the Friendly Accommodation between Mr. Bedford and Mr. Baxter saith that he conceives the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine de nudis signis in which he is more confirmed by what I answered once to an Argument drawn by him from Ephes. 5. from the efficacy of baptism to inforce the baptizing of infants that if that Tenent could be clearly proved I would no longer oppose that practice Concerning which I say I remember not all that passed from me in the Dispute he mentions I did think that which I put down in my Exerciâ— sect 11. had been his Argument But this I still say that could it be clearly proved that Christ ever appointed baptism of water taken severedly from the preaching of the Word to be the cause of Regeneration or that God had assured that by outward baptism with water he would confer regenerating grace to an infant I should not oppose the practice of Paedobaptism What Mr. Bedford hath produced for the efficacy of baptism hath been answered by Mr. Baxter in his Appendix to his Plain Scripture c. Nor doth it appear to me that Mr. B. is of his minde notwithstanding what Letters have past between them now printed and the syncretism yielded to in the printing of the Friendly Accommodation and leaving out the Appendix Dr. Burges his Treatise of Baptismal Regeneration hath been freely censured by many Dr. Ieremiah Taylour in his Discourse of baptism hath like an Orator rather than a Disputant pleaded for infant-baptism from the efficacy of baptism more from speeches of the Fathers than from the Scripture Sure I am baptism was appointed by Christ and used in the examples of the Scripture as a testimony of Repentance of faith in Christ no cause of either And therefore I deny baptism to be the remedy of original sin or the cause of Regeneration or that Christ intended to assign the use to baptism to heal original sin or to testifie the freedom from it without actual These things have been delivered by Augustine and taught by the Romanists and Lutherans but by many other Protestants disclaimed and refuted and therefore Mr. Stephens Mr. Cranford Mr. Bedford c. in using this Argument do but symbolize with the Papists and revive what many Protestants of best note have exploded SECT XVII The 31. Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture Proof c. is answered and Mark 10. 13 14 15 16. is shewed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism and his description of visible Church-membership is considered and his Argument from Deut. 29. shewed to be insufficient THere are yet some other Texts which are brought by Paedobaptists out of the New Testament for an institution and practice of infant-baptism Mr. B. Plain Scripture Proof of infant-baptism part 1. cap. 31. brings Mark 9. 36 37. to prove that Christ hath expresly assured us that he hath not repealed the privilege of infants visible Church-membership and upon it fals to his Rhetorick and tels us of his boldness in adventuring on this rule All which I judg frivolous nor needs it any further answer there being no new Argument and what he before spake of that Scripture is answered before Sect. 15. where it is shewed that Mark 9. 37. by little childe is not meant one that is so in respect of age but in respect of quality and that the receiving is not meant of baptism but entertainment in receiving the Doctrine brought and shewing kindness to their persons But he adds And it is not once but oft that he hath thus manifested his will in the very next Chapter he doth it more fully yet Mark 10. 14 15 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased and said to them Suffer ye little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe he shall not enter therein and he took them up in his arms put his hands on them and blessed them And is not here enough to satisfie us yet that he doth not cast all infants in the world out of his visible Kingdom or Church but that it is his will they should be admitted Will any say that it was not infants in the former Text and this that Christ speaks of Did he take any but infants into his arms Was it not plainly them that he did bid them receive in the former Chapter and was it not them that he would not have to be kept from him And was it not them that he bid should be suffered to come that is to be brought and was it not them that he blessed Answ. Mr. M. in his Sermon had alleged this Tex to prove that the infants of believers even while they are infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men I answered 1. It is doubtfull whether those little children Mark 10. 14.
were infants 2. Whether it be said of them Is the Kingdom of Heaven 3. Whether they were believers infants 4. Whether the Kingdom of Heaven be said to be of them in their present estate or their future 5. The reason why of them is the Kingdom of Heaven may be referred to Christs blessing not to their Parents faith 6. That Christs action in this was proper to him as the great Prophet and extraordinary and therefore not fit to make a constant rule for an ordinance and if it be to that use it is more apposite to establish confirmation than baptism sith Christ did neither baptize nor appoint them to be baptized though he said of them is the Kingdom of Heaven In all likelihood if infant-baptism had been according to Christs minde he would have taken this occasion to appoint it which he not doing it is very probable that he would not have it done To all which Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 221 222. replied onely this that they were dictates and brought in to little purpose whereas there is nothing sayd by me without reason and some proof and yet I being a respondent it was more than my business necessitated me to produce so much a denial being sufficient for the respondent And whereas he saith I grant enough to serve his turn that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to those infants and concludes that their infants in their infantile age are capable of inward grace and some of them actually partakers of it and this is enough for him and that more than this cannot be said of grown men who are visible professors To it I say Though I should grant that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to these infants yet it serves not his turn to prove thence that the infants of believers are visible Church-members and that believers infants have right to baptism except it be proved that their parents were believers that the Kingdom of Heaven for that reason did belong to them and in this thing was intended by Christ the establishing a settled rule for infants interest in the Church and baptism Capacity of inward grace is not denied to infants no not to Turks infants whether any of them be partakers actually of inward grace is not determined nor is it true that no more can be sayd of grown men for the making of visible profession may be said of grown mâ—n which cannot be said of infants But Mr. B. is eager for infant-baptism as conclusible hence le ts see what he saies First he begins with his Rhetorick which commonly supplies the want of proof Then he heaps â—p seven or eight inteâ—rogations and takes all for granted which he demands But to them I say To the first 1. I except against his expression which infinuates as if by denying that infants are visible Church-members they were cast out of Christs visible Church whereas it is one thing not to reckon them in and another to cast them out which is but once used in Scripture 3 Iohn 10. and this phrase serves onely to provoke passion 2. It is so far from being true that there is enough in those Texts to satisfy that Christ would have infants admitted into his visible Church that it is rather true on the contrary that there is enough against it To his other questions I answer 1. By denying that they were infants he would have received Mark 9. 37. 2. whether they were infants he took in his arms whom he would not to be kept from him but suffered to come to him and whom he blessed it is uncertain Piscator Estius c. conceive they were young ones that could come of themselves being called But be it granted they were infants le ts see what Mr. B. gathers thence Hence saith he I argue thus 1. If Christ would have us receive infants in his name then we must receive them as belonging to him and his Church But he would have us to receive them in his name therefore c. 2. If he that receiveth an infant in his name receiveth himself then some infants are to be received in his name and those that refuse them sin But the former is true therefore the later Answ. 1. Both the conclusions might be granted and yet Mr. Bs. cause not gained the former because infants may belong to Christ and his Church to wit the invisible and yet it not be proved thence they are visible Church-members the later because they may be received in Christs name as by harbouring feeding them and yet not be admitted to baptism 2. The minor in both Syllogismes is false For the Text Mark 9. 37. speaks not of infants in age to be received but of believers that are humble and low in condition as infants particularly of his Apostles 3. Saith Mr. B. if Christ was much displeased with those that kept particular infants from visible access to him then though they could not keep them from his visible grace I think he will be much more displeased with those that keep all the infants in the world from visible access to him in his Church now though they cannot keep them from the invisible Church But the former is true Therefore the later Answ. The conclusion is granted For what visible access to Christ in his Church now can be but by profession of faith I know not If Mr. B. know of any that keep infants from professing faith let him threaten them and spare not But that which he tels us that we keep infants from visible access to Christ because we baptize them not for want of profession of faith is but a squib that may affright women and children when intelligent persons laugh at it 4. Saith he If Christ command us to suffer them to come and not to forbid them then those sin against his express Command that will not suffer them to come but do forbid them for it is a standing Command and speaks of infants and not of these individuals onely and there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples But c. therefore c. Answ. The conclusion is granted without any detriment to our cause we forbid not any to come to Christ. There 's no coming to Christ no was those little children came that is to come to his person for blessing cure or teaching by himself in the flesh There 's no coming to Christ now but by hearing his word and believing in him as John 6. 35. is expressed If any forbid infants to do so let him bear the blame But we forbid infants to be baptized till they come to Christ that is till they believe and we are sure we have the Scripture for us Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Ephes. 5. 4. Gal. 3. 26 27. A thing so known that all that heretofore baptized infants did take this as unquestionable that believers onely are to be baptized and therefore to justifie infant-baptism
they run into wilde fancies as that they believe in the Church in their Parents in their sureties in their being baptized But Mr. Bs. hold is in his Parenthesis against which I except 1. that his speech of admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples supposeth that a person is first admitted into Christs Church and then to be his Disciple whereas no man is rightly admitted into Christs Church who is not first a Disciple 2. That he saith This Luke 18. 16. is a standing Commandment But this we must take on Mr. Bs. word there 's nothing in the Text or in Mr. Bs. writing to prove it Nor is it likely For if so me thinks the Apostles and the Writers of the New Testament should not have been so negligent as neither to observe this command after this time nor to have recorded any act done by the Apostles according to that command 3. That Chists speech is of the species of infants and not of these individuals onely 1. Is said without proof yea it is more probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as Suffer these little children to come to me and that because as Paedobaptists urge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven which is the reason of Christs injunction is meant of those infants 2. Were it granted not to be meant of those individuals onely yet this is all that can be thence proved that if after that time other infants were brought to Christ in that manner to be touched by him they should be suffered It may be granted that there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church But this is enough to prove that there is now no such visible admittance to Christ as those Mark 10. 14 had who were admitted to Christs person to be touched by him and not into his visible Church by baptism 5. Saith Mr. B. If of such be the Kingdom of God then of such is the visible Church but the former is true Therefore c. Answ. The consequence is denied Of infants in the mothers womb as Jacob John Baptist c. is the Kingdom of God and yet the visible Church is not of such But saith Mr. B. Here they have two cavils against the plain sense of the Text 1. By such is meant such for docâ—bleâ—ess and humility To which I answer 1. Then it seems they are so docible and humble that the Kingdom belongs to them For if it belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to others also Answ. Mr. Bs. censure of the Answers I gave as cavils is as the rest of this his Dispute rash and inconsiderate For the very words Mark 10. 15. do directly lead to that sense I give and the words of Christ Matth. 18. 3 4. plainly expound wherein they that enter into the Kingdom of God must be like children But to the matter of his Answer 1. The conclusion is granted nor was it ever denyed by me that of some infants is the Kingdom of God and particularly of those whom Christ blessed but yet not because of their docibleness and humility but because of Christs blessing Nor do I allow Mr. Bs. consequence that if the Kingdom did belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to them also For the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to others because they are such as them in the properties common to them with other children But the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to them as blessed by Christ not in respect of docibleness and humility It may be it will be said that then little children have those properties for which of them may be the Kingdom of God I answer it doth not follow but this onely follows that there is such teachableness and humility in little children in other respects which other men imitating and expressing in spiritual things and so becoming such as they are by analogy and resemblance in that respect belong to the Kingdom of God 2. Saith Mr. B. Doth Christ say To such as them in this or that respect onely and not to them or saith he not in general To such even to such as he took in his arms and blessed He would not have taken up and blessed any for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed he would not have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility and innocency If Christ say of such is the Kingdom I am bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate me to restrain it And therefore must understand it to such both of that age or any other age Who dare think that the word to such is not rather inclusive as to them than exclusive If I love humble poor men and my servants keep them from my house because they are poor and if I chide them for it and say Suffer such to come to me and forbid them not for my delight is in such who would so interpret this speech as to think I would exclude them while I command their admittance And that I meant other humble ones and not these Answ. Doth Mr. B. say To such in general in respect of age onely belongs the Kingdom of God If he do say so as his words seem to import then it follows that to every infant whether of believers or unbelievers elect or reprobate belongs the Kingdom of God If not then he must say as I say if he will speak truth that 1. To those infants belonged the Kingdom in this respect onely as they were blessed by Christ or elect 2. If it be applied to other infants it can be applied to no others but such as are blessed by Christ or elect 3. And for other persons that under the term of such are meant also persons of age like them in humility and teachableness is so manifest from v. 15. Matth. 18. 3. 4. 5. that it is nothing but cavilling in Mr. B. thus to carp at my plain and clear exposition of the words agreeable to the most approved expositors as Beza Annot. ad Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est horum similium ut supra 18. Piscat sch in Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quales scilicet sunt isti pueruli nempe credentes in me demissè de se senâ—ientes confer supra c. 18. 2. seq that I omit others Neither do I nor need I say that Christ took them or blessed the little ones for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed or that he might by like reason with mine have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility And though Mr. Bs. rule may be questioned whether a man be bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate him to restrain it yet I gainsay it not to understand to such
both of that age or any other and I allow that Christ meant those and other humble ones and that the term of such is both inclusive including more than those particular little ones and exclusive of those that are not elect or blessed by Christ. And though I maintain by firm Arguments in my Postscript to Mr. Blake sect 20. that by the Kingdom of Heaven as in Matth. 19. 14. or of God as Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. is meant the Kingdom of Glory which Mr. B. denies not yet were it allowed Mr. B. that it is meant of the visible Church it is not true of all infants of believers that of them is the visible Church for infants in the womb as Jacob are of the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church yet not of the visible much less of the species of infants as Mr. B. speaks For then every individual infant should be of the visible Church though the Parents be unbelievers which Mr. B. me thinks should gainsay and therefore there is plain reason necessitating to restrain the speech of Christ as I do 3. Saith Mr. B. When Mr. T. maketh their docibleness the thing intended by Christ he forgot that he judged them uncapable of being Disciples Why may not those be Disciples who are not onely docible but exemplary for their teachableness Answ. Mr. T. tels Mr. B. he did not forget but thinks Mr. B. did not heed The docibleness allowed to infants was in things natural such as are to know the Nurse imitate gestures to be stilled from crying when rebuked c. but not in things spiritual to know Christ to be the Son of God the Messiah c. which are necessary to denominate them Disciples of Christ. Yet such teachableness and humility onely negative in not ambitiously affecting preheminence are sufficient for Christ to propound them as examples or similitudes rather to direct his Disciples to imitate in another kinde Their second Objection saith Mr B. is that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven And I think so too but then if the Kingdom of Heaven belong to such much more a standing as members in the visible Church For what is it to be a member of the Church visible but 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 For the Church is but one and the difference respective as I shewed before therefore both visible and invisible both military and triumphant are called in Scripture the Kingdom of Heaven or of God If a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members 〈◊〉 the Church so that this proof is more full for infants Church-membership than if it had been said they may be visibl◠Church-members For it saith much more of them which includeth that Answ. Mr. B. thinks it seems with me that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven that is of Glory or the invisible Church which if true then of no infants but elect is the Kingdom of God for no other are of the invisible Church or enter into the Kingdom of Glory And if so not the the very species of infants but particular persons and of these not all perhaps but a few of the infants of believers perhaps more of the infants of unbelievers are of the Kingdom of God But however he thinks it will follow à majori that if of infants is the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church or Kingdom of Glory then much more they have a standing in the visible Church To which I say 1. If this Argument were good it could onely prove those infants to be of the visible Church who are elect 2. It can prove it onely of those who in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of men do belong to the invisible Church or be known to belong to the invisible Church But no infants in particular are known to belong to the invisible Church nor is there any note whereby any infant in particular may be discerned to be of the invisible Church which may make it seem or appear to the judgment of man Ergo there is no infant no not according to Mr. Bs. own description hath a standing in the visible Church The minor of this Argument I expect should be denied but it will concern them that do deny it to shew us out of Scripture where God hath given us any sign though but probable to judg such an infant to be of the invisible Church of the elect such a one not If any say Gods covenant and the Parents faith I reply God hath plainly declared Rom. 9. 7 8 9 10 12 13 18. that he hath not made any promise to the natural seed of Abraham that he will be their God in respect of saving grace much less to the natural seed of every or any believer of this time but that notwithstanding any covenant he hath made he takes the seed of unbelievers to be his children and leaves the seed of bellevers to be hardened and this appeared plainly in Jacob and Esau of the same Parents believers born together yet one loved the other hated and the Gentiles called when the Jews were rejected We say truly the book of life is a secret which belongs to God who hath hidden it yea hath so ordered it by the strange variations of his calling that his judgments should be unsearchable and his paths past finding out Rom. 11. 33. And therefore no man hath warrant from Gods Word to frame any judgment concerning this or that infant to be of the invisible Church But because Mr. B. says somewhat to prove his consequence let us consider what he brings That which he sayth is 1. The Church is but one and the difference respective 2. He that saith that they belong to the invisible saith much more even that which includeth that they are visible if I understand his obscure expressions Church-members 3. That 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 Answ. 1. It is true the universal Church of the elect is but one and the difference respective yet the difference such that all the invisible are not of the visible Church nor all the visible of the invisible nor by any good consequence can it be made good they that are of the invisible are much more of the visible no not when they are known to be of the invisible Church The first is manifest by instances the spirits of the just made perfect elect persons yet unbegotten yet uncalled called but not yet shewing it are of the invisible Church but not of the visible on the other side secret hypocrites are of the visible but not of the invisible And the last
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
ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church but the visible is not one Church and the invisible another Church but meerly the same Church under several denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them There was lately a printed sheet brought to my hands intituled The profession of the Church c. which is owned by Mr. Richard Baxter in his Christian concord in the Preface of which are these words And because Ministers cannot well know who are members of the Churches and who not and so must be ignorant of the extent of their charges and duties without an expression of their peoples consent Hence I argue 1. If Ministers cannot know who are members of the Churches and who not without an expression of their peoples consent then they cannot know infants to be members of the Churches who express no consent 2. Then the parents faith upon which they were baptized without their own consent expressed doth not make them visible Church-members for if it did they might know them by their memory and registers that they were Church-members 3. Then they are not rightly baptized by him without their consent 4. Then it is not true which Mr. B. writeth plain Scripture c. pag. 280. And do you not see it fulfilled before your eys Are not Bewdley Kederminster meaning all the people â—lder and yonger c. and England till of latâ— as fully Christs Disciples and so Church-members aâ— the Jews were in Covenant with God and so Church-members which if true Mr. B. may know who at Kederminster are Church-members without their expressed consent even all the inhabitants and that his charge is extended to all 5. Then the gift of visible Church-membership is repealed â—ith in the Common wealth of Israel all the posterity of Israel were Church-members 6. By his new course of distinguishing the professing and subscribing parioshiâ—ers of Kederminster as Church-members from the rest as not his Church-members he gathers a Church out of a Church and separates some Disciples from others and doth himself make a like division in his Church though not in so justifiable a way as he chargeth so fiercely on me and others Which I conceive to be little less than a retractation of his own tenet about infants visâ—â—e Church-membership and clearing of his opposites Lastly by Mr. Bs. determinations there is no certain way to know a particular infant to be a visible Church-member For in his determinations there is no resolution nor according to his grounds do I think can be given a certain resolution whether the parent be such a one to whom the Covenant is whether he have that faith which may intitle his childe to visible Church-membership whether the immediate parents engagement be necessary or a remote parents engagement be sufficient whether the engagement must be open in the face of the Congregation or it be sufficient that it be done privately when it must be at Baptism or at some other time whether it need not be as oâ—â— as he hath children to be admitted visible Church-members whether the baptizer may account him a visible Church-member whose parents are dead absent unable to come or to express their engagement and so baptize him which with many other doubtâ— would â—â—â—aâ—d the course of Ministers and people in their profane infant sprinkling if they did not with a blinde obedience rest on Mr. Bs. unproved dictates but searched after the truth considerately and impartially But I pass on 6. Saith Mr. B. hence I further argue thus Iâ— Christ were much displeased with his Disciples for keeping infants from him then he took it as a part of their revealed duty that they should not forbid them But the former is true therefore the later Whence I further argue if it were the Disciples known or revealed duty not to forbid them to come to Christ then they must needs take it also for a revealed truth that infants in specie and not those numerical onely should not be forbidden to come for they could not know that those individuals should be admitted but by knowing that infants should be admitted But c. Answ. The conclusion of the former argument may be granted and yet the sequeâ—e of the later argument denied For they might know it either by some particular sign from Christ or some particular instinct of the Spirit that it was their duty to permit those infants to come to Christ and yet not permit any more But saith Mr. B. Yea further 7. If it were the Disciples revealed duty to admit infants to come to Christ for this very reason because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven then it was no secret but a revealed truth that of such was the Kingdom of Heaven But the former is true For Christ would not be angry so much with them for not knowing that which was neuer revealed on for not admitting them when they had no means to know them to have right of admittance The consequence is evident the â—â—forâ— and so 〈◊〉 follow 〈◊〉 that if it were then a revealed truth that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven then they were visible members of the Church For that sort of men that are known to belong to Heaven though it be not known of the individuals do visibly belong to the Church as I think none dare deny Answ. 1. According to their exposition who understand of such onely those that are like little children in affection and disposition and not of those particular little children then brought much more according to their exposition who by of such understand these individual infants and no other they might know those infants were to be admitted and yet have no knowledg of an universal rule for admittingâ— other infants at other times 2. But be it granted that not onely of those individuals but also of other infants is the Kingdom of Heaven yet I deny they were visible Church-members And for his proof I dare deny that which he fâ—ndly thinks â—â—nâ— dare deny that they that are known to belong to Heaven 〈◊〉 visibly belong to the Church Abraham and 〈◊〉 and Jâ—â—â—â— are known to belong to Heaven yet I do not conceive do visibly belong to the Church And the same is true of all the spirits of the Just made perfect of elect infants â—â—born Jâ—â—â—s unceâ—led c. I know none â—â—iung to the visible Church but such as sensibly have professed faith in Christ. Amâ—s Med. Th. l. 1. â— â—1 sect 24 25 26 27 〈◊〉 militant visibilis â—â—su sc. vel sensu externo 〈◊〉 praeâ—ect 〈◊〉 Eccl. pag. 246 Ecclesia aliquando denominatur abâ—iis qâ—◠〈◊〉 quaeque â—n sensum incurrunt Piscat â—â—â—or â—oâ— 19. 10. visiâ—ilâ— appellatur quatâ—ruâ—â—erâ—â—s hâ—bet noâ—â—â— in oculo◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. B. himself Praefest in Morator sect 11. By visible I mâ—an thâ—â— which is discernible by the understanding medianâ—â— sensu Therefore that sort of men that are known to belong to
Heaven do not visibly belong to the Church unless they are known so bâ— some sensible expression yea of their own which is not true of infants much less oâ— the sort of them or any sort of being no sort of beings being visible but onely singulaâ—s Mr. B. goes on thus 8. But the chief evidence in the Text lieth here if because that of such is the Kingdom therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back them it must needs be the very species of infants that Christ means are of the Kingdom and not onely the aged humble but therefore it was the Disciples sin to keep them back and their duty to admit them or else Christ would not have been much displeased with them because that of such is the Kingdom therefore it must needs be infants themselves that are of the Kingdom The reason of the consequence lieth here It would be no sin 〈◊〉 the Disciples to keep away from Christ those that were 〈◊〉 mâ—er Embleâ—s of the saved For else it would have been the Disciples sin to have forbidden all the Sheep or Doves in the countrey to have been brought to Christ to lâ—y hanâ—s on This is plain and convincing to me Answ. The conclusion iâ— granted that it was the infants if they were infants that were brought to Christ themselves and not onely the aged humble resembled by them that are of the Kingdom Mr. B. needed not to have cast away so much pains in â—râ—ving it against me who do in my Postscripâ— sect 〈◊〉 say I stick not to that Exposition of not including those infants But I think Mr. B. would prove that not onely Christ said of those infants but of the very species of infants is the Kingdom of God Which speech of his hath in it sundry absurditieâ— 1. He seems to make infants a distinct species from the aged whereas in â—ogâ—ck 〈◊〉 mankinde is species iâ— a the lowest kâ—â—â—â— in the Predicament of substance and it is a Rule in that Art â—haâ— Seâ— and Age 〈◊〉 vâ—riant speciem do not vary the kinde 2 When he saith the very species are of the Kingdom sith he grants that by the Kingdom is meant the invisible Church his words sâ—â—m to 〈◊〉 that all infants are of the invisible Church For the very species câ—â—prehâ—nd all the individuals and then he must holdâ— all infants are elect for onely the elect are of the invisible Church and if after they be reprobaâ—e then election is revâ—cable and the elect may not be saved But if he meaâ— it odely of some of that sort and particularly all the infants of believers neither is that tâ—â—â— sith the contrary is manifest in Esau. But if he mean no more than this that of some elect infants yea and of others than those particular infants is the Kingdom of God I should not stick to grant it nor need Mr. B. thus trouble himself to prove it though I think his consequence is not good For it might be their sin to keep back those infants from Christ if Christ did by any sign discover his minde to have them brought though it were not to declare their title or any other infants title to the Kingdom of Heaven but onely to use them as Emblems Nor is Mr. Bs. reason forcible that then it might have been their sin to have forbidden Sheep and Doves to be brought to Christ. For it may be granted that this might have been their sin if Christ had in like manner declared his minde by any sign concerning such Sheep that they should be brought to him Mr. Bs. arguing runs upon this supposition that the Apostles might know it was their duty at all times to permit infants to come to Christ from a general truth that of all infants at least of believers is the Kingdom of God which he neither proves nor can prove whereas the Apostles fault might be in not heeding some particular thing he had then by some words or other sign made known of those infants then brought or not considering Christs Office and constant practice of doing good to all specially to infirm and diseased persons such as those infants might be and as some conceive were and accordingly brought to be cured by Christ. But Mr. B. is not yet come to that he would have 9. Saith he Those that Christ took in his arms laid his hands on and blessed were visible members of his Church and not meer resemblances of such but some infants Christ took in his arms laid his hands on and blessed therefore some infants were members of the visible Church and consequently Christ hath not repealed the Church-membership of infants and they were not meer resemblances of such For would Christ have blessed so a Sheep or Dove or are they blessed of Christ and yet not so much as visible members of his Church Sure there are none visibly blest without the visible Church And it was not these onely for I have proved it was the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing Answ. I do not say that the infants Christ took in his arms were meer resemblances of visible Church-members and therefore Mr. B. in seeking to prove it still follows a false sent proving what is not denied But the other part of the conclusion is denied by me to wit that some infants were members of the visible Church and that part of the major those that Christ took in his arms laid his hands on and blessed were visible members of his Church and for his proof that none are visibly blest without the visible Church I deny it nor doth he bring any thing to prove it but his own words sure it is so But I count it false For Jacob visibly blessed Pharaoh Gen. 47. 10. and yet Pharaoh was not of the visible Church When Christ did raise Jairus daughter heal the daughter of the Syrophoenician I conceive they had a visible blessing and yet were not of the visible Church And if it were the Disciples duty to admit others to the like blessing yet there is neither in the Text nor elsewhere a word to prove it was their duty to admit them to the like blessing by any other than Christ himself and his own laying hands on them Or if it were imagined that Christ intended this should be a Rule to the Disciples for their conferring a like blessing on infants yet that it must be a Rule to successors and if to successors to all Ministers to do it or that they must do it by baptism and not rather as the Bishops did it in Confirmation by laying on of hands hath not the least shadow of proof but rather the contrary is more likely And accordingly Jancerus Concilium Senonense as Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 3. the composers of the Interim as Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 16. lib. 2. cap. 68. pag. 451. relate gathered the institution of Confirmation from thence But Mr. B. adds And it is yet
To which I answer The phrase Children of the Kingdom I finde diversly used Matth. 8 12. it is appropriated to the Jews and it is spoken of them which shall be cast out into utter darkness But Matth. 13. 38. it is meant of the elect who shall be saved In the former sense the major is manifestly false and the minor can be onely true of Jews infants in the later sense the major Proposition is true of children of the Kingdom who are visibly such by their profession of faith in Christ and the minor is false if it be meant of such as are invisibly children of the Kingdom the major is denied and the minor is granted Mr. Bl. adds somewhat more about the meaning of the words of Christ of such is the Kingdom of Heaven And first he saith The particle such cannot here have reference to their qualification that those that were qualified as these in humility and meekness had their interest so are Sheep and Doves as well as infants not proud nor revengefull Answ. This reason is not of force to prove that such cannot here have reference to the qualification of meekness and humility For being so expounded such notes others than the infants to wit men that are humble and meek positively as infants are negatively and this cannot be sayd of Doves or sheep yet infants may be included as Beza doth Annot in Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est horum similium ut supra 18. which is plainly proved by our Lord Christs own words Mark 10. 15. where of such v. 14. is whosoever receiveth the Kingdom of God as a little childe v. 15. and so it is meant Matth. 18. 5. as I have proved above Nor is Mr. Bls. reasoning of force That which the Disciples took to be an impediment of force to hinder infants and a just ground of those that brought them is that which Christ understands in this reproof of the Disciples and admission of their infants But it was their want of growth their littleness which the Disciples took to be a just impedinent and which occasioned their reproof Ergo. For the conclusion may be granted yet this proves not that by of such is meant in respect of quantity onely not of quality but onely that in the words before suffer little children to come to me quantity is meant not quality for in those words onely is the reproof of the Disciples and Christs admission of infants The other are a reason of his command which is good if by such be meant likeness in quality as well as agreement in quantity And for Mr. Bls. paraphrase it is but his own conceit that the little children had no need of cure or that the Disciples rebuke was after his model But enough of this before Mr. Bl. excepts against me for saying the Kingdom of Heaven is meant of the Kingdom of glory and that on this hinge the answer to the whole argument turns He saith I had six exceptions against the orthodox interpretation of this scripture in my Examen being hunted out of all the rest I think to finde sâ—m shâ—lter there But this is his figment for though I of mine own accord expressed some onely as doubtfull and let pass others for more ample conviction of the invalidity of the vain arguing called falsely Orthodox interpretation of this Text by paed baptists yet I did not so much as relinquish one of the exceptions much less have been hunted from them as Mr. Bl. after his pedant que fashion talks But in opposition to me he first saith That all hangs not on this appears in that our Saviour had said enough in his order for admission of these infants on which we can build our conclusion And then brings his argument which being answered before there is no need of any more reply to this Yet I add that of the argument drawn by Mr. Bl. pag. 91. of his answer to my letter none that are intâ—ressed in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom may be denied an admission to it by baptism but infants have their interests in the Church of Christ which is his Kingdom and therefore may not be denied admission by baptism the hinge did turn on this point that by the Kingdom of Heaven is meant the visible Church into which he would have infants admitted by baptism and my speech is true of that Argument Mr. Blake adds Secondly for his Reasons there is not force in them 1. Saith he The kingdom of God must be understood Mark 10. 14. as it is v. 15. and Luke 18. 16. as v. 17. and Matth. 19. 14. as it is in both those This I prove because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate Apol. pag. 150. This Argument howsoever it carries more colour than usually is fouâ—d in Mr. T. his Reason yet it is not conclusive It may be taken more largely in Christs argumentation and in a more restrained sense in his words of instruction and application as in a place much parallel I shall shew 1 Cor. 6 1 2. There we have the Apostles reproof v. 1. and his Reason v. 2 as in the Evangelists we have Christs assertion confirming his reproof v. 14 and his application v. 15. Now Saint in the Apostles reproof is taken more largely than it is taken in his Reason A visible Saint is meant in the first place a real and glorified Saint in the second visible Saints may judg in small matters for real Saints in glory shall judg the world shall judg Angels and so it may be here infants have their present title to the visible Kingdom and men qualified as infants shall onely enter the Kingdom of Glory Answ. I see Mr. Bl. so pertinacious in what he hath said in this argument that he is cedere nescius he knows not how to yeild to any thing against his dictates though it be never so plain He denies not Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. must be understood of the Kingdom of glory for the reason given by me in my Postscript The proposition being false being understood of the visible Church many proud persons entering therein as Simon Magus Diotrephes c. But denies it to be conclusive and therefore must deny the major But he answers nothing to the proof of it because our Saviour from their estate infers a likeness to them in others for the same estate Whence the argument ariseth The same estate is meant Mark 10. 14. which is mean v. 15. This is proved from the inference of Christ which is as of little children is the kingdom of God so whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe shall not enter into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it or the same estate the relative particle plainly notes it to be the same But the estate Mark 10. 15. is meant of the Kingdom of glory which is proved because otherwise the proposition were false
nor is it denied by Mr. Bl. therefore the argument is most plainly conclusive Mr. Bls. answer is either upon a wilfull or heedeless mistake of my argument as if it were onely from the identity of the words in both verses whereas it was taken from the sameness of estate gathered by the force of our Saviours whether application of v. 15. as Mr. Bl. terms it or inference from what he had said v. 14. and the relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it I deny not that it is frequent according to the figure in Rhetorick termed antanaclasis to use terms sometimes in the same verse elegantly in a different sense but it cannot be so here for the reasons given And yet Mr. Bls. instance 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. is not right For 1 Cor. 6 2. the term Saint doth not note a glorified Saint For the sense is this know ye not these now despised Saints shall hereafter judg the world and so though it be true that then they shall be glorified yet the term Saints is attributed to them according to their present estate of debasement in which the very Emphasis is put Besides if it had been so that in the one v. it noted a visible Saint here and in the other a glorified Saint hereafter yet the same persons were meant in both verses whereas if Mark 10. 14. were meant the visible Church who are a number of persons and v. 15. were meant an estate of glory there would be a greater difference than in 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. and therefore Mr. Bl. doth not rightly say the one place is much parallel to the other Mr. Bl. goes on His second reason that Christ directs his speech to the Disciples already in the visible Church and therefore speaks not of the Church visible I know not how to make up into a reason if I understood it I would either yeild or answer it Answ. The reason is thus formed The same is meant Mark 10. 14. which is meant v. 15. as is before proved But by the Kingdom of God v. 15. is not meant the visible Church Ergo neither v. 14. The minor is thus proved By the Kingdom of God is meant that estate into which the Apostles had not but were thereafter to enter into For the speech is meant of them as well as others and directed to them Verily I say to you and so where the same thing is sayd Matth. 18. 3. it is sayd to and of them Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens But the estate the Apostles were to enter into was not the visible Church for that they had entered into already but the Kingdom of glory Therefore by the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14. is meant the Kingdom of glory Mr. Bl. adds The third reason that the speech Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. is like Matth. 18. 3 4 but there it is meant of the Kingdom of glory Ergo so here is answered already If Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. be like Matth. 18. 3 4. yet Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. which we have in question is unlike Matth. 18. 3 4. Answ. 1. If Mark 10. 15. be like Matth. 18. 3 4. then also Mark 10. 14. is in like manner understood the Kingdom of Heaven as Matth. 18. 3 4. For it is understood of the same Mark 10. 14 15. as is proved before 2. Mr. B. conceived them like by putting them together in the chapter before answered and the New Annot. and Diodati whose Testimonies are alleged in my Postscript pag. 151. Mr. Bl. adds Thirdly were it granted him that the Kingdom of glory must be understood both in Christs reason and application yet he is nothing holpen Infants have right to the Church visible militant bcause they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant Acts 2 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved not necessarily saved but now having entered Covenant with God they were in a capacity and therefore added as visible Church-members Infants standing in this capacity ought to have admission likewise Answ. It helps me much to answer the arguments drawn from Matth. 19. 14. for infants visible Church-membership if by the Kingdom of Heaven be not meant the visible Church For then it is not there affirmed that infants are visible Church-members Nor doth Mr. Bls. reserve regain the loss to prove it by consequence For his speech is not true Infants have right meaning of admission to the visible Church because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant Nor is it proved Acts 2. 47. where Mr. Bl. perverts the meaning of the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in English the saved that is either the saved from that crooked generation v. 40. by their effectual calling as 2 Tim. 1. 9. Tit. 3. 5. or by an enallage of tense such as should be saved and that certainly or necessarily as 2 Cor. 2. 15. not as Mr. Bl. they were in a capacity to be saved for so were those that were not called and therefore added as visible Church-members Nor is Mr. Bls. proposition gathered thence for neither is there any thing in the words to prove that then all were added to the Church which should be saved much less which were in a capacity to be saved or on the contrary that all that were added to the Church should be saved much less that their right to be added to the Church was from this that they should be saved It is said the Lord added to the Church such as should be saved it is not said the Apostles added them to the Church because they were to be saved yea v. 41. it is said that even of those that were to be saved they gladly received the word and then were baptized and added So that if the Text be rightly looked into there is nothing to be gathered thence of the persons right to be added to the Church or the Ministers duty to add to the Church by baptism persons meerly upon this consideration that they shall be saved but onely that it is the course of Gods providence to add to his Church such as shall be saved I yet add that if Mr. Bls. proposition were granted him they have a right to the church-Church-visible militant who shall be of the Church triumphant yet this right cannot be claimed but by those who are elect and therefore from these Scriptures so expounded Matth. 19. 14. Acts 2. 47. it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptized and to be added to the Church not the natural children of true believers who are many of them non elect nor can a Minister gather thence he ought to baptize any of them till he know they are elect and shall be saved and therefore they rashly and profanely baptize from hence them that they have no knowledg of that of them is the Kingdom of glory and
the flesh that is being the childe of a believer by natural generation but that he deduceth their casting out of the Church from it and that the birth after the flesh is taken in the worser part as that which bringeth bondage not Church estate or Christian liberty nor doth birth after the flesh respect the descent from a believer but the bond-woman and that this birth is in the Antitype allegoâ—ical and yet the Adverbs then and now are Adverbs of time and a history is related in both parts of the 29. v. of Gal. 4. Generally interpreters take the words even so it is now as meant of the Jews which cannot be true literally for they were not born after the flesh that is of bond-women but of free-women which were true Israelites or daughters of Abraham as Mr. B. here confesseth Mr. Bl. proceeds Secondly he sayth that I say such are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth they persecute the Church and are cast out I desire the Reader to consider if this had any truth in it whether it hold with greater strength for me or him They are cast out and therefore they were in is my Argument they are cast out and therefore were never in sayth Mr. T. 2. The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out Ishmael was in the family when he persecuted though afterwards he was cast out of the family these are in the Church though in case they continue persecution they shall in fine be cast out now in present they have a being in it Answ. It is true that this was my second Exception against his gross perverting of the Apostles words even so it is now as if the meaning were that by virtue of being born after the flesh some infants to wit those that are born of a believing parent are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth 1. They persecute which cannot be meant of infants 2. In that they are born after the flesh they persecute the Church therefore he ascribes no privilege to them as accruing to them by the birth after the flesh but a cursed practice 3. That they persecute the Church therefore while born after the flesh they were not in the bosom of the Church that is the Church Christian visible 4. That they are cast out therefore not in the Church To the two first of these nothing is answered the consequence of the third is denied he supposeth they did persecute the Church and yet remained in which is most palpably false For this being apparently meant of the unbelieving Jews that sought righteousness by the Law and acknowledged so by Interpreters it is notoriously false that they were in the bosom of the Christian Church while they did persecute the Church yea Saul himself was not after his conversion taken in presently to communion with the Disciples at Jerusalem till they knew that he ceased to be a persecutor Acts 9. 26. so that the words even so it is now expounded as Mr. Bls. words intimate even so now by virtue of being born after the flesh that is by natural generation born of a believing parent there are some even infants that are in the bosom of the Christian visible Church as members of it and remaining in it do persecute the Church are so false and the Exposition so unsavoury that it is a wonder to me that neither Mr. Bl. nor the Prefacers to his Book take care to have it left out That which Mr. Bl. answers to the fourth thing in this exception is of like stamp 1. He sayth It follows not they were cast out therefore never in But my Argument is this they were by reason of their being born after the flesh cast out therefore not for this reason in the bosom of the Church 2. That it follows they are cast out therefore they were in which consequence I deny being understood of the Church Christian visible and the particular persons who are sayd to be cast out for they are sayd to be cast out not from what they had but from what they might have had or others had as Matth. 8. 12. it is sayd The children of the Kingdom shall be east out of the Kingdom of Heaven v. 11. in which others were and they not into outer darkness He sayth also The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out but mentions a command of casting them out To which I replied As if Gods dictum were not factum if they were not cast out why doth the Apostle allege that Text My meaning was Gods speech of the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael was not a bare command but such as included a sentence and decree of God which he took course to execute and that the Apostle allegeth the Text not to prove a duty but to shew an event or fact of God For as the Apostle allegeth it the casting out is of the legal covenant and the children of it those that desired to be under the Law and their casting out is their rejecting from the inheritance of righteousness and being Gods people now this could not be any mans duty but Gods act determining and accordingly accomplishing this sentence that righteousness shall not be by the Law nor Justitiaries his people and therefore it is most absurd in Mr. Bl. to determine that some by virtue of being born after the flesh have a right to be in the bosom of the Church Christian when the Apostle determines they are for this reason rejected or cast out I had thirdly excepted against Mr. Bl. as making those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed wherein he joyns with Arminius in calling them Abrahams seed who sought justice in the Law Mr. Bl. Vindic. Foed cap. 40. sayth I joyn with Arminius and that he follows Mr. Bayne For sayth he I interpret it of a natural seed that inherit outward privileges and never reach the birth of the spirit so Mr. Baines interprets it the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham Baines on Ephes. 1. pag. 140. quarto Answ. It is true Mr. Bayne hath those words but yet he excepteth pag. 139. against Arminius as I do for calling legal justitiaries who are meant by they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed For there he thus speaks Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken It is true that Mr. Baines so interprets the term children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bl. hath cited him which place he meant by here but not the teâ—m he that is born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. yea pag. 138. he saith For though children of the flesh in some other Scripture meaning Gal. 4. 29. doth note out justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here Rom. 9. 8. the literal
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
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
those believers had signs following them verse 17. Answ. The rule is disciples by profession are to be baptized to which is equipollent believers by profession I say not that believers only who are such as those Mark 16. 16. are to be baptized by us But yet comparing Mark 16. 15 16. with Mat. 28. 19. I gather that a disciple and believer are terms equipollent and so it helps me to understand the term disciple as answerable to the term believer And though by reason of the matter predicated Mark 16. 16. the believer there is only a true believer yet the term often is given to believers only by profession and we find such warrantably baptized and that is enough for our direction though we are to require more yet we are not to forbear baptism till we know there is more We acknowledge only true believers have right before God to baptism but in the face of the Church believers by profession have right to baptism and are to be taken by us for true believers upon their profession till they be discovered to be otherwise As for verse 17. it doth not say these or some of these signs shall follow every of them that believe but they are true if they followed some of them that believe sith the terms being indefinite in matter contingent the Proposition is true if onely particular Indefinita propositio in materia contingenti aequipollet particulari say Logicians But there is an objection ad hominem against my self that I have said that if I knew an infant were actually sanctified c. I would baptize him if so then an infant is not excluded out of the institution Answ. I grant that an infant barely as an infant is not excluded out of the institution but as ordinarily not known to be a disciple or believer If an infant were known to be a disciple or believer I would baptize him as I would one who having his tongue cut out who is known to be a believer otherwaies But then I have added that this would be upon extraordinary manifestation onely and so not according to ordinary rule and therefore justifies onely that extraordinary fact not the ordinary practice of infant-baptism which hath no rule ordinary or extraordinary But then saith Mr. M. page 215. shew us your extraordinary â—ule Answ. When I do thus or challenge this I shall in the mean time it is enough that my concession doth not infringe my argument against baptizing infants ordinarily without ordinary rule Mr. M. hath yet another exception in his Sermon page 44. That no other are mentioned to be baptized but disciples or believers because a new Church was to be constituted and then all were to be baptized upon profession of faith after the children came in by their right by vertue of the Covenant Ref. 1. when I come to examine Mr. Ms. Conclusions I shall shew that there is no such Covenant as to give right to believers infants to be baptized yea that title to the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision and therefore this is a vain pretence 2. He assigns that for a reason why no other were baptized which was not a reason For in the Jewish Church which was already constituted and which Christ did join himself to and to whose children they say did belong the Covenant yet while other were baptized all the time of John and Christs Ministery on earth no one infant was appointed to be baptized no not those infants Mark 10. which Christ blessed and which were if Paedobaptists say true believers infants in Covenant 3. It is a vain pretence that there is no mention of baptized infants because they had no right till their parents were converted For neither when they were converted is there any mention of the infants baptism 4. The institution Mat. 28. 19. expounded by the practice of John Baptist c. is the standing rule for Churches at first planting and after increasings nor can any other rule be produced distinct from this and therefore neither at first conversion nor after settlement of Churches are any to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they be disciples of Christ or believers by profession SECT VIII The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake c. against the order of teaching afore baptizing of Mr. M. Mr. Hussey that baptizing is discipling are refelled AGainst the argument from the order of teaching first and then baptizing it was excepted that it is said Mark 1. 4. John did baptize and preach which objection in my Examen was removed by the words of Beza par 4. s. 1. To which I add that the reason is manifest from the text why the one was put after the other not because he did baptize any afore he had preached but because Mark having expressed his baptism it was needfulhe should shew the difference between Johns baptism and the Jewish or Phasaical baptism To this Mr. M. returns thus much Christs order is say you teaching should go before baptizing is not that the same with this That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptized To which I only say 1. That the arguments are not the same as I made them the first being taken from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the other from the order of teaching afore baptizing 2. However I take that which Mr. M. grants that it is the same to teach and to make disciples by preaching before baptizing But Mr. Cobbet just vindic part 2. ch 3. sect 2 allegeth something against this argument He grants some things in this order of Christ are perpetual but he will not have all to be presidentiall to all Churches and times because it is said Mar. 16. 17. in the same speech that miraculous signs should follow them that believe But if this were good then the rule should only hold while such gifts remain which no churches now have and so he must fall into the opinion that makes water-baptism a temporary ordinance and those things which he grants perpetual as viz. preaching the Gospel before baptism is to be administred by such as preach discipled inchurched persons are to be baptized that in founding churches the first members are to be visible professors of the faith in reference to church estate that baptism is with water applyed to the persons baptized and that into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost must be temporary as well as teaching before baptizing If the one be perpetual notwithstanding this reason so is the other and presidential to all churches and times But saith Mr. Cobbet there is a distinction to be made in baptizing at the gathering of Churches and when they are gathered the order must be observed at the former not the later Answ. 1. If it was to be so at first gathering of churches why did not those in New England observe it then when they first gathered their churches surely they were not rightly gathered for want of baptism if this be the
by Christ Matth. 28. 19. But they baptized no other than repenting and believing Disciples of Christ no infants Ergo. To say that in Christs and the Apostles daies there were no infants which they might baptize is neither true nor consistent with their own allegations of Mat. 19. 13 14. Acts 2. 39. 16. 15. To say that at first gathering the Church they were not to do it but after is to make them faulty in not observing the commission of Christ as they expound it that even in the first planting of the Church they were to baptize disciples immediately and remotely such as Mr. Baxter speaks and to hold that the Apostles practice is not our pattern and that the first Church was not best ordered though it was indeed the purest reformed Church and therefore the solemn covenant ties us to endeavour the establishing the worship of God according to it To say infants were baptized by them but not recorded is without proof or any likelyhood of truth and tends to derogate from the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures Out of all which I conclude that infants even of believers are not disciples appointed Matth. 28. 19. ordinarily to be baptized SECT XI Mr. Cottons allegations in his Dialogue the first chapter to prove infants Disciples are shewed to be insufficient AGainst this Mr. John Cotton in his Dialogue intituled The Grounds and Ends of Baptism c. chapter 1. disputes thus That all the children of the faithful or which is all one all the children of the Church for the Church is a congregation of the faithfull that they are all of them disciples may appear by the testimony of the Prophet Esay who speaking of the times of the Church in the New Testament All thy children saith he shall be taught of God Esa. 54. 13. and if they be taught of God then are they disciples for that is the meaning of the word disciples Disciples are taught or learnt of God Answ. 1. It is supposed but not proved that the tossed v. 11. is meant of the Church of the N. T. and not of the people of the Jews after the Captivity 2. The phrase of children of the Church is not a Scripture-phrase nor that I know is the Church made a mother though Jerusalem which is above be called the Mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. which seems to be meant of the Evangelical Covenant 3. It is supposed that to be children of the Church and to be children of the faithful are one yet Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. makes them only the Church seed who are children of persons inchurched otherwise though the parents be faithful yet they are not the Church seed Besides to be children of the Church is not all one with to be natural children of believers For the Church doth not beget or bring forth by natural seed but by spiritual to wit the word of God 1 Peter 1. 23. and children are begotten in the womb of the Church by the Spirit and therefore said to be born after the Spirit Gal. 4. 29. by the promise or covenant of the free woman v. 30. And indeed the New Annotations on Isaiah 54. 13. hath thus And thy Children shall be taught of the Lord By the outward Ministery of the word and inward co-operation of the Spirit Jerem. 31. 34. John 6. 45. 2 Cor. 13. 3. 1 Cor. 2. 10. 1 John 2. 20 27. Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 2. s. 6. Denique non frustrà Deus apud Iesaiam hâ◠not â disoernit filios Ecclesiae ab extraneis quod omnes erudiet verbo ut sint ab ipso edocti 4. It is supposed that the Church whose children those are is the visible church as such Whereas 1. in Scripture no Church is called the Mother but Hierusalem above Gal. 4. 26. which is the mother of us all and that is either the Evangelical covenant or the invisible Church The Churches children are Christs seed and they are those whom his Father hath given him Heb. 2. 13. made disciples by his Word and Spirit Our Lord Christ where he cites this passage of the Prophet John 6. 45. applies it to those that are drawn of the Father and whom he will raise up at the last day ver 44. who are only the children of the invisible Church Diodati annot on John 6. 45. all not all and every particular person as it appears by ver 44. 65 but all the elect and children of God Noâ— is Mr. C 〈…〉 shift rather than answer of any moment when he saith For look what promises are made to the invisible Church they are for their sakes offered to all the members of the visible Churches whereof the lively members are the chief For 1. He doth alter the term in the objection which was made not offered wherein both he and Mr. George Philips before him deal not rightly so speaking as that it may be taken that to be in covenant to have the covenant made is all one with to have it offered Whereas it is offered not only to the children of the visible Church but to many professed unbelievers as Acts 13. 46. Now this answering is a way to delude Readers when the objection is that the promise is made only to the children of the invisible Church to answer the promises are also offered to the members of the visible and when it is expected that it should be proved the promise is made to conclude that it is offered 2. Mr. Cotton dare not say that promise to be made to any but those that are children of the invisible Church and therefore it can be meant of no other and so no other taught of the Lord and disciples which will not reach to the natural children of visible in churched believers 3. Thy children is not all one with thy infants Mr. Cotton denies not that the meaning in part may be of men of years and if so no necessity to understand it of infants and then his argument falls which is to prove infants to be disciples 4. Besides our Lord Christ where he cites John 6. 45. the prophet leaves out the word children and applies the teaching of God onely to true believers Omnes saith Grotius quibus sermo Evangelii annuntiatur 5. Were it granted Mr. Cotton that all believers infants were taught of God by secret indiscernable teaching yet this being such cannot be applyed to the disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. who are disciples by preaching the Gospel and known to be such by their profession But Mr. Cotton tells us The infants or children of the faithful are not to be excluded from the number of the children of the Church For the same Prophet speaking of the same Church fetcheth in infants among the blessed ones of the Church and blessed with such spiritual light and life from Christ as if they had lived an hundred years in the Church Esa. 65. 20. There shall be no more saith he thenâ—â— forth an infant of daies nor an
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.
nor is there any consideration of a Father entering into Covenant for his childe more than of a Husbands entering into covenant for his wife or a Masters entering into Covenant for his servant and therefore if this fact were good to prove if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering for him and his it is good to prove that if the Husband or Master be a believer the wife and servant are entered into Covenant the Husband and Master entering it for them and theirs and so wives and servants shall be visible Church-members as well as infants of believers by the faith of Husbands and Masters 2. If the parents faith procure this privilege for the child then either because it is his childe and then it procures it for the childe while it is his childe though the childe be at years and an infidel for then it is his childe or else upon condition the childe agree to it but then the privilege belongs not to infants and there is an inherent condition required to wit the childes consent besides the parents faith if it be said that it procures it to the childe while aâ— infant but not when it comes to years how can this be true that the parents faith or covenanting should immediately and directly constitute them visible Church-members when infants because they are their children and the covenant is made with them and their children as they say and yet they not visible Church-members while they are children surely the immediate cause continuing the effect continues and therefore if the parents faith with the covenant make the childe in infancy a visible Church-member it must also make it a visible Church-member at years though an infidel 3. Whereas it is supposed by Mr. B. that the parents as believers entered the covenant Deut. 29. it rather appears by Moses his preface v. 2 3 4. that Moses did therefore draw them into this solemn Covenant because they were to that day unbelievers 4. It is false that this entering into covenant did make them Church-members For. 1. The end of it was to prevent them from backsliding v. 18. to Idolatry and to prevent Gods forsaking them thereupon v. 13. 2. They were Church-members before both by Gods special separating of the whole nation to be his people and the solemn Covenant at mount Horeb and so were members of that Church as part of that nation 3. If this entering into covenant made them there Church-members visible then it made their posterity also then visible Church-members for with them also was that covenant made v. 14 15. and so persons should be made visible Church-members afore they are born 5. If it were true that that covenanting made them visible Church-members of that Church yet it advantageth no whit to prove infants now visible members of the Christian Church which is not national as that was nor gathered by the chief Magistrate as that was nor injoyned such a national Covenant as that but consisting of particular believers of all nations gathered by the Preaching of the Gospel and voluntary personal covenanting for themselves onely testified by their being baptized into Christ. If any ask whether a national covenant or a covenant of parents for children be now allowable I answer I deny not but such a national or parental covenant may be allowed and in some cases covenient yet I say that it makes not all the subjects and children Church-members nor bindes them without their consent any farther than the matter of the covenant it self bindes As for that which Mr. B. saith if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out it is false if we understand it in respect of Church-membership of children at years they may be in the Church visible though their parents were unbelievers and left out of the Church though believers if of justification it is false both of infants and children of years And it is utterly untrue that in the Christian Church children are made visible Church-members by parents faith or left out because of their unbelief For 1. There is no word of Scripture that saith so The three Texs Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16 17. c. 1 Cor. 7. 14. are fully discussed already in the first part of this review and what Mr. Blake hath replied shall be examined God willing in that which follows 2. No one passage of the New Testament doth shew that any infant was reckoned for a visible Church-member of the Christian Church in the New Testament but many shew they were not 3. If the infant children of the faithfull had been accounted in the Apostles times visible members of the Christian Church there had been some thing done by the Apostles and other holy men to have preserved their right but no practise of baptism on them nor any other act can be produced that the Apostles or other holy men did to preserve such a right Ergo. 4. The Covenant of the Gospel is with particular persons made believers out of all nations their gathering by Preaching the Gospel to them which evidently shew that God intended to take in persons into the Christian Church upon their own faith and not in a national way as he did the Church of the Jews 5. The Texts besides the three forenamed brought by the Assembly Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. to wit Ezek. 16. 20 21. Gen. 3. 15. Gen. 17. 7. and the Texts brought by Mr. B. not here examined to wit Matth. 23. 37 38 39. Revel 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. 7. 22. Rom. 4. 11. Exod 20. 6. Iosh. 7. 25 26. Deut 13. 12 13 14. Psal. 37. 26. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16 17. Deut. 28. 4 18 32 41. Mal. 2. 15 are so palpably impertinent to prove the visible Church-membership of infants now that I am in a demur with my self whether it be fit for me to bestow any more pains in shewing the impertinency of them 6. The speeches of Protestants of note do make the persons own profession that sign whereby they are judged and from whence they are termed of the visible Church Synops. Profess Leydens Disp. 40. sect 32. Ecclesia visibilis appellatur non tam quia homines ipsi visibiles sunt sed quia ipsorum ordo professio communio sensibus exponuntur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 9. sect 3. visibilis dicitur Ecclesia ratione communionis sensibilis membrorum inter se. Mr. Marshall himself in the Sermon at the Spiâ—â—le April 1652. stiled by Mr. B. that late excellent honest solid Sermon for unity pag. 15. hath these words Secondly that part of the Church which is upon the earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it ly in internal grace which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church but now as the same Church and members doth make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eys and
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
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
that they shall be saved SECT XIX Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. part 1. cap. 5. and the arguings of Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee Mr. Fuller Mr. Sidenham from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered HAving answered Mr. B. Mr. Bl. my two eager Antagonists I shall add animadversions on Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just Vindic. part 1. ch 4. sect 1. 1. He says without proof that they that brought the infants mentioned Luke 18. 15. were pious minded parents 2. He denies of such is the kingdom of God to be meant of the Kingdom of glory the contrary whereof is proved in the next section before against Mr. Blake 3. He supposeth that these words suffer little children to come to me being granted to contain a rule of suffering little ones of that sort such as those are to come to him and the words of such is the Kingdom of God being expounded of the invisible Church it must be conceived that Christ must direct them to suffer members of the invisible Church to come to him and then that they may be known But this is his mistake they that expound thus the words suffer these little children and other little children in age if any hereafter be brought to my person to be touched to come to me and forbid them not as ye have don these For however they are persons that are not fit to be my hearers yet of these now brought and of some other infants which may be brought and men of years like them in quality is the Kingdom of God the invisible Church or the Kingdom of glory belongs to them may avouch this exposition without supposing their election must come under the cognizance of men nor need they say that onely such who were elected were by this rule so expâ—unded to be permitted to come to Christ. 4. That Christ spake of those infants not as an extraordinary inspired Prophet is said without proof not is it likely sitâ— such blessings were never given but by extraordinary inspiration and Christ appoints not the admitting of little children to any no not to his Apostles but himself 5. That he delivered an ordinary rule of ordinary practise and use afterwards is said without proof nor is it likely sith we reade no more of that practise by any of the Apostles nor any rule concerning it after this one act of Christ Sect. 2. Hâ— denies that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven might be spoken in reference to the future that is that they were elect ones and should in time be of Gods Kingdom that is believers or that they were such as God would bless For Christs words are not of such may will or shall be the Kingdom of God nor that they were of his Kingdom because such as he would bless but rather that they should not be hindered from being blessed of him because of such is the Kingdom of God To which I answer that by the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19. 14. and the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14 15 Luke 18 16 17. must needs be meant the Kingdom of glory is proved before then the sense can be no other than of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is the Kingdom of glory belongs to such as Mat. 5. 3 10. and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth of signifie as Mark 9. 14 c. And then it must needs be an enallage of tense as Mat. 18 1. as Pisc. sch on Mat. 18. 1. est pro futurus est enallage temporis or as Pisc. sch on Matth. 5. 3. ipsis destinatum est dabitur and this is all one as to say they are elect which is Piscators term in his observation on Matth. 19. 14. as I shewed above in answer to Mr. Blake and thus of such is the kingdom of God refers to the present estate as elect to their future as possessours of glory hereafter And so to Mr. Cobbets objection I answer Matth. 5. 10. it is not said theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven but is and yet it must be understood of present title and future possession so here And for his exception at my words that the reason may be given why these infants did belong to Gods Kingdom because they were such as Christ would bless is not avoided by saying they were blessed because of Gods Kingdom For both ways the reason is good they should not be hindered from blessing because theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven the end of blessing or they should not be hindered from blessing because he intended to bless them and therefore theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven Either way that I intended to prove Examen pag. 147. is evinced that the reason why theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven is not from their parents faith which should have been if it were meant as Paedobaptists would of interest in the visible Church but Gods election or Christs blessing I have often said that if Christs minde had been that infants should be baptized he would have commanded these little ones to have been baptized for an Example To this Mr. Cobbet answers that according to our principles they were elect heirs of the kingdom of glory now why should not or were not these infants at least baptized Answ. Because though elect yet were not believers or Disciples by profession But You would allow saith he such to be baptized if of grown years Answ. No untill they were believers or Disciples not barely because elect and heirs of glory But You say saith he that if by extraordinary revelation you knew an infant to be sanctified you would baptize it because the extraordinary revelation would authorize it and the words of Peter Acts 10. 47. and the institution Matth. 28. 19. And then it would follow 1. That persons may be Disciples without being outwardly taught 2. It is agreeable to the rule that persons without personal profession of faith should be baptized Albeit extraordinary things done besides rule cross not ordinary rule yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule 3. It was the minde of Christ they should be baptized as that they should be instructed though it be not expressed Answ. 1. It is true I grant in my Examen p. 142 158 160. upon the grounds mentioned that an infant regenerated united to Christ sanctified by the Spirit upon extraordinary revelation of this might be baptized and the like is said by Mr. Blackwood Apostolical Bapt. p. 51. And for those that have the thing signified let them make it appear to any Church of Christ and they cannot deny their baptism But yet it follows not that these infants might be baptized which are mentioned Matth. 19. 14. For though their election be mentioned yet not their regeneration and sanctification Now Praedestinatio nil ponit in praedestinato and therefore it makes not Disciples or believers at present but assures it as future but we are to baptize actual Disciples and
believers not future But However saith he they may be Disciples who are are not outwardly taught Answ. Who denies it yet they must be learners of Christ in their own persons But then saith he a person may be baptized without personal profession Answ. It is granted when God supplies the absence of it by his revelation otherwise nor is this contrary to the Rule sith that is to baptise known Disciples who are ordinarily known by their personal profession though in this case Gods extraordinary act supplies that want Yet Mr. Cobbets saying is not right that neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule For Abrahams killing his son was in it self contrary to rule yet upon extraordinary command it was to be done And for the third though it might be conceived Christs minde that the children should be instructed though it be not mentioned Luke 18. 16 17. because it was a duty of perpetual equity by virtue of the moral Law yet baptising infants being a meer positive rite that hath no reason or warrant but institution is not to be conceived Christs minde without some declaration which he neither then when he had so fit opportunity nor at any time else expressed There are some more things in Mr. Cobbet censurable as that he makes the infants paterns as well of receiving the kingdom at least externally as of the affection and disposition with which it is to be received whereas â— the words Matth. 18. 3â—4 do plainly make them paterns onely of humility and such good dispositions as are in children fit to be imitated 2. In Mr. Cobbets sense the words of Christ would be false whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe externally by an initial seal or some other visible sign as laying on hands c. shall not enter therein For then that Popish Doctrine or rather more rigid than Popish must be maintained that no unbaptized Martyr or other shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven And in like manner it is gratis dictum without proof sayd of such like infants like them in covenant and Church interest in God is his kingdom there being not a word in the Text that leads to this paraphrase and the plain meaning is before expressed That which Mr. Cobbet sayth in answer to the reason of Piscator Why they were not infants because Christ called them I conceive is not an answer For what he sayth that things ascribed to the children are rather to be understood of parents and he instanceth in Levi's paying Tyths in Abraham Heb. 7. is not right For 1. that which is sayd of Levi is to be understood of Levi not of Abraham for it were neither good sense nor to his purpose to say Abraham payd Tyths in Abraham 2. If things done by a parent and related by the Holy Ghost as mysterious passages are imputed to the children yet it is absurd to understand in an historical narration of facts that to be meant as spoken to the parents which was spoken to the children Other things I let pass which oppose not my dispute but others and what things he speaks in answer to my Objections and what concerns the answering the imaginary absurdities arising from our Doctrine in that chapter I refer to another place This is sufficient in answer to what he sayth in opposition to me about that passage Luke 18. 16 17. Dr. Homes in his Animad on my Exercit. pag. 57 58. argues thus To whom indefinitely as such Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs to them as such the seal of converance and confirmation of Heaven and that blessing belongs For if the Land be mine the Deeds and Seals of Conveyance are mine But Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children more whiles little children so the Text here expresly To them belong or which is all one of such is the kingdom of Heaven and he took them in his arms and blessed them Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the Seal of Conveyance or Confirmation of Heaven and the blessing of Heaven which in the New Testament according to the time Christ spake is baptism Answ. Neither is it true That baptism is the seal of conveyance of heaven and the blessing for it that I finde in Scripture but the Spirit Ephos. 4. 30. Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Nor is it true That heaven and the blessing of heaven belong to little children indefinitely as such that is as little children For then it should belong to all little children nor to them as children of believing parents for it should belong to all children of believing parents but as they are elect And to these I grant baptism belongs when they are called and believe not before as a conveyance may be made to a childe yet he is not to have it in his hands till he come to understand it and is fit to make use of it So that the major may be denied if the belonging of the seal be meant in respect of present use or possession And the minor is to be denied if as such be meant as little children or children of believers and the inference on the conclusion is denied the seal belongs to them Ergo baptism Other arguments of Dr. Homes are answered in my Apology pag. 102. though briefly yet sufficiently Nor hath Mr. Geree in his Vâ—ndiciae Vindiciarum ch 10. brought any thing worth rejoyning in reply to my answer to his sixth argument in my Apology pag. 101 102. It is false which he saith in admitting to ordinances we proceed not upon judgment of certainty but charity nor is a judgment of charity grounded upon hope of what a person may be any rule to us in admitting to baptism For if so then hope of a profane persons amendment were enough to baptize him Mr. Bailleâ—'s reasoning in his Anabaptism pag. 149. since imposition of hands a seal of Christs grace and blessing and of the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants that therefore baptism a seal of that same kinde when once the Lord had solemnely at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denied to them is but dictates 1. He says baptism is a seal of the same kinde with Christs laying on hands which he saith without proof nor is it true For. 1. Christs laying on hands was an act extraordinary done by Christ himself as the great Prophet but baptism was an act of ordinary ministration not done by Christ himself but his Disciples John 4. 1 2. 2. Baptism was the duty of the baptized Acts 2. 38. not onely the baptizers but not so laying on hands by Christ. 3. If baptism be a seal of the same kinde with laying on of hands then laying on hands is a seal and a Sacrament of the same kind with baptism which is counted a point of Popery 2. To
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
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 〈◊〉
Anti-paedobaptism OR THE SECOND PART Of the full Review of the Dispute Concerning INFANT-BAPTISM In which the invalidity of Arguments inferring a Duty from a positive Rite of the Old Testament concerning a positive Rite of the New by reason of Analogy between them is shewed and the Argument against Infant-baptism from Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. the sayings and practice in the New Testament is made good against the Writings of Mr. Stephen Marshall Mr. Richard Baxter Mr. Thomas Blake Mr. Thomas Cobbet Mr. John Cotton Dr. Nathaniel Homes Mr. Robert Bailee Dr. Daniel Featley Mr. John Brinsley Mr. Cuthbert Sydenham Dr. Henry Hammond Mr. Thomas Fuller and others By John Tombs B. D. But speaking the truth in love we may grow up into him in all things which is the Head even Christ. Ephes. 4. 15. LONDON Printed by Henry Hills and are to be sold at his House at the Sign of Sir John Oldcastle in Py-corner MDCLIV To the Right Honorable the Lord PRESIDENT and COUNCIL to his Highness the Lord PROTECTOR I Presume to present to your Honors a Continuation of the full Review of a Dispute of which the first part was presented to his Highness more than a year ago To which Writing I take my self many ways obliged not onely because of my own engagements but also and that chiefly by reason of the important concernment that the truth be preserved I am sensible that the increase of Books is thought a grievance by many and that none are more unwelcome than such as are about Controversies specially when they tend to unsettle men in what they have received and in no point more than in this Few have abilitie to discern in Disputes which part preponderates Few are willing to bestow pains in such unpleasant studies Few can digest a truth which exposeth to reproach and loss These and other considerations had kept me from this adventure if my allegiance to Christ had not bound me to vindicate his truth and charity to men tied me to endeavour their undeceiving Wisdom must be justified by her children nor can he give a good account to Christ at his appearing who shall out of undue respects leave to spoil the truth with which he is intrusted Polemick Writing are to few delightfull yet necessary it being unlikely that practice of piey should flourish when Doctrines of Faith and Worship are corrupted They that decline studying and meddling with Controversies if they be not sluggish yet are likely unwary not heeding that thereby the wall is unrepaired which should keep out Seducers from perverting the Churches Peace is indeed very desirable but Truth is put first Zech. 8. 19. Were men better temper'd than commonly they are dissenters might ventilate things in question with less offence I mention it with rejoycing as a sign of Gods presence with us in hope that the same Spirit of unanimity will diffuse it self among our Christian brethren throughout the Nation That Dissenters and Contenders in writing and otherwise in this and other points for their several judgments have acted hitherto in the business of approving publick Preachers with much harmony of minde and agreement of votes Surely the work of Christ would be much advanced by a firm consociation in order to the work of Christ so far as we agree though there should remain as no doubt there will diversities of opinions in things disputable Nor do I despair that Disputes will be mannaged with more sweetness of spirit candour and tenderness towards dissenters than formerly they have been In this hope my intention is with Gods assistence to prosecute the Dispute begun a part whereof I now tender to your Honours being desirous that my self and the cause I mannage should stand right in your eys who are the eys of the Common-wealth For whom I beg light from Heaven toguide you in your way and help from him who hath been hitherto your strength and who will be with you while you be with him and remain London June 1. 1654. Your Honours humble and devoted Servant in the Lord John Tombes The Contents SEct. 1. Of the reason and purport of this writing Sect. 2. That no good argument can be drawn from positive rites of the Old Testament to prove a Divine appointment in positive rites of the New nor is it true which Mr. Baxter saith that infants admission into the Church is fully determined in the Old Testament Sect. 3. Mr. Blakes plea for arguments from analogy in meer positive rites of the Old Testament and Mr. Baxters speech about infant admission as determined in it are refelled Sect. 4. Mr. Baxters speech about the little sayd for Antipaedobaptism is vain and his speech about the antiquity of infant-baptism is very inconsiderate and his speech about the difficulty and importance of the point in question is examined Sect. 5. The first argument against infant-baptism from the institution Mat. 19. 28. Mark 16. 16. and the practise in the New Testament is urged Sect. 6. Mr. Blakes exception against the major that such institution or example as I require for inifant-baptism is unnecessary is refelled Sect. 7. Mr. Marshalls exceptions that Matth. 28. 19. is not the institution of baptism that onely Disciples are not appointed to be baptized that this was a rule onely for a Church to be constituted are refelled Sect. 8. The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake c. against the arguing from the order of teaching afore baptizing of Mr. Marshal Mr. Hussey c. that baptizing is discipling are refelled Sect. 9. The exception of Mr. Marshal Mr. Blake Mr. Cobbet that nations are appointed to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. and so infants is refelled Sect. 10. That infants of believers are not Disciples appointed to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. Sect. 11. Mr. Cottons allegations in his Dialogue ch 1. to prove infants Disciples are shewed to be insufficient Sect. 12. Mr. Baxters allegation of Acts 15. 10. to prove infants Disciples is fully answered and his arguments retorted Sect. 13. The arguments are vindicated which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples Acts 15. 10. Sect. 14. Infants discipleship is not proved by Mr. Baxter from Lev. 25 41 42. which speaks of the Israelites being Gods servants Sect. 15. 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. Sect 16. Dr. Featlie and Mr. Stephens arguments from John 3 5. for infant-baptism are answered and baptism shewed not to be a cause of regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words are considered Sect. 17. The 31. Cap. of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof c. is answered and Mark 10. 13 14 15 16. is shewed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism and his description of visible Church-membership is considered and his argument from Deut. 29. 10. shewed to be insufficient Sect. 18. The 41. Chap. of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Foeder about Christs speech of little children
Matth. 19. 14. is answered and my sayings in my Postscript vindicated Sect. 19. Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. part 1. ch 4. and the arguings of Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee Mr. Fuller Mr. Sidenham from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered Sect. 20. The practise of infant-baptism is not proved Acts 16. 15. by baptizing an houshold against Mr. Marshall Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee Mr. Cook Mr. Sidenham Mr. Fuller Sect. 21. That 1 Cor. 10. 2. proves not the practise of infant-baptism against Mr. Bailee Mr. Cobbet c. Sect. 22. Mr. Blakes argument from Gal. 4. 29. is answered Sect. 23. Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Heb. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled Sect. 24. Dr. Hammond his way of proving infant-baptism from the Jews baptizing Proselytes children is shewed to be vain Sect. 25. Dr. Hammonds elusion of Matth. 28. 19. alleged against infant-baptism is refelled Sect. 26. Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14 nor from sayings of ancients proves the Apostles to have baptized infants Anti-Paedobaptism OR A Full Review of the Dispute concerning INFANT-BAPTISM SECT I. Of the Reason and Purport of this writing HAving by my Postscript Antidote Addition to the Apology Praecursor and Ample disquisition of the meaning of the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17 The promise Acts 2. 39. The holinesse of Children 1. Cor. 7. 14. formerly printed endeavoured to vindicate my self and the doctrine of Anti Paedobaptism which I assert from the objections which have been published to hinder the entertainment of it I now proceed with the divine assistance to review the dispute about Infant Baptism which was made publick by the Printing of my Exercitation and Examen of Mr. Marshal's Sermon in the year 1645. which is become the more laborious and tedious to me by reason of the many Antagonists and their several writings since published notwithstanding the equal and serious motion I made in the Epilogue of my Examen that I might see some one writing either of the Assemblies or of their Commitees or the London Ministers who in their attestation ceasur'd my Positions as erroneous and pernicious in which the whole strength of the proofs for Infant-baptism might be put together and Readers with my self eased of the trouble and charge of buying and perusing so many several writings which some disclaim and others magnifie But this motion which would have quickly brought the matter to an issue and made a shorter dispatch of the dispute than is now likely to be being so far from meeting with a ready acceptance that thereby an occasion was taken to misrepresent me as a braving challenger and one that minds self-ostâ—ntation more than the truth of God which is an artifice unworthy the users and an opposite course taken to bear me down with a floud of injurious calumnies and impetuous rather than considerate Antagonists I am put to this choice either to weary my self by answering so manie several writings or else give advantage to them who are ready to take all advantages how indirectly soever as appears by master Baxters dealing with me about the dispute at Bewdly master Simon Ford of Reading his dealing with me about the passages in the Act at Oxford 1652. to possesse people with prejudices against me and of the unanswerablenesse of what is brought for Infant-baptism if they can but pretend that it is declined though it be neglected onely for the futility and feeblenesse of it But the former being more eligible for the truths sake I conceive my self engaged to proceed in the Review of the Dispute The writings which with mine own I am to review are either such as are directly written against me or such as at least for the truths sake I conceive meet to examine whether they meddle with my writings or not of the former sort are Master Stephen Marshals defence of his Sermon Master John Gerees Vindiciae paedobaptismi and Vindiciae Vindiciarum Doctor Nathanael Homes his Animadversions on my Exercitation Master Thomas Blake his Answer to my Letter and a great part of his Vindiciae foederis and most of all Mr. Richard Baxter his plain Scripture proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism and together with these what Mr. Thomas Cobbet of New England in his just vindication hath thought fit to oppose against my Examen sent in a manuscript to New England and delivered to him to examine as Mr. Cotton informed me by his letter though I be not named in Mr. Cobbets book Others there are which though they do not expresly oppose me yet Mr. M. Mr. B. or some other do direct me to them as Mr. Cottons Dialogue Vossius his Theses Mr. Baillees Anabaptism Mr. Drew Mr. Church Mr. Stephens Dr. Featly Mr. Lyford Doctor Hammond c. Mr. Rutherfurd is one to whose writing Mr. Baxter pag. 211. directs me but I have not yet met with â—ame other thing which he hath written about this argument than what I find in his Temperate plea chap. 11 12. yet when any other thing of his or any other Authors occurrs which suggests any thing considerable besides what others before have published and is already answered I do intend to take it into the Review and to deal impartially as one that seeks truth and is sensible that he is accountable to the Lord about writing as well as speaking neverthelesse in handling thereof I shall not tie my self any further than I see necessary to set down each Authors words at large but so much of them as I conceive requisite and according to their meaning and the force of their arguments as rightly as I can The method I once intended to use in this Review was according to the order of my Examen but I shall now use such an arbitrary method as I shall judge most clear and comprehensive beginning with Mr. Richard Baxter his three first chapters of the first part of his book fore-named SECT II. That no good argument can be drawn from the positive Rites of the old Testament to prove a divine appointment in positive Rites of the new nor is it true as Mr B. saith that Infants admission into the Church is fully determined in the old Testament MAster B. begins the dispute pag. 1. with a preface tending to move affections otherwise than pleaders before the Aropagites were to do and was desired of Mr. B. that Logick might be used and Rhetorick for born but however the preface is framed and takes with many yet so many mistakes in it are shewed in my Praecursor as might deterre readers from blinding their eyes by the dust raised in it He then tells us he must needs lay down several positions that must necessarily be well understood before they could understand the point in hand and these are no fewer than ten which if they had been all omitted I see not but that the point might have been as well understood as now it is I do not remember where master B. makes any use of
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.
c. restraining it to the Infants of members joined in a Church gathered after the congregational way as it is called Mr. Cawdrey Mr. Blake Mr. Rutherfurd and others extend it farther master B. Plain scripture proof c. chap. 29. part 1. pag. 101. to all whosoever they be if they be at a believers dispose And both sides pretend analogy which being uncertain Mr. Ball after much debate about this difference as distrusting analogy determines thus in his reply to the answer of the new England Elders to the 9. posit posit 3. and 4 pag. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ which is as much as to say whatsoever their analogy or resemblance be we must look to the Institution therefore the Institution of each Sacrament must be our rule in the use of them not analogy and analogy is not sufficient to guide us without Institution and to shew that analogy serves not turn of it self to determine who are to be baptised he adds and neither stretch it wider nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure and it is our part to learn of him both to whom how and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred how they agree and wherein they differ in all which we must assirm nothing but what God hath taught us and as he hath taught us Which how they cut the sinews of the argument from Circumcision to Baptism without wrong to master Ball is shewed in my Apology Sect. 13. pag. 57. Mr. M. in his Desence pag. 83. Mr. Blake pag. 74 75. of his answer to my letter seem to deny that Paedobaptists do frame an addition to Gods worship from such analogy the contrary whereof is manifest from the passages cited before But Mr. Blake over and above pag. 75. sets down three cautions which being observed then this kind of arguing from analogy and proportion is without any such pretended danger The insufficieny of which cautions being shewed in my Postscript to the Apology Sect 17 pag. 143. I conceive it unnecessary to repeat my words which the Reader may here find and the vindication of them from what Mr. Blake opposeth in his vindiciae foederis chap 42. follows in the nex Section 4. I argued that if this way of making rules binding men consciences in meer positive worship from analogy of the ceremonies or rites of the Old Testament without institution in the New be valid then our Christian liberty from the Ceremonial Law is made void For by this way of determining things as of Gods appointment by our conceived analogy al or a great part of the Ceremonial Law may be put on our necks under pretence of analogy and so the fruit of Christs purchase of Christian liberty lost and we in vain exhorted to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free For as Chillingworth once told Knot the Jesuit if the Pope be made sole Judge of Centroversies infallible Expositor of Scripture it will be in effect all one as if he were allowed to make a new Scripture and Articles of faith and tyranny may be introduced as well by arbitrary expounding as well as by arbitrary making of laws so in this case the bondage of Moses his law may be put on our necks not onely by those that say it binds in the letter but also by those that say Gods commands about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us in the analogy and proportion 5. This argument hath strength from the sad experience the Church hath formerly and of late had in yielding to these reasonings from analogy in the many Canons of Popes and Prelates heavily loading Gods Church with rites and decrees about them imposed from analogy of the Ceremonial Laws of Moses The Constitutions of Popes and Canons of Prelates and the books of the maintainers of them expounding and defending their rituals and liturgies are full of them to wit rites about Priests their Orders Garments Dues Festivals Sacraments Votaries Religious houses and such like drawn from Mosaical Laws It is a common complaint of Protestants and Antiprelatists that in imitation of the Jews under pretence of analogy a new named Iudaism hath been brought into the Christian Church and the reforming of them like Hercules his labour in clensing Augias his stable Some I have named in my Examen part 3. s. 9. more I might In the Augustan Confession among the Articles of abuses in the chapter of the Ecclesiastick power it s the general complaint that Popish writers made a worship in the New Testament like the Levitical I may use Mr. Bs words in his Appendix to plain Scripture-proof c. pag. 302. And indeed if all that is not contrary to Scripture customs and that mans vain wit can find reasonable from Scripture must be admitted and that upon equal authority with Scripture if they do but take it for a tradition Apostolical Then 1. it will set mans wit a work to make God a worship or judge of the currantness of it according to his reason and one man will think it reasonable and another not 2. And what a multitude of Ceremonies will this admit into the Church to the burthening of mens consciences and the polluting of Gods worship Is not this the door that the body of Popish trash came in at and the Argument that hardneth them in it and hindereth their reformation to this day And if you open this Gap what a multitude of fopperies will rush in Certainly by this means the Gospel hath been shadow'd and repressed no stint either hath been or could be put to the inundation of such impositions as long as liberty hath been given under pretence of analogy with Jewish rites to add to the worship and discipline of the new Testament but it hath happened according to Austins Complaint Epist. 119. to Ianuarius that the state of the Jewish Church under Divine precepts hath been more tolerable than the Christian burdened with humane presumptions Ames Bell. enerv tom 3. lib. 1. cap. 8. th 15. Romanenses in suis ceremoniis partim imitati sunt Gentes partim Iudaeos th 17. Ceremoniae hujusmodi tollunt discrimen illud quod Deus voluit esse inter Iudaeos Christianos quia paedagogiam Iudaicae similem habent 6. If such Arguments from Analogy of Jewish rites abrogated may be valid to impose on mens consciences things about the worship of God then Popes and Prelates are not only unblamable and justifiable in so doing but also Protestants and Non-conformists will be unjustifiable in no yielding to them but opposing them Mr. Church Divine warrant of Infant-bapt pag. 49. in answer to these three latter reasons speaks thus Arguing from the Jewish types for the Substance of those shadowes tends neither to an introducement of Judaism nor yet to a justification of the Quisquilian toyes of the Papists for it is neither arguing for
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
I may reply by way of retortion why may not Mr. T. as well deny an institution and destroy it as well as curtail that which is instituted we shall be able to make it good that he curtails Christs institution in the New Testament cuting off many Churchmembers in Covenant he shall never be able to prove that we extend it by analogy or otherwise beyond the institution Answ. That exception of mine did very well agree with ingenuity and it might have stood better with Mr. Bs. ingenuity to have taken the exception as sufficient to invalidate his rule than to have made this taunting reply The answer had no fault but that it was a little more modest than might have stood with truth For 1. I might have said truly not onely that no reason is given but also that no reason can be given why they may not make a new worship who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament For their analogy being a meer humane invention if they have authority to enlarge the ordinance they have authority to make a new worship the Papists if they have authority to appoint Baptizing of bells they have authority to appoint the Sign of the Cross for the same end for which baptism was the same authority which serves for the one serves for the other Yea if the analogy direct in the nature use and extent of an instituted worship what doth it else but make a new worship And that it may be seen how dangerous it is to follow Mr. Blakes rule I would have it considered how we shall avoid justifying the Popish mass if we stick to it He allows analogy in the understanding of the nature or use of an instituted worship the Lords Supper is an instituted worship and it is conceived it succeeds the Passeover as Baptism Circumcision if then by the analogy of Circumcision we may gather the use of Baptism we may in like manner from the analogy of the Passeover gather the use of the Lords Supper It is certain from he Apostles words 1 Cor. 5. 7. For Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us that the Passeover was a sacrifice and such a sacrifice as resembled Christ and therefore propitiatory and then by analogy the use of the Lords Supper is so too which is the chief point whereby the popish mass is established The very self same rule will prove the Ministers of the Gospel who succeed the Priests of the Law and by analogy from whom according to Mr. Blake the Apostle reasoneth 1 Cor. 9. 13 14 will be proved sacrificing Priests if as Mr. Blake saith analogy may direct us in the use of an instituted ordinance 2. I say Mr. Blake doth by his analogy according to his first rule allow the making a new worship For the worship is not the same but a new worship when though the same element be used yet the nature use and extent of is otherwise than the institution as though the Pharisees used water according to the tradition of the Elders Mark 7. which is the element used in Baptism yet their washing their hands was another worship than Christian Baptism because the nature use and extent of it was other than the institution of Baptism So likewise though water be retained in their so called Infant-baptism yet it being neither used in the manner appointed by Christ to wit by dipping but by sprinkling or powring nor on the subject appointed by Christ to be baptized to wit disciples or believers in him but on Infants who are not such nor to the end Christ appointed that is to testifie by that act their owning Christ for their Lord their dying to sin and rising to newness of life but onely to seal the Covenant of Grace I say a new worship is made in their Infant-watering as there was of old a new worship made in Infant-communion and is at this day in the Popish mass and Baptizing of bells As for Mr. Blaks retortion I do grant Mr. T. may as well deny an institution and destroy as well as curtail that which is instituted But that by denying Infants visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church of the New Testament and their being in Covenant and right thereby to Baptism I curtail Christs institution I do then expect he will be able to make good when he proves the snow black and the crow white And whether I prove that by analogy or some other way Baptism is extended beyond the institution in Infant-baptism I leave it to the Reader to judge Mr. Blake goes on thus The second rule he saies overthrows all for if we may not rest solely on the analogy why at all How then is that collection from Ezek. 44. 8. good after other arguments against non-residence neither do I say that it may not go alone but it will hardly go alone but other arguments will be found to second it in which I also gave instances Answ. 1. The collection from Ezek. 44. 8. is good to illustrate not to rest on as a proof yet with the correction of my speech as above 2. I did not charge him that he said it may not go alone nor is it to the purpose which he tells us that he said analogy will hardly go alone But this I say His second rule is that reasoning from analogy holds when we do not rest solely on the analogy with other commands but have our further reason for confirmation which doth plainly intimate that we may not rest solely on it Now I argue if it be a good proof we may rest solely on it For one good proof is enough for a man to rest upon though more arguments make it clearer If then we may not rest solely on analogy with other commands as Mr. Blakes words intimate then it is not a sufficient proof To which in Mr. Blakes words there is no reply nor hath he avoided my objection that his second rule overthrows what he contends for the validity of his analogical arguments impugned by me Mr. Blake of me He adds this is enough to shew that analogy hath no strength that indeed it doth not onely illustrate connot prove what is an argument by analogy but an argument à simili I had thought there had been much difference between these two kinds of arguments à pari à simili pari à similibus omninò differunt saith Scheibler in his Topicks I may send him to his Dictionary to see whether one be not Englished equal or even and the other like or semblable I may send him to the Predicaments whether one be not in Quantity the other in Quality and demand of him whether there be magis minus par aequale as there is magis minus simile And to con ult with the Topicks whether that be not one head from which they draw arguments which in their judgement are valid Hath Mr. T. never read de paribus idem est judicium quod valet in re
express covenanting wherein they renounced the world flesh and devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey him as you may see in Tertul Origen Cyprian and others at large being printed with a ful point at the end are as plain a denial that infants were baptized in the primitive times as words usually express As for the words following I will cite but one for all who was before the rest and that is Justin Martyr speaking of the way of baptizing the aged sayth they are not words if they be restrictive that limit any one 's speech but Justin Martyrs and if by them M B. would intimate that Justin Martyr did not in that speech set down the way of baptizing all that were then baptized the words following saying thus how we are dedicated to God we will now open unto you and then setting down the constant way of baptizing without any exception M. Bs. addition will easily be perceived to be but a shift to avoid the evidence of this relation of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Antoninum being so plain to prove infant-baptism not to have been then in use among Christians Likewise in my Praecursor Sect. 16. pag. 66. I bring an argument against infant-baptism from M Bs. own words mutatis mutandis His answer in his Praefestinantis morator is in these words His Confidence pag. 66. is marvellous I doubt not but that he knows that I take the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth 28. inclusively And so I answer that this solemn instition is our warrant requiring us both to disciple nations and baptize Disciples and we have other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples Answ My confidence is upon good reason M Bs. marvelling is from ignorance what he means by taking the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. inclusively I know not except he mean that time when that institution was given as well as the time after or that institution to be a warrant as well as after precepts or examples Either way the medium of M. B. serves my purpose For it plainly asserts that what we have no warrant in all the New Testament for we are not to do ordinarily what we have precept and example for we are to do Which if he will stand to then his warrant out of the Old Testament is not sufficient for infant-baptism and so it is not fully determined in the Old Testament at what age persons are to be admitted into the Church as he sayd before and what we do we have warrant for by his own grant sith he cannot deny we have precept and example for baptizing professors of faith And then his including here Matth. 28. 19. in his Texts though not brought Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 342. to prove his antecedent is an intimation that in all the rest of the Texts John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38 41. 8. 12 13 16 36 38. 9. 18. 10. 47 48. 16. 15 33. 18. 8. 19. 3 4 5. Rom. 6. 3 c. he findes not precept or example for baptizing of infants and so if he finde not warrant Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing infants all his other proofs are by his own reasoning made invalid For sure the Texts alleged do as evidently prove this antecedent we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. to admit any member into the Church by Baptism but believers by profession but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it as Mr Bs. we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28 to admit any member into the Church without Baptism but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it The consequent then we must not admit ordinarily any by Baptism without profession of faith must by the force of his own illation be undoubted to those that take the word for their rule As for his evasion that he hath other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples how miserably he fails therein will appear by that which follows in this Review The Reader may perceive that whatsoever his talk be about a Gift and Ordinance of visible Church-membership unrepealed and of Christs Laying of hands on little ones and such like Arguments and Texts he brings yet if he will stand to his own reasoning in Arg. 9. against deniers of Baptism by Water pag. 342. of his Plain Scripture proof c. we have no warrant to admit ordinarily by Baptism but according to the precept and example in the New Testament in the Text Matth. 28. 19. and the other Texts before recited Concerning which I have reason to be as confident as of common notions that they include not infants and to marvel that Mr. Bs. prejudice should so blinde him as not to see the futility of his arguings to prove infants to be Disciples included in the institution Matth. 28. 19. But I proceed Because as he sayth pag. 5. An answer cannot be always presently given which may make the case plain to some men therefore Mr. B. should have given his arguments in writing to those that came to him which had been an easier and fairer way than to tell them as he doth pag. 6. If any of you have taken up the opinion of Antepaedobaptism and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet M. Church and other the chief books and been able at least to himself to confute them you have but discovered a feared conscience a most heavy though vain censure shewing what rashness and distemper was in Mr. B. in this writing which either taketh error for no sin or else dare venture on sin without fear and have betrayed your own souls by your laziness as if a man might not be satisfied by reading of the Scripture and conference with the able of the opposite party without reading so many Books Sure Mr. B. who had read those Books shewed little charity to those of Bewdley that came to him for arguments for infant-baptism when he would neither set down his own arguments in writing nor direct them in what part of those books they might have satisfaction but fly upon them with so deep a charge without any moderation of spirit And when he saith pag. 7. He dare say by my books that it is my case not to have received the doctrine of infant-baptism on the best grounds and arguments I reply 1. that there are many passages which make me think he never read my books with exact diligence and heed but if I may use his own words He betrays his own soul by his laziness or prejudice 2. It shews a fond conceit in him of his own arguments which another perhaps will think weaker than those of Calvin Ursin Piscator the Assembly Mr. M. c. which he might perceive by my Exercit. and otherwise that I had considered I said
21. Tit. 3. 4 5. Eph. 4. 4 5. 5. That infant-baptism is not the performance of the duty of being baptized according to Christs appointment 6. That in a regular and orderly way persons notwithstanding their pretended infant-baptism are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized upon profession of their faith in Christ Acts 2. 41 42 1 Cor. 10. 2 3 4. 12. 13. These things I may hereafter have opportunity to debate more fully As for that which Mr. B. saith pag. 10 11. It doth no whit overthrow this necessity which I assert but rather confirm it For Gods freeing us from the great burden of Jewishrites makes it the rather necessary for us to obey Christs appointment in those few Sacraments he hath ordained which Mr. B. truly saith As they are duties they are great and so in themselves considered and not onely in respect of the consequences of them And he saith truly pag. 11. All Christs commands must be obeyed both great and small so far as we know them Yea Mr. B. Scripture proof pag. 342. saith Baptism with Water is Heb. 6. 2. reckoned among the foundations or principles which are of standing use and therefore it is so it self Nor is his interpretation right that the things ascribed to Baptism are ascribed to it without the external washing In all these places Rom. 6. 3 4. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 5. 26 27. 1 Peter 3. 21. the outward use of Water is expressed though the things ascribed to it do presuppose something more as he himself allegeth them pag. 342. which is the meaning of that speech 1 Pet 3. 21. Not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh that is not it onely but the answer of a good conscience towards God joyned with it And whereas Mr. B. tell us that we shall never be able to justifie it if we lay out the hundredth part or perhaps the thousand part of our time study talk or zeal upon this question I confess this may be true at some times in some persons but if other tenets be clear and other duties not neglected and this becomes a doubt of conscience and fals into frequent practice so as that it concerns them much for themselves people and little ones to be resolved in it else they shall sin either by omitting a duty or by doing a thing with gain-saying or doubting conscience it is justifiable though they bestow more than a hundredth part of their time and study upon it And especially if the person be a Minister called to be a Guide to the People and by special providence and solemn covenant led forth to vindicate the truth in such a time when otherwise it is likely to be suppressed and the Assertors of it oppressed In these and such like cases it may be unjustifiable if a person do not spend more than the hundredth part of his time about this question else neither the Hussites will be justified in spending so much time in opposing the half-Communion nor the Protestants in opposing Transubstantiation nor the Non-Conformists in opposing the Ceremonies of Bishops Mr. Tho. Goodwin preface to Mr. Cottons Dialogue for infant baptism saith truly The due application of baptism to all those persons Christ would have it administred unto cannot but be apprehended by all that have any insight into the Controversies of these times to be of very high importance Not that I like their Carriage that neglect other necessary things and spend all their time study talk and zeal about this such hypocrisy I should declaim against with him remembring what our Saviour said in a like case Matth. 23. 23. These things ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone As for M. Bs. third Proposition concerning the grounds on which the point of infant baptism stands that they are of great moment because what he saith rests on the heap of consequences he infers from the denial of infant baptism of which there is scarse any one true and the shewing them to be but vain surmises depends on the dispute it self I shall therefore respite the vindicating the truth from them till I come to examine in this Review the arguments from Scripture urged on both sides after which shall come in those from humane testimony and reason unto which I now apply my self SECT V. The first argument from the institution Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. and the practice in the New Testament against Infant baptism is urged MR. B. saith pag. 8. he will prove 1. That it is the will of God that some infants should be baptized 2. that it is the will of God that all infants of believers ordinarily should be baptized This latter doth better state the question which is about the practice of those reformed Churches that baptize infants whose doctrine is that it is the privilege of a believers child Yet Mr. B. and M. Baillee for some advantage chuse to undertake the proof of the former whereas the true state of it is as in my Examen s. 2. and Mr. Ms. Sermon Whether the infants of believers are to be baptized with Christs baptism of Water by the lawful Minister according to ordinary rule I hold the Negative Mr. Marshall Dr. Homes Mr. Geree Mr. Blake Mr. Baillee Mr. Cobbet Mr. Baxter c. hold the Affirmative My dispute is to this purpose The ordinary rule for baptizing is Christs institution John the Baptists and the Apostles appointment and practice But neither according Christs institution nor according to John Baptists or the Apostles command or practice or any other approved example in Scripture is the baptizing of infants of believers Therefore the baptizing of infants of believers by a lawfull Minister is not according to ordinary rule The Major is confessed by all sorts specially Protestants and Anti-Prelatists Mr. Bs. words are cited by me in my Praecursor s. 16. and the force of his reason is shewed here before s. 4. to contain this Proposition What in baptism we have no warrant for by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of baptism Mat. 28. we are not to do and much more to like purpose may be gathered from other passages of his page 302 303. and Mr. M. in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. is very punctuall for Gods command to be observed in his worship The 28 Article of the Church of England against reservation of the Bread c. hath these words The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or worshipped whereby it is apparent that reservation of the bread is condemned because it is not by Christs Ordinance though Mr. Perkins in his right way of dying well confess it to be antient Bellarmine himself tom 3. cont de sacr bapt l. 1. c. 8. Sacramentum non pendet nisi à Divina institutione Chamier tom 4. panstr cath lib. 5. cap. 14. sect 55.
from the words to Paul Acts 22. 16. where he is commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arise baptise and wash which all require voluntary action on his part as well as ministration on Ananias his part out of which this argument is formed They are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers and Spirits Name who do not perform the acts required in that expression But infants of believers do not perform the acts required in that expression therefore they are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers o◠Spirits according to the meaning of it in the institution So that this argument is not a petty reasoning but a solid reason to prove infants baptism not such as Christ appointed As for Mr. Ms. frivolous question Were not the infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision though they could not actually devote themselves Though I am not bound to answer his impertinent questions yet I will tell him they were yet this is nothing to the business in hand about the meaning of the Phrase to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit which manifestly implies the party baptized his act which infants cannot do Whereas no where there is such a command Be ye circumced in the Name of Jesus Christ nor is it all one to be circimcised as to be baptized which is still supposed but never proved 4. I further urged Christ bids the Apostles presently after Baptism Teach them to observe what ever he commanded But this direction could not pertain to infants they could not be taught to observe Christs commands therefore neither were they appointed to be baptized Mr. M. denies that they were enjoyned presently to teach them to observe what Christ commanded But the Text knits these together Baptizing and Teaching so as that they that were baptized should be taught that by them that baptized them which the Apostles could not do being to go up and down from place to place to plant the Churches in all Nations if they had been to baptize infants for then they must have staid many years till they came to understanding to be taught to observe what Christ commanded No man me thinks should imagine Christs appointment to be thus Make infants disciples and baptize them and then after five six or ten years when they are grown to some understanding come again and teach them to observe what I have commanded but that Christ did appoint them to teach them presently after Baptism that is in so many hours or days after that Ordinance was administred as it could be well done Nor doth Mr. Cobbet avoid this objection by saying pag. 179. then they must be presently taught the whole minde of Christ which is impossible For presently is not restained to an instant but comprehends a just latitude of time for the doing of the thing onely it notes that the beginning of it is to be not long after Baptism but sooner by much than it could be done to infants Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof pag. 341. argues thus What Christ hath conjoyned man must not separate but Christ hath conjoyned Discipling and Baptizing I add and Teaching therefore we must not separate them 5. The institution of Christ is best understood by the command of the Apostles the resolution of Philip the practice of John Baptist the Apostles and other men sent by God to baptize but the Apostle Peter commanded first Repentance and then Baptism Acts 2. 38. Philip resolved the Eunuch demanding What hindereth me to be baptised If thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou maist it is lawfull or allowed thee Acts 8. 36 37. John the Baptist the Apostles and other holy men sent by God to baptize baptized none but Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ as may appear by the Texts mentioning their baptizing Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Luke 3. 10. Acts 2. 41 8. 12 13 38 9. 18. 10. 47. 11. 17 18. 16. 15 31 32 33. 18. 8. 19. 5. 22. 16. Therefore Christs institution is of baptizing onely Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ and therefore not infants of believers The major cannot be denied by those that confess that Scripture best expounds Scripture and that the Apostles knew Christs minde and did observe it The minor is manifest from the Texts alleged And Mr. Rutherfords words are express to that purpose Divine Right of Church government cap. 5. q. 1. pag. 257. We reade that John Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sins and professed faith in Christ Jesus To this Mr. M. Defence pag. 227. says that it would be a hard task for me to prove that John baptized none but upon profession of Repentance I reply 1. It is proved already and confessed by Mr. Rutherford 2. I did think Mr. Ms. own words Sermon pag 44. that John did teach before he baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism did amount to as much till Mr. M. to help himself referred then to the time untill Parents were converted not to the time of Johns and the Apostles ministry of which the objection was to which in those words he answered For the objection was that they always taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any and Mr. Ms. words in his answer were John and Christs Disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism which if not understood of the time of their Ministery it was an answer besides the objection 3. Mr. M. hath not yet shewed any other but such baptized by them and therefore it is probable in the highest degree of probability that no other were baptized by them 4. I think an argument in this matter from the Evangelists relation negatively is good proof unless we will suppose John Baptist and the Apostles were defective in their duty or the Evangelists in their narrations of that which frequently if it had been their duty would have occurred and their story lead them to mention and it was of much concernment to the Churches of God in after Ages they should 2. He saith It would be hard to prove that John did impose or require confession of sin before baptism Reply I think not 1. what they did sure was required of them else it had not been an acceptable thing and by John else he had failed in his duty Luke 1. 17. But they confessed sin afore Baptism Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Ergo. 2. He that preached repentance to them that came to be baptized required confession of sins which is a chief part of it afore Baptism But so did John Matth. 3. 2. Ergo. 3. He that preached to them to prepare the way of the Lord required confession of sins afore Baptism for that was the preparing the way of the Lord by bringing persons to confess sins and then to baptise them But
that infant-baptism wants an institution as if the meaning were that it wants an institution with limit to infant age and then talks thus at randum This Objection if it have force in it followed home will overthrow all baptism at any age and every other new Testament ordinance whatsoever For according to this rule a person must bring a precept for one of his age to be baptized But this is M. Blakes mistake of the objection For in it an institution is not required with limit to infant age but such an institution as comprehends by any description ordinarily infant age But then saith he upon the same account church-members in covenant of any age ought to be baptized and so the institution is not in question about that there is an agreement but whether infants be in covenant whether they be any church-members is to be disputed which already is satisfied Answ. It is false which he faith that there is an agreement about the institution I deny that the institution is Baptize persons in covenant except he mean persons in covenant by their own profession and promise or that it is all one to baptize disciples and to baptize persons to whom God hath promised or covenanted Christ For then the Jews yet uncalled should be baptized to whom Gods covenant is Romans 11. 27. It is false also that upon the same account upon which the institution of baptism with limit to infancy is waved church-members in covenant of any age in Mr. Blakes sense ought to be baptized and that the question is only whether infants be in covenant whether they be any members He knows well that I yield that infants are in the covenant of grace in respect of Gods promise to as many of them as are elect whether believers children or not and that I grant that many of them are members of the invisible Church yea he himself in his 43. chap. of Vindic. foederis sect 3. had disputed against my tenet denying a connexion between the covenant and initial seal and therefore this speech of his shews either his oscitancy or his willingness to mislead He then repeats his arguments in his Birth privilege in the same words he then used to prove the institution to comprize infants which were answered in my Examen sect 13. and my answer there vindicated in my Postscript sect 14 15 18. in answer to the 11 chapter of Mr. Blakes answer to my Letter I will not here repeat what I then answered but reply to what he excepts in his Vindic. Foederis pag. 413. where he doth not shew insufficiency in what I say Apol. page 147. to answer his allegation of Isaiah 49. 22. But saies he doubts not I abuse my memory Concerning which I yield it not unlikely my memory did fail me in that thing of his alleging Isaiah 49. 22. as an argument by it self I hope this may satisfy Mr. Blake and the Reader if he read the places in my writings here mentioned may be satisfyed that it proves not any thing for Mr. Blakes purpose Likewise for what I answered in my Postscript sect 18. to his allegation of Mat. 18. 5. 10. 42. Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 47 48. he refers to Mr. Baxters book page 22. I shall refer the Reader to my answer to Mr. B. here M. Blake only adds that the denyal that infants are within the verge of the Commission Mat. 28. 19. involves the Apostles and all that are imployed in their work in succession in a contradiction The nations are to be discipled Infants bear a part of the nation and yet infants are in an incapacity wholly of it See Mr. Cooks answer to the Challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford pag. 14. I reply Mr. Blakes words are so obscure as many of his speeches are that I understand not his meaning when he saith The denyal that infants are within the verge of that commission Matthew 28. 19. involves the Apostles and all that are imployed in their work in succession in a contradiction whether he mean thus my denial involves the Apostles in a contiadiction to their own sayings or to Christs words either way understood I discern not any truth or shew of truth in Mr. Blakes words Christs words are a command and not an enunciation and therefore there can be according to exact expression no contradiction to them and for any sayings of the Apostles which should be involved in a contradiction by my denial it is beyond any art of divination of mine to ghesse which and where they should be And for his syllogism it is false consisting of four terms 1. The nations 2. to be disciples 3. infants 4. bear a part of the Nation If it were good I might from the parallel place Mark 16. 15. argue in the same manner Every creature is to have the Gospel preached to it Infants bear a part of every creature therefore to infants the Apostles were to preach the Gospel Nor is there any contradiction in these two Propositions The nations are to be discipled and yet infants are in an incapacity of it no more than in these God hath granted repentance to the Nations Acts 11. 18. yet not to infants All nations and all people are exhorted to praise God Rom. 15. 11. in him shall the nations trust verse 12. yet not an infant meant The speeches are so plain Acts 15. 3. declaring the conversion of the nations verse 7. God made choice among us that the nations by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe verse 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Nations to take out of them a people for his name verse 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord and all the Nations upon whom my name is called verse 19. Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Nations are turned to God Acts 20. 25. As touching the Nations for the word translated Gentiles and Nations is the same in all these places which believe we have writen and yet in no one of these places are infants meant under the term Nations And when our Lord Christ expresseth what he said Matthew 28. 19. Disciple all nations by the words preach the Gospel to every creature Mark 16. 15. as the comparing the texts shews and interpreters confess I know not how to conceive with what Spirit Mr. Blake is moved who doth so often seek to impose his stale all egations so often and so plainly refuted Will any man conceive that Christ bid them preach to infants and yet his bidding them to disciple all nations is as much as to bid them go preach to all nations If men do swallow down such fancies I can hardly judge but that they are willing to be deceived In Mr. Cookes book in the place to which he refers me I find no more then in Mr. Blakes and therefore need give no other answer than what is given to him But Mr. Blake addes
the general term all nations Mr. Blake goes on He further saith that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an express example in formal terms of womens receiving the Lords Supper we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of one bread I demand of Mr. T. whether the Apostle speaks in the person of Christians or in the person of women not of women sure for he takes in himself and he was a man and then the formality of an express example falls When it is said that the whole house of Israel is circumcised in the flesh Mr. T will not yield that there is a proof not by any consequence that women though of the house of Israel were virtually circumcised but all partaking of one bread there is a proof formal and express that they were at the Lords Supper Answ. An expresse formal example is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 17. of womens receiving the Lords Supper there being relation of partaking the bread in the indicative mood and the term we all according to Grammar construction the matter not excluding them comprehending women as well as men For the Apostle under all we expresly comprehends all the many that were one bread and one body who are all Christians both Jewes and Gentiles 1 1 Cor. 12. 13. Mr. Blakes demand makes a disjunction of members coincident which is illogical However to it as it is I say the Apostle speaks in his own person not in anothers yet he speaks of the persons of all Christians both men and women and he takes in as expresly the women as the men and the formality of the example is of one as well as the other As for the other passage alleged by Mr. Blake the Predicate circumcised in the flesh being necessarily understood of actual circumcision there is a necessity to understand the Subject the whole house of Israel synecdochically else the speech would not be true But tropes are not to be made but where there is a necessity to make good the speech or to make it agree with the scope circumstances and other expressions of which there is no necessity 1 Cor. 10. 17. to verify the speech of the Apostle but that it is true of women as well as men and must be so understood without a trope and therefore there the speech is to be expounded according to the plain Grammatical meaning as expressed formally without the like trope Mr. Blake saith of me He brings Acts 20. 7. that the disciples on the first day of the week came together to break bread Here is an example as express and formal Mr. T. cannot infallibly prove by help of consequence much less expressly that there was a woman there At that night meeting there might be none but men as at the first institution It can never be an express example till it be made appear that none are disciples but women Answ. I had thought when it is said it is appointed unto men once to dy Heb. 9. 27. death passed upon all men in that all have sinned Rom. 5. 12. it had been express and formal for womens and infants dying though there be other men than women and infants and yet in both places men in Greek is in the masculine gender Disciples in the Acts note all Christians Acts 11. 26. Tabitha is named a disciple Acts 9. 36. and therefore there being no reason to make a trope Acts 20. 7. in the word Disciples Christian women as well as men are comprehended And by breaking bread say the Assembly at Westminster Answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren page 67. Sacramental breaking of bread is understood generally by all Acts 20. 7. The like is said by Chamier Panst. Cathol tom 4. l. 7. c. 6. s. 13. And it is confirmed 1. from the text the words importing that the breaking of bread is there meant which was the end of their customary meeting on the Lords day But this was Sacramental Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. where the Lords Supper is called breaking bread as the usual known term among Christians This seems to me infallible proof that women were there or which is to my purpose that usually they did meet with other disciples to break break As for what Mr. Bl. addes That if I had the texts in hand of a whole houshold baptized they would be sufficiently formal for infant-baptism I tell him no for I could not have withstood the clear light to the contrary from the words Acts 16. 18. and elsewhere which limit the whole house to persons that did hear the word believe receive fear God c. Ampsing dialog contra Anabap. page 206. Idem quoque vobis responsum volumus ad loca illa Act. 16. 34. 1 Cor. 16. 15. Tit. 1. 11. ubi quaedam de totis familiis enunciantur quae non nisi de adultis accipi possunt It is false that the Commission Matthew 28. 19. is to baptize Nations but disciples in or out of nations as is proved above Providence hath not ordered that nations including infants have been brought into the Church as Christ appointed to wit by preaching the Gospel but the national Churches are gathered otherwise than Christ appointed by human laws and infant-baptism I value as much the Churches practice as ever but it is false that in no controverted thing the Church is found so unanimous as in this of infant-baptism It is more unanimous about Episcopacy Prelatical use of the sign of the cross and many other things as may be seen in Mr. Sprint of Conformity pag. 85. c. I shall in convenient time I hope shew the mistakes of Paedobaptists plea for infant-baptism from antiquity The other speech of Mr. Blake That which will speak for infants to receive them into Heaven will speak also to receive them into the Church by baptism is not true For Election the Covenant of Grace a secret work of an initial habitual seminal or actual holiness or faith being supposed may speak to receive them into Heaven yet not to baptism Nor doth it follow that if want of faith exclude them from baptism then by the text Mark 16. 16. the same want of faith excludes from salvation For as I answer in my Praecursor s. 6. a want of faith dogmatical excludes from baptism and yet excludes not infants from salvation SECT VII Mr. Ms. exceptions that Matthew 28. 19. is not the institution of baptism that onely disciples are not appointed to be baptized that this was a rule only for a Church to be constituted are refelled THere are many other exceptions against the argument from the institution Matth. 28. 19. to be considered Mr. M. in his Sermon page 44. saith 1. That of matth 28. is not the institution of baptism 2. It was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant 3. It s only an inlargement of their Commission To which in my Examen I said 1. If this be not the first institution yet it is an
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
is put but refers us to another place which his Reader must seek and when he hath sought all his book he shall find but one text Acts 15. 10. and that miserably abused by him Of which in its place Thirdly That he acknowledgeth page 92 and here that the denomination is from the disciples act of learning yet will have it imagined that an infant may be a disciple without his own actual learning onely from his belonging to Christ by Gods covenant and mens destination and devoting to learn hereafter But it is to me unconceivable that the denomination which is from the act inherent in the person should be without the act inherent in the person from some acts of another and those acts not putting the form denominating in actual being yea when oftentimes the form denominating is never in act For by Mr. Bs. doctrine Gods covenant and mans devoting make a disciple and yet I think notwithstanding the covenant and mans devoting many thousands yea the most part of infants whom he would have baptized never actually learn by reason of death or disaffection yea many expresly renounce it Were Gods covenant absolute to every true believers infant that he shall be a disciple yet for the present it doth put nothing actually in the person to whom the promise is made no more than election doth put actually any thing in the elected Praedestinatio niâ— ponit in praedestinato Aq. p. 1. q. 23. art 2. Gods purpose of a thing doth not put it in being Mr. Bl. Vindic. foed pag. 89. Most truly Mr. Cobbet Just Vindic. part 2. cap. 2. Election doth neither make a man holy but only inâ—eâ—â—ionally nor give him actual Church right And this may in like manner be said concerning Gods promise or covenant by it self considered it doth assure something for the future but put nothing in present being The covenant is to a person afore he is born as to Isaac and Jacob shall it be said that afore they were born they were actually disciples and had actual Church right I confesse they might be called disciples or believers in possibility but not actually Gods election and promise denominate a man elected and a child of the promise which are terms of the same extent Rom. 9. 8. but not justifyed converted regenerated or actually a believer disciple or visible Church member But this is yet more in consistent with Mr. Bs. bypotheses who when he assigns the covenant which he will have to make an infant actually a disciple makes it onely the conditional covenant of grace as I shall shew hereafter and that covenant is upon condition of faith and this he will have to belong to all men whether believers or unbelievers and me thinks he should not say all men are actually disciples visible Church members though God hath made that covenant with them which he seals in baptism which he often saies to be only the conditional covenant and â—eckons it my prime errour that misleads me in the point of baptism that I make baptism seal the absolute covenant of grace And yet he chargeth Mr. Bedford p. 300. 301. as with an absurdity following his tenet that baptism should seal one covenat to the Father another to the son If then the covenant make not others actually disciples then neither insants Idem quà idem semper facit idem Again a conditional covenant cannot make an actual disciple till the condition which is actual faith be put Conditionale nihil ponit in esse Therfore the coÌ„ditional covenant sealed in baptism cannot make an actual disciple Nor is it to be said the parents faith is the condition of the covenant for the child For 1. it being not the condition of the covenant to the parent that another should believe for him neither is it the condition for the child except Mr. B. will fall into the absurdity he chargeth on Mr. Bedford that one covenant should be to the Father and another to the child sealed in baptism 2. A child the father believing shall be actually a disciple before it is born for a conditional proposition the condition being put becomes absolute Now it is his child and he believing afore it is born Ergo. In like manner it may be said of anothers devoting or destinating an infant to be a disciple that is no act of the person denominated it can only make a disciple intentionally a persons devoting is but his wish or desire or promise and shall that make a child actually a disciple yea destinating and devoting is before the child is conceived or born as Hannah did devote Samuel was Samuel therefore actually a disciple and visible Church-member afore he was born many of those whom the parents destinate and devote to be actual learners in after time yet never are such yea many of them are express disclaimers and opposers of that doctrine shall these be called actual disciples from their parents wish or hopes or promise Again he makes the term disciple applied to an insant to note a relation present actual learning as one end of it intended for the future I confess that disciple notes a relation between the teacher and person taught yet it seems to note a passion as its form or quiddity so that if any should ask who is a disciple I should say one that hath learned and what it is to be discipled it is to be taught or learned and so doth import a passion and is to be put in that predicament and the relation is as they say secundùm dici not secundùm esse But were it granted that the whole essence of a disciple did consist in relation I would fain know what shall be the foundation of his relation Logicians say To relation there is requisite a foundation as begetting two terms as Father and Son and a respect arising between them from that foundation as fatherhood It is an unheard-of thing that a relation should be without a foundation a Father without begerting an actual Father without actual begetting It is true a man may be p 〈…〉 lly a Father without actual begetting but to make an actual F 〈…〉 without actual begetting is oppositum in opposito Mr. B. Saints everlasting est part 1. 〈◊〉 8. sect 2. To be the people of God without regeneration is as impossible as to be the natural children of men without generation Now what should be the foundation of the relation of a Disciple of Christ but learning of Christ of an actual Disciple but actual learning I know not Future learning being acording to Mr. B. the end intended is not in being perhaps will never be and therefore it is in my apprehension a most illogical and absurd conceit which Mr. B. hath hatched to obtrude upon us such a notion of a Disciple as supposeth a relation without a foundation and contrary to Grammar to call a person a Disciple who hath learned nothing no not so much as to know or own his Teacher To say a person
both determined in the Synod and therefore both decreed against and so the doctrine is the yoke in respect of the yoakers and the judgment and practise in respect of the yoaked 4. Saith Mr. B. It was the Church of Antioch and not the false Teachers that sent to Ierusalem for resolution 5. And it was to the brethren and not to the false Teachers that the Synod did direct their letters and decrees therefore it was the Disciples practise that is more directly decreed against or at least as much than the Doctrine of the Teachers Answ. Be the Conclusion granted yet the Doctrine is decreed against and consequently is meant by the yoke v. 10. even according to Mr. Bs. argument That which the Synod did decree against was the yoke here meant But doth not Mr. B. in these words plainly intimate that Disciples are the same with brethren to whom the letters were directed which sure were not infants It is true the Church of Antioch and not the false Teachers sent to Jerusalem for resolution and that the letters were directed not to the false Teachers but brethren called believers Acts 21. 25. yet they sent about the false Teachers Doctrine and the decree and speech were against that Doctrine even as the decrees or Canons of Councils are against the doctrine of Heretikes though sent to the Churches From all which I infer that Mr. Bs. reasoning is frivolous and while he opposeâ—h iâ— his own arguments prove that the Doctrine of the false Teachers is the yoke But he hath not yet done 6. Saith he If it were granted as Mr. T. would have it that it is onely putting on the yoke that is here expressely decreed against and the yoke or practise it self but onely by consequence then he would make this Synod so weak as to leave the matter imperfect and obscure which they were to determine expresly and perhaps it might put him hard to it to prove that consequence For it will not alway follow that what may not be taught may not be practised as I could shew in several cases Answ. I hold the Synod to decree expressely against the yoke understanding by it the Doctrine of the necessity of Circumcision the obligation and opinion of its necessity and the puâ—ting of the yoke that is the Teaching this Doctrine to Disciples and by consequence against the Gentiles believing Parents practice of circumcising their Infants as of duty nor do I know how any other way Mr. B. can gather it from the Epistle of the Synod than as I do sure in all the Epistle I finde not any other way to prove Gentile believers are not bound to circumcise their children but by urging the words v. 24. 28. 29 in which parents are not discharged of circumcising infants expresly in so many words But by consequence And yet the matter is not left imperfect or obscure but there is an express determination against that which was the occasion of the Synod to wit the Doctrine of the false Teachers v. 24. nor is the consequence hard to infer if the Apostles give no command to the Gentile parents to be circumcised and to keep the Law then parents are not tied to circumcise their infants there being no necessity or duty to them who have no command or burden put on them Mr. B. mistakes in conceivng I framed the consequence thus What the false Apostles might not teach the parents might not practice And therefore though he could shew in many more cases than he can that it will not alway follow that what may not be taught may not be practiced the consequence as I frame it may be clear the determination of the Synod express and perfect But he adds 7. And me thinks we may be allowed to prove baptism of infants by consequence if this Synod assembled of purpose about Circumcision and the Law did yet leave them nothing but consequence against it Answ. I never said that the Synod left nothing but consequence against Circumcision and the Law nor did I disallow at any time the proving of infants baprism by consequence but have often declared the contrary though Mr. M. most unbrotherly charged me with it pag. 3. of his Defence but absolved me of it pag. 205. as I shew in my Apology sect 11. and in my Praecursor sect 8. But having so long expected some proof by consequence for infant-baptism and finding upon trial in so many Authors as have occurred nothing worth the name of a proof I conclude there is no such thing but that Paedobaptists and none more than Mr. B. do onely gull the world and which is more to be detested the godly and of those many that are teachers of others with flourishes and shews instead of proof in so much as some who are of able parts magnifie his book about infants baptism as excellent whether it be out of rashness or for advantage sake to themselves finde it upon strictest examination to be but a meer cheat But Mr. B. hath one string more to his Bowe 5. Further saith he that it was Circumcision it self as needfull and as engaging to Moses Law which is here meant is plain in Gal. 5. 1 2 3. No doubt either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with those or their companions teaching the same Doctrine and therefore Paul there decideth the same cause and mark what he cals the yoke Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every mâ—n that is circumcised that he is a debtor to the whole Law Is not he wilfull that yet will say the yoke is onely the Doctrine of the false Teachers and not Circumcision as engaging to keep the Law Answ. 1. Mr. B. before p. 17. said that it is evident the doctrine is not the yoke here when he saith Is not he wilfull that yet will say that the yoke is onely the doctrine of the false Teachers He doth plainly intimate that he excepts not against the holding the yoke to be the Doctrine but the holding it to be onely the Doctrine of the false Teachers which is me thinks to contradict himself and to overthrow what he contends for to wit the yoke is that which was put on infants but the Doctrine was not put on infants and therefore if the Doctrine were in part the yoke and this not put on infants then the yoke was not put on infants then it is not absurd for me to expound the yoke of the Doctrine of the false Teachers and his Arguments against that Exposition are answered by his own concession 2. If it be true that either those that mis-taught the Galatians were the same with these false Teachers Acts 15. 1. or their companions teaching the same Doctrine then it is most false which Mr. B. teacheth pag. 16. It was true and
The end signification and engagement go into the definition of Circumcision And if from hence you would infer that it is onely the aged that are capable of signification and engagement you may strait conclude that no infant was ever circumcised I reply it is no fiction of mine but a truth whether Mr. B. talked or thought of it or no that all the colour that is shew of reason Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants Disciples is in taking the yoke for the cutting off a little skin For his proof is from what was done or endeavored to be done to infants but that was onely the cutting the little skin Mr. B. would have the yoke to be actual Circumcision or Circumcision as acted and that was nothing but the cutting off the litle skin It is true Circumcision in the users is more than the cutting off the little skin there is the end signification and intended engagement but as infants receive it as it is acted on infants the yoke can be no more than the loss of the skin and the soreness following they neither are taught nor discern the end signification or engagement and Circumcision as it includes these is as I say in my Antidote Circumcision not as acted on infants but taught persons of years nor was it my objection that Circumcision as a Sacrament was onely the cutting off a little skin but as it was acted on infants and the imagined â—oke endeavored to be put on infants Acts 15. 10. which sure Peter never blamed them for and therefore it is not the yoke there meant Mr. Bs. talk of Circumcision as a Sacrament and what is the definition of it as a Sacrament as it leades to a dispute about the notion of a word not found in Scripture so being besides the present business I shall let it pass Lastly I added that if it were granted that the term Disciples Acts 15. 10 noted infants then onely male infants for they onely were to be circumcised therefore female infants should not be thence proved Disciples nor to be baptized To this he answers That is as much as I needed when my position was that some infants are Disciples and to be baptized I reply It is not as much as he needed unless he understood his position onely of some male infants 2. Saith he I should hence prove that if males are Disciples then certainly females both being Church-members till Christ though but one circumcised I reply 1. It is more than he can prove that those who were Church-members in the Jewish Church are Disciples of Christ in the New Testament to be baptized 2. If he could prove it yet not from Acts 15. 10. it being certain no more can be proved thence to be Disciples than are there called Disciples which Mr. B. himself will not say of female infants I conclude still that in this arguing of Mr. B. I finde nothing but froward and I had almost said impudent wrangling against a plain truth that the Disciples Acts 15. 10. were onely the brethren converted and the yoke the Doctrine the false Teachers would have put upon them and the reader of whosoever education or tuâ—â—â—age if he be not otherwise blinded may perceive with his own eys the slightiness of Mr. Bs. arguings and how superficially he hath handled this business I go on to review the next which is no better SECT XIV Infants discipleship is not proved by Mr. B. from Lev. 25 41 42. which speaks of the Israelites being Gods servants MY second Argument saith Mr. B. to prove that some infants are Disciples is this If no infants are Disciples then it is either because they are not capable or else because God will not shew them such a mercy But neither of these can be the cause Therefore that no infants are Disciples is false Doctrine Mr. T. to this gave this Answer that the reason why they are not Disciples is because they have not learned Answ. It is true in the dispute at Bewdley finding Mr. Bs. vein of disputing to run upon a captious way of endeavouring to bring me to such absurdities â—n appearance as would stir up passions in hearers against me as lessening Gods mercy to their infants and then aggravating these imagined absurdities turning to the people with his wonted exclamations and other Rhetorick whereby he hath befooled not onely those parts but a great number of shallow heads throughout the Land which I found to be his course in his first argument in ch 6. now printed to prove his Ordinance of visible Church-membership of infants unrepealed with which he began when he should have first proved such an Ordinance and its continuing in force out of Scripture it being an indirect way though popular and taking to prove a thing done by God because we conceive it fit to be done and having been tired with answering three or four hours his long hypothetical Syllogismes and those somtimes brought to prove an hypothetical proposition contrary to the use of schools not allowing me to ask a question for clearing his termes neither allowing me time to consider of his reasonings nor at first liberty of repeating I did thus answer to this argument hoping though 〈◊〉 vain to reduce him to a proof of infants of Discipleship from the notation or use of the word which is the onely genuine and clear way of proving infants to be Disciples ordinarily to be baptized according to the institution Matth. 28. 1â— But alas saith Mr. B. that such an answer should satisfy such a man I reply Alas that such an answer should not satisfy such a man Is this any third cause saith Mr. B. Answ. What need any man assigne any cause at all why infants are not Disciples but because the term Disciple agrees not to them If Mr. B. should prove in like manner infants to be believers what need the respondent shew any other cause than this that they have not faith so even sith Mr. B. himself acknowledgeth the term Disciple pag. 92. to have its denomination from the act of learning it is a sufficient yea the most direct and proper way to shew infants not Disciples because they have not the act of learning which 〈◊〉 B. should have overthrown if he would have proved as he should infants to be Disciples But then he might have been hindered in his vagaries and popular discourses which with his Rhetorical exclamations were that he most minded to use and been brought to discover his nonsense acception of the word Disciple But saith he or is it not evidently reducible to one of the former For if their unlearnedness hinder them from being Disciples either it must be because it maketh them or sheweth them uncapable or because God will not shew the unlearned so great mercy Answ. It is neither because unlearnedness maketh or sheweth them uncapable nor because God will not shew them that mercy But because what ever their capacity be or Gods intent toward them they have
particular little childe then present and it would onely import a privilege appropriate to that little childe and agreeing to no other whereas the sense is manifest from the words there and other places Matth. 10. 40. Luke 10. 16. John 13. 20. to be this whosoever shall receive any one that comes in my Name though he be as mean and as inconsiderable as this little childe receiveth me and therefore it is added presently For he that is least among you all the same shall be great which shews that by this or such a little childe he meant the Apostles whosoever receiveth any of you though as mean as this little childe or such a little childe receiveth me 4. There are sundry things in the Text and in parallel places which do evince that the receiving the little childe neither is nor can be meant of a little childe in respect of age much less an infant As 1. that it is supposed that the little childe here meant may be received in Christs name but that agrees not with the meaning of the speech as there is meant to understand it of a little childe in age For receiving in Christs name presupposeth coming in Christs name as John 5. 43. 2 John 10. c. that is either professing Christs name or Preaching or acting in Christs name And that this is presupposed here Luke 9. 48. appears partly by the phrase receiveth him that sent him which intimateth this to be the force of the speech he that receiveth one such little childe sent by me receiveth me and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me and partly from the very next v. 49. where John is said to answer and say taking occasion as it seems by the relation from Christs words Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name which words intimate that he understood receiving in Christs name to be meant of one acting or speaking in Christs name and thus is the phrase in my name in the name of the Lord often used Matth. 7 22. 21. 9. 23. 39 24. 5. which thing is more fully confirmed by Mr. Bs. parallel place Mark 9. 37 41. It is plain that Mark sets down Christs words upon the same occasion of their contention for preheminence which Luke doth and the same words v. 37. and there expresseth it whosoever shall receive one of such little ones in my name which cannot be meant of that little one then set before them but of his Apostles and others who should be as mean as such a little one and v. 39. expounds in my name of acting in my name and v. 41. whosoever shall give you a cup of cold water in my name because ye are Christs that is ye are sent by Christ or act for Christ which shews v. 37. to be meant of the Apostles not little children in age but such as did act for Christ though mean as little children The same may be proved from Matth. 10. 40 41 42. 2. Again the receiving of the little childe proves it is not meant of a little childe in age For what is the receiving It is 1. by hearing Luke 10. 16. 2. By entertaining upon travayl as Luke 9. 52 53. they did not receive him by making ready for him and Mark 9. 41. by giving a cup of cold water which was no small kindness to a travailer in those dry and hot Countreys But what kindness had this been to a little childe in age as an infant that travayls not On the contrary not receiving is expressed Matth. 10. 14. Mark 6. 11. by not entertaining them into their house nor hearing their words so the New Annot. on Matth. 10. 42. he that receiveth you Luke 10. 16. John 13. 20. that heareth your Doctrine willingly and entertaineth you which receiving agrees not to infants nor any other receiving mentioned in the Gospels that hath such a blessing assured to it as here 3. The reward annexed to wit the receiving of Christ shews the receiving of a little one in Christs name to be another thing than the receiving of a little infant in Christs name that is after Mr. Bs. silly conceit the receiving into the visible Church by baptizing it For then the greatest blessing that is of receiving Christ and his Father should be annexed to so poor a thing as may be done by every poor Presbyter or Curate how ill mannerd soever he be the baptizing that is as now it s used and defended the sprinkling of a little holy water on an infant 4. It appears that a little infant is not meant Luke 9. 48. from the description of the little childe there meant For Mr. B. himself compares that speech in Luke with the like Matth. 18. 5. Now such a little childe Matth. 18. 5. is expressed v. 6. one of these little ones which believe in me not as Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindication pag. 117. fondly conceives without any other Author that ever I heard of besides himself one of those little ones who are the little ones of them that believe in me For then it should be either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or some such supply and it would be ridiculous to imagine the scandalizing to be of infants the penalty of which is â—eavier than to have a milstone tied about the neck and to be cast into the Sea that little infants are those not to be despised whose Angels behold the face of Christs Father v. 10. The little ones Matth. 18. 6. are called Christs brethren Matth. 25. 40. answering to them that believe and v. 3. one that becomes as a little childe v. 4. one that humbles himself as this little childe which it is meer dotage to expound of little infants Again Mr. B. referrs to Matth. 10. 41. and there the little childe received is a Prophet and a righteous man Hereto I add the expressions of many writers Piscator to whom Mr. Blake refers Analys Luc. 9. 48. innuit amorem suum â—rga demissos animo in exemplo pueruli praesentis Schol. in Matth. 18. 5. propter nomen meum propterea quod in me credit Beza annot in Matth. 18. 5. puerulum talem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est quempiam ita se demiâ—tâ—ntem ut puerum referat nec enim propriè de pueris agit Parâ—â—s in Matth. 18. 5. dicit qui susceperit unum ex parvâ—lis talibus hoc est unum ex vobis pueri instar humiliatum Diodati on Matth. 18. 5. one such namely a true Christian that shall have layd aside all worldly pride whereby he is become abject in the sight of the world New Annot. in Matth. 10. 42. one of these little ones who newly made profession of religion on Matth 18. 5. one like such a childe in the qualities before mentioned Mr. B. himself confesseth that some of these places speak of infants some of others yet saith â—e compared they plainly tell you this That to receive in Christs name and
referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be
shift off the objection that Christ appointed not those infants to be baptized he allegeth that Christ did after solemnly appoint it at his ascension and since then it ought to be done which intimates that infants were not to be baptized before but after the ascension But 1. The appointment and practise of baptism was before if not as solemn and the same use and order of it and therefore this reason is of no force why others should be baptized after more than these before the ascension 2. It will follow that Jews infants were not to be baptized till after the ascension of Christ which overthrows his and other Paedobaptists argument about the seal and Covenant which if of any validity prove infant baptism as well before the ascension as after 3. It is false that Christ at his ascension appointed infant baptism any more than before the commission of Christ and the Apostles practise shew the contrary Therefore I deny his argment in the words set down as being without proof or shew of it Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants advocate ch 18 hath these words St. John addeth ch 21. 21. And there are also many other things which Jesus did which are not written amongst which for ought appears to the contrary the baptizing of these infants might be one of them wherein he runs to the Popish plea for their unwritten traditions and forgets that besides what I have alleged before to shew those infants were not baptized there appears something to the contrary out of John 4. 1 2. where it is said that Jesus baptized not but his Disciples and therefore the baptizing of those Infants could not be one of the things which Jesus did though not written John 21. 21. His argument they were capable of a blessing therefore of baptism hath been often denied and answered before There came to my hands also the Exercitation of Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in which ch 10. he terms Antipaedobaptism denying infants with scorn a little water and after this Text Matth. 19. 13 14. if there were no more will fly in the consciences one day of the most confident contemners of infants and their baptism To which I say it shews too much youthfull rashness uâ—fiâ— for a Teacher of a Church either to call Antipaedobaptists contemners of infants and their baptism and their denying infants baptism which they do for ought he knows out of tender conscience of not profaning Christs ordinance an act of scorn and to speak of the Texts flying in their consciences who know that he had more reason to expect the flying of this Text in his conscience who in this as he doth in the rest of his pamphlet makes the objection against his urging it for infant baptism so as that he might put it off with a slight answer For whereas Antipaedobaptists object if Christ hinted their right to baptism why did he neither baptze them nor appoint them to be baptized by his Apostles Mr. Sidenham leaves out the later part of the objection and answers 1. He baptizeth none 2. He did that which was an ordinance usually in those primitive times administred after baptism and equal to it in dignity and so we may argue from this to baptism either inclusively or à majori from the greater he did such acts to them as are equivalent if not supereminent But doth Mr. Sidenham indeed think such petty arguings which he knows not how to form in a Logick way but in pathetick Rhetorick likely to â—errify our consciences so much when he himself dares not positively assert that the laying on of Christs hands did include and presuppose baptism yea he acknowledgeth it to have been extraordinary and for his way of proving à majori he either is ignorant in Logick or else might understand that an argument à majori is not thus there is conferred on such a one a greater thing therefore the less Christs blessing therefore right to baptism For then the argument were good Christ blessed the infants which is the greater therefore he gave them the Lords supper or made them Apostles or gave them the gift of tongues which are the less But an argument à majori is à magis probabili and so it is not more probable that Christ would have them baptized than that he would bless them sith they were not meet subjects of the one as of the other There is nothing else in that chapter but what hath answer before this is enough to abate the insolency of this Scribler SECT XX. The practice of infant-baptism is not proved Acts 16. 15. by baptizing a houshold against Mr. M. Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee Mr. Cook Mr. Sidenham Mr. Fuller ANother Text to prove the practise of infant baptism is Acts 16. 15. and the mention of baptizing housholds elsewhere From whence Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 40. though the Assembly leave it out Confess of faith ch 18. art 4. would gather examples of the new administration taking place just as the old and so the practise of infant baptism by good consequence To which I answered in my Examen at large pag. 138. c. 1. That the new administration is much different from the old to wit baptism from Circumcision 2. That the practise of baptism in all the Evangelists is set down of singular persons 3. That the practise in the Acts of the Apostles is differently set down sometimes of singular persons sometimes of a City sometimes of families 4. Where housholds are said to be baptized there is no mention of an infant and the circumstances with other places do shew that Luke doth understand onely the believers of the house What Mr. M. replied here to doth yield so much as shews there is no good consequence in this Argument Housholds were baptized therefore infants sith he saith It may be granted that a house is sometimes taken for the grown persons in that house And what else he speaks that is to the point is briefly answered in my Apology pag. 100. And in my Postscript sect 19. I have sufficiently answered Mr. Blake his arguing from housholds being the precedent of baptizing and what he saith vind foed pag. 416. is answered before in this part of the Review sect 6. Dr. Homes in his Animadv on my Exercit. ch 8. pag. 71. tels us that the Syriak in the story Acts 16. 33. renders it he was baptized and all the childern of his house and sure enough a son of eight days old is a son And if sons of the house then some sons of the Father of the house But he might consider that the same Syriak renders v. 32. they spake the word with him and with all the sons of his house which cannot be said of infants Nor is it true that the Doctor saith that the sons of the house are the sons of the Father of the house For as Tremelius in his note sayth it is an Hebraism in which the son of the house is all one with the inhabitants
power and Gods coâ—senting thereunto when permitting him by vertue thereof to destroy all Jobs children concerning which passage I say 1. If all his Acts 16. 33. must be expounded as Job 1. 12. all that is his then must the Jaylours sheep and oxen be baptized as well as his children for they were comprehended under all that he had 2. Though Jobs children were comprehended under all that he had yet there was never an one an infant but such as did feast and might curse God in their hearts As for Dr. Homes his question Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families I say 1. It belongs to him to prove who brings it for infant-baptism that there were and that they were baptized 2. Yet we are sure from the words none were meant but persons capable of hearing and believers under the term house Acts 16. 32 34. Yea but sayth Mr. Sidenham Those in his house are a larger term but when he spâ—aks of the baptized he sayth all his or of him But how doth it appear that all in his house is larger than all his or what can he gather from it but this that he spake to more than he baptized but will Mr. Sidenham say he baptized any to whom he spake not Yea that a man may see with what raw conceits these Scriblers abuse people who reade such indâ—gested Pamphlets with examination His own observation excludes infants For if all that were in his house â—e the largest term then It comprehends all his v. 33. But it notes no infant For he spake not the word to any infant Therefore by his own observation infants are excluded But enough of the janglings of these wrangling Baby-sprinklers about this Text. SECT XXI That 1 Cor. 10. 2. proves not the practice of infant-baptism against Mr. Bailee Mr. Cobbet c. THere is another Text which is by Mr. Cobbet Mr. Bailee Dr. Homes Mr. Philips and others produced for the practice of infant-baptism and it is 1 Cor. 10. 2. Mr. Bailee in his Anabaptism pag. 149. argues thus Infants were baptized as well as their Parents by Moses baptism Ergo Infants as well as their Parents ought to be baptized by Christs baptism The Antecedent is the Apostles 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 The Fathers baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea were the whole People as well young as old for no doubt the infants went as well through the Cloud and the Sea as their Parents Answ. 1. The Antecedent may be denied because it is sayd our Fathers not infants But sayth Mr. Cobbet This is spoken of the Church Fathers to Paul and the Gentile Church-members and the young ones were in after ages instruments to convey Church-truths and blessings Refut 1. It is not sayd our Fathers as we are a Church none but Abraham that I know is termed a Father to the Church of Christ he being onely named the Father of the faithfull and they his seed but either our Fathers notes simply the Ancestors that went before as it is usual to call those our forefathers who were before us in former generations though they begat us not or else if it note their fathers in respect of natural generation it notes as Grotius in his Annot in locum the Fathers of us to wit Hebrews But it may be sayd that cannot be â—ith Paul onely was an Hebrew and then it should be my Fathers Refut 1. It is not unusual to speak of persons in the second person by figure of Communication or Enallage of persons when the thing is not true of them but our selves and when the thing is not true of us but others as when we say we have preached it is meant of one person that speaks and 1 Thess. 4. 17. it is sayd we which are alive and remain and yet none of those that wrote were such and so our Fathers is no more than the Fathers 2. But there 's no need of a figure For the Epistle was written by Paul and Sosthenes 1 Cor. 1. 1. And for Paul there 's no question he was an Hebrew and Sosthenes being a Ruler of the Synagogue Acts 18. 17. And in like manner Crispus v. 8. and Apollo v. 24. whom he mentions 1 Cor. 1. 14. 4. 6. were Hebrews and therefore he saying our Fathers might well mean our Fathers as Hebrews 2. It doth appear the infants were not meant in that they are onely meant who were in a state of pleasing or displeasing God as appears by v. 5. but so were not infants 3. They onely are sayd to be baptized to whom the same thing was signified by the cloud that is signified by our baptism but to the infants nothing was signified by the cloud and sea and passing through or under them for they were not subjects of instruction capable to know a resemblance Ergo infants were not baptized But sayth Mr. Bailee They went through the Sea Ergo they were baptized Answ. So did the beasts also and yet are not sayd to have been baptized but those that did or might understand the signification of it 4. They that are sayd to be baptized v. 2. are all sayd to eat and drink Manna and Water and that it was or might have been to them spiritual meat or drink v. 3 4. But this is not to be said of their infants For as Dr. Homes and Mr. Cobbet grant the infants did not eat Manna cakes nor is it likely they did drink water having breast milk much less is it true that they were spiritual meat or drink to them or might have been Ergo they are not meant by the Fathers baptized Nor is Mr. Bailees consequence good For if the infants might be sayd to be baptized with Moses baptism yet it follows not they are to be baptized with Christs sith Moses his baptism was not formal baptism but similitudinary after a sort they were baptized that is as Grotius Annot in locum quasi baptizâ—ti as if they had been baptized but a Rule holds not from similitudinary to formal baptism But Mr. Bailee would prove the consequence thus The Reasons which may be brought for the exclusion of infants from being baptized with their Parents by Christs baptism militate as much against their being baptized with their Parents by Moses baptism Therefore if nowithstanding they were admitted to the one baptism they may as well be admitted to the other Answ. The antecedent of this proof is false for in that of Moses the baptism is onely similitudinary in respect of a fact or event which was no duty but formal baptism of Christ is a duty of the person baptized Mark 16. 16. Acts 2 38. 22. 16. which cannot agree to an infant though the other should Nor is such kinde of shadowy typical analogical similitudinary baptism any more a rule about Christian baptism than Noahs Ark which had the like resemblance 1 Pet. 3. 21. And this Reason is confirmed from the Text. For if by Fathers are meant infants v. 2.
have told him that he makes two contradistinct species of birth that both cannot be incident to one man no more than a man be a brute beast or a brute beast a bird when it is plain that here is not a distribution of a genus into several species but a distribution of a subject according to its several adjuncts of which I give several instances Answ. I sayd in my Postscript that I not orely make birth after the flesh and after the spirit contradistinct but also contrary Contradistinct species may be incident to the same person the same man may bâ— loâ—g and broad just and temperate but not contrary as white and black just and unjust Birth distributed into birth after the flesh and after the spirit must needs be a genus or an equivocal term it cannot be any subject either quod or quo it being neither substance quantity nor quality but either action or passion action as from the mother passion as in the person born Now actions though they are capable of various modifications yet I do not think any Logicians call them subjects or their several modifications adjuncts but the substance whose action or passion it is is the subject both of the action and passion and their degrees and modifications and these are adjuncts of that substance Mr. Bl. adds of me He is pleased to deny that it is a distribution of the subject according to its adjuncts and gives in the thing in dispute for a reason Then the same person he says would be born after the spirit and after the flesh Answ. I give in this reason I confess but I did not think this was in dispute but out of all dispute the Apostle making them two sons born of two mothers v. 22. two several ways v. 23. born to two several estates v. 24 25 30. the one persecuting the other and all these diversities are in the persons which are Types and in their Antitypes and the Apostle thence inferreth that the one are not the other v. 31. whence it follows that birth after the flesh and spirit are not adjuncts of the same subject but contrary attributes of several subjects Mr. Bl. proceeds Presently he confesseth that Isaac was born after the flesh in the two senses I mention And I am sure Mr. T. will not deny that Isaac was born after the Spirit and then either truth is very absurd or else Mr. T. hath quit me from absurdity but then he says It is untrue in the Apostles sense for then he should be the childe of the bond-mayd not by promise a persecutor to be cast out not to inherit To which I answer that my sense is the Apostles sense and Mr. T. his sense far from it For though the Apostle doth indeed allegorize the Text as Arias Montanus renders it quae sunt allegorizata yet the Apostle in the parallel looks at the letter of the history as I have shewen not at the Allegory which Mr. T. had not a face to oppose either he must deny now and then to be Adverbs of time or else he must allow of my interpretation Ishmael did never as a Justitiary prosecute Isaac under the notion of a follower of Evangelical righteousness Answ. I do confess Isaac was born after the Spirit and that he was born after the flesh in the two senses of Mr. Bl. for one born of natural parents Abraham was his natural father and in the sense more common in Scripture for the outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth though I do not find the phrase born after the flesh in this later sense in Scripture not Phil. 3. 4. Rom. 9. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 16. where the term flesh is used and yet I think onely in the first place importing prerogatives no where the phrase born after the flesh in that sense yet not in the Apostles sense in which to be born after the flesh notes birth without consideration of the father as by a mother that was a bond-woman and so no prerogative is intimated in it but a debasement or deminution and so Isaac was not born after the flesh that is not of a bond-woman by an usual way of generation but of the free-woman by Divine virtue according to a promise to her when past childe-bearing in the course of nature And this to be the Apostles sense is proved before and Mr. Bls. sense proved very absurd and his reasons for it answered Yet he adds of me After some concessions in full contradiction to himself I deny not saith he but legal Justitiaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abrahams house though the Apostle make the parallel onely in the casting out that they might not inherit Apolog. pag. 114. he saith if Mr. Bl. would gather anything hence for himself he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be of the visible Church by virtue of being born after the flesh as their prerogative which is as wide from the Apostles meaning as the East is from the West as far as the East is from the Sun-rising he should have said that is the thing that I have proved and do maintain I laid down by way of Syllogism and have an Apology instead of an answer Mr. T. hath a notable faculty in begging of the question in agitation The Apostles full scope I confess is another thing but I still affirm that he occasionally expresses that from whence this is evidently deduced namely a distinction of births literal not allegorical which Mr. T. never will be able with any reason to deny till it can be proved that then and now look at the Allegory not at the History I can prove from Luke 13. 16. that the Israelitish women are daughters of Abraham though it is plain that another thing there was Christs main intention Answ. Mr. Bl. continues to write at random There 's no shew of contradiction much less a full contradiction in my words to my self This may be true Justitiaries may be in the visible Church and this also To be born after the flesh or to be a Justitiary doth not import a prerogative giving title to be of the visible Church my speech was right and needs not to be mended by any of Mr. Bls. flâ—â—ts He hath a full answer to his Syllogism before and so he had before in the Apology the strength of his arguing being thus expressed here The consequence is plain birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church interest which is denied to be proved from Galat. 4. 26. and was denied before And though being an answerer I need not prove and therefore begging the question is charged on me frivolously by Mr. Bl. For he only begs the question who takes for granted that which he should prove which is Mr. Bls. fault who useth to dâ—ctate when he should prove yet did I prove that the Apostles scope is not onely another thing than the asserting of a prerogative of visible Church-membership by being born after
meaning is to be taken a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh So that this is the thing that I except against Mr. Bl. for that whereas by the consent of all that I know interpreters besides himself they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. in the apodosis there even so it is now do note legal Justitiaries who are there called the children of the bond-woman not called Abrahams seed for those he had determined before to be those of the faith Gal. 3. 9. Christs v. 29. nor to inherit but cast out he on the contrary makes them Abrahams seed as Arminius doth in his Analysis of Rom. 9. And ascribes to them the inheriting of outward privileges as to be members of the visible Church in that they are born after the flesh Whereas the term born after the flesh is taken in the worser part precisely from the birth from the bond-woman abstractively from generation by Abraham and importing no privilege but a privation of privilege As for Mr. Bayn though he interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham and proves there that it notes not legal Justitiaries because it is applyed to Esau who is considered as having done neither good nor evil Yet Mr. Bl. wrongs him in two things 1. In that he saith Mr. Baine interprets it of a natural seed inheriting outward privileges whereas though Mr. Baine doth interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of a natural seed yet not as inheriting thereby outward privileges 2. That he makes his exposition of children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8 to be his exposition of those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. whereas he expresly saith though children of the flesh in some other Scripture which can be no other than Gal. 4. 29. doth note out Justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law I confess Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus in the place before cited makes Ishmael not onely a Type of Justitiaries Gal. 4. 23 29. but also Rom. 9. 7 8 9. and Isaac a Type of believers in both places and Esau and Jacob Types not of Justitiaries and believers but of uncalled and called non-elect and elect and so the resemblance to be different of the two former brethre◠from the later which to me seems not right for me thinks the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have this sense that the thing he had sayd before did not onely appear in Ishmael and Isaac but also more fully in Esau and Jacob which me thinks imports that the Apostle meant to prove the same thing by Esau and Jacob which he did by Ishmael and Isaac and me thinks the long Parenthesis he imagines from v. 10 to 30. agrees not with that expression v. 10. Not onely so but also they being connexive particles and so not agreeable to a Parenthesis But Cameron and all others I know understand by those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4 29. legal Justitiaries Mr. John Cotton Grounds of baptism c. pag. 158. By such as are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. the Apostle doth not mean such as are born by ordinary course of nature but such as are born and bred of the carnal seed of the Covenant of the Law which as it bego◠by Ishmael carnal confidence of his own strength or else he would never have slighted and mocked the promised seed so it begat in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despair of grace and salvation My fourth exception was whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants to be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a childe interest into the Church of Christ. To this all that Mr. Bl. replies is this If Mr. Tombs his Gloss borrowed from Arminius must stand for the sense of the place that to be born of the flesh is to be under the covenant of works then it will hardly be avoided but in case Mr. Baines interpretation may stand of a birth in nature according to the flesh then the Argument is valid Answ. That Mr. Baines doth interpret no otherwise the term born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. than I do is shewed above yet if it were true that he did as Mr. Bl. mis-allegeth him interpret born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham yet it is false that either there or Rom. 9. 8. he conceived this term children of the flesh to import a natural seed by virtue of it inherititing outward privileges and therefore the Argument of Mr. Bl. is not valid though Mr. Baines were granted to be rightly alleged by him And for that he sayth I borrow my Gloss from Arminius I answer I have shewed that I have deduced it from the Apostles own words and have the concurrent judgment of many Divines of best note to whom it is no disparagement that in this Arminius joyns SECT XXIII Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Hebr. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled THere is another Text to wit Hebr. 6. 2. from which Dr. Homes Animad on my Exercit. pag. 58. and after cap. 10. would prove infant-baptism and with him Mr. John Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Poedob pag. 76. c. which if their arguing were good would not onely prove the practice of infant-baptism but also that it is a principle of Christianity and part of the foundation The arguing is to this effect If the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms cannot be expounded of any other than the laying on of hands for confirming the baptized in infancy than the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms presupposeth infant-baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent The Antecedent is proved by parts 1. It cannot be understood of laying on of hands for healing or miraculous gifts of the Spirit For then the knowledg of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be put among the Principles of Christian knowledg which is absurd To which I answered in my Exercit. pag. 22. that it is no absurdity to put that among the Principles of Christian knowledg those gifts being though by extraordinary power yet frequent in those days and necessary to be known to confirm young Christians that Jesus is the Christ because the Spirit thus given was the great witness concerning Christ that he was the Son of God and shewed that he was gone up to the Father else the Spirit had not descended it was it by which the world was rebuked and the Saints established To this sayth Dr. Homes that I by and by as good as confess it a eogent reason because I go about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for Ordination because it was still in use and to continue to be used Answ. The Doctor misallegeth my
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
Minister laying hands on him To this Dr. Homes says 1. That the learned men before quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity But how little to the purpose their words are or how destitute of proof is shewed above 2. He cites in the Margin Tertul. de bapt Cyprian Ep. 3. 70. August Tract 6. on Johns Epist. But none of the passages he cites prove the use of laying on hands after the baptism of infants which is many years after baptism but of laying hands presently after baptism 3. He excepts against my allegation out of Tertullian that he there disputes for receiving unwritten traditions that he alludes to no Scripture authority or to any approved Antiquity Which doth no whit infringe my allegation For notwithstanding these things his testimony is valid for the practice of what was done at baptism in his time of which no doubt he was often a spectator 4. Saith he Sub manu is a Phrase that hath so many senses as it is no ways certain that here Sub mann under the hand signifies imposition of hands Haply it may rather signifie the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer as Pacianus hath it We obtain sayth he in Prayer pardon and the Holy Spirit in baptism by the mouth and hand of the Antistes Answ. The most likely sense is the Bishop laying on his hand as being nearest the use of the phrase Dr. Homes his sense is not likely 1. Because that which is sayd was done under the hand of the Bishop to wit the protestation of the baptized intimates that the Bishop did not then lift up his hand in prayer but hold his hand on the head of the Protestant Nor is it likely he would then be praying when he should attend to his confession 2. Dr. Homes shews not the phrase to be used elsewhere in his sense For that which he cites out of Pacianus is a different expression by the hand is not all one with under the hand And yet Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 28. refers that obtaining by the hand to the imposition of hands at baptism I added further And to save labour in reciting testimonies Chamier may be seen who in his Panstr Cath. tom 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 14. c. at large proves out of the Ancients that the imposition of hands which was after made a distinct Sacrament called Cofirmation was either a part or Appendix of baptism and cites many passages to shew that it was when the baptized was to confess the faiâ—h and renounce Satan Against thâ—s Dr. Homes excepts that Chamier quotes but few and those not of credit But though the Books some of them be not the Authors works whose names they bear yet many of them are of credit yea all for what they are brought and for the purpose for which they are alleged however Dr. Homes scorn or score with his nails those Fathers if I may use his own words of my doing which is more justly to be charged on himself Dr. Homes grants there imposition of hands presupposeth baptism precedent though in men of ripe years but he should have added at the same solemnity joyned with it The other testimonies are sufficient to shew the practice in the Age in which the Writers of them lived But for Dr. Homes to say that Chamier doth not assert as from himself or from antiquity that imposition of hands was to be conjoyned with baptism when he doth at large undertake to prove it was a part or appendix of baptism is too much boldness in the Doctor much more to say But rather tels us the contrary partly from himself partly from the Authors he quotes as that men were reconciled in penâ—nce by imposition of handâ— Sect. 53. which is nothing to the business For though imposition of hands in reconciliation might be unconjoyned to baptism yet what Chamier says stands good that imposition of hands for Confirmation was a part or appendix of baptism And what the Doctor adds Sect. 54. that though Confirmation belongs to the solemnities of baptism yet after a while after baptism is a plain confession of what I allege as averred by Chamier that that imposition of hands which after was made a distinct Sacrament long after baptism did formerly belong to the solemnity of baptism which shews how little regard the Doctor had to his own allegations But it is not Chamier alone who avers that anciently baptism and laying on of hands were together Salmasius also a man of very accurate study in Antiquity in his Apparatus ad librum de Primatu Papae pag. 84. speaks thus Discat igitur in Aegypto in Graecia in toto Oriente confirmationem quae separata est à baptismo non fuisse notam Unus idemque Presbyter in omnibus Orientis Ecclesiis simul semel in baptismo conferendo etiam Chrismationem cum manuum impositionâ— ac signaculo Dominico dabat egressis è piscinâ— sive baptisterio which he proves there out of Severus Alexandâ— Cyrâ—llus Hierosolymitanus and refers to more testimonies in his Treatise De Chrismate And he says p. 1â—4 Primis temporibus in Occidente Chrismatio manuum impositio sequebantur post baptismum posteaquam à baptismo separata est confirmatio aliquando in sola Chrismatione constitit pag. 182. he proves in Tertisllians Cyprians and others times that Haetres erant baptismi hoc est unius Sacramenti partes lotio unctio impositio manuum Out of all which I conclude that the laying on of hands for the confirmation of children of believers baptized in infancy when they came to years and professed the faith was altogether unknown in the Eastern Churches anciently and in the Western onely in the declining times and therefore notwithstanding Calvin and Pareus his conceits there was no such thing meant Heb. 6. 2. as baptism of infants and their receiving into the Church many years after by laying on of hands there being no such things known in the days of that Writer nor some hundred of years after and therefore Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes Argument from thence for infant-baptism is of no weight I go on SECT XXIV Dr. Hammond his way of proving infant-baptism from the Jews baptizing Proselytes children is shewed to be vain DR Henry Hammond in his Letter of Resolution to six Queries in the fourth Quere Sect. 23. speaks thus But there is no need of laying much weight on this or any the like more imperfect ways of probation meaning the example of Circumcision Gen. 17. of baptizing a whole houshold Acts 16. 33. Christs reception of little children Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10 16. The whole fabrick being sufficiently supported and built on this Basis the customary baptism among the Jews and that discernible to be so if we consider it first negatively then positively First negatively that Christian baptism which is an institution of Christs lightly changed from the Jewish custome of receiving of Proselytes by him appointed in
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
proselytes but his Disciples that we might not confound the notions of these terms And though the origination of the word proselyte be from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come to and Christ saith Suffer little children to come to me and this infers their capacity of proselytism and the next words For of such is the Kingdom of God suppose them particularly qualified for it yet that coming and imagined proâ—elytism being onely for ablessing by prayer and laying on of hands not to be made Disciples or baptized this will not prove them capable of being made Disciples according to Christs appointment till by hearing the Gospel they own Christ as their Master The like may be said of the entering into Covenant Deut. 29. 10. which though in some sense it should be yielded that infants may enter into Covenant that is by their parents act engaging them under a curse or oath to own God as theirs in which sense the posterity then unborn did enter into Covenant v. 15. yet this is insufficient to prove that such an entering into Covenant makes infants Disciples or subjects of baptism according to Christs appointment For in it such a discipling is injoyned as is by Preaching the Gospel and they onely are Disciples to be baptized who are believers and they onely are appointed to be baptized who in their own persons do enter into Covenant or engage themselves to be Christs followers SECT XXVI Dr. Hammond neither from 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor from Sayings of Ancients proves that the Apostles baptized infants HEreto Dr. Hammond adds to confirm his opinion of Christs intention to include infants in the institution of baptism for all Nations and not to exclude them from it the passage 1 Cor. 7. 14. in which he imagines is a remain and footstep of the Apostles practice of baptizing infants 2. The practice of the first and purest Ages of the Church which received infants to baptism and either by so doing testifie the Apostolical usage transcribed by them or else affirm that they received it by tradition from the Apostles In both which how he is mistaken remains to be shewed First he sets down this which he cais A brief Paraphrase though it be too large for a Paraphrase and takes in more than he can with any colour shew to have any thing in the Text answering to it His words of Paraphrase of 1 Corinth 7. 12 13 14. are these Vers. 12. If any Christian Husband hath an heathen Wife and she be desirous to continue with him he ought not to put her away unbelief being no sufficient cause of Divorce by the Law of Christ. Vers. 13. And so in like manner for the Christian Wife that is married to an Infidel if he be desirous to live with her let her by no means separate from him Vers. 14. For beside the command of Christ Matth. 5. 32. which obligeth to this other advantages there are of the believers living with the unbeleiver worth considering For by this means it hath oft come to pass that the unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and considering the efficacy of good example 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal and consequent endeavours and diligence that by the Law of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near him as a Wife is there is great reason of hope that still it may be so that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever and the intuition of that more than possible effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily And this one consideration viz. the probability that the conversation of the believer 1 Pet. 3. 1. should gain i. e. bring the unbeliever to the faith and the reasonable presumption that it will be so is the reason why the young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers are yet admitted to baptism because by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably and by the obligation lying on the parents ought to be brought up in the faith and kept from heathen pollutions and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents doth reasonably presume they will And upon this ground it is that though the children of Christians are yet the children of heathens are not admitted to baptism Answer This Paraphrase is many ways faulty and far from the meaning of the Apostle 1. It puts in many things as explicatory of the Text to which there is nothing answerable in the Apostles words For 1. there is nothing that answers to by this means it hath oft come to pass Nor 2. to these words by the company and conversation of the believer yea the term believer is quite omitted by the Apostle which considering the term unbeliever twice expressed seems to have been done wittingly that it might not be taken that he ascribed the sanctification to the faith of the one party Surely when men specially in Arguments place the force of a reason in a term they use not to omit it as the Apostle doth here but to express it remarkably and with Emphasis 3. All the words and considering the efficacy of good Example 1 Pet. 3. 1. and seasonable exhortation and instruction on presumption of the great zeal and consequent endeavours and diligence that by the Laws of Christianity the Husband will have to the eternal good of any so near to him as a Wife is there is great reason of hope that it still may be so that their living together may produce this effect in the unbeliever and the intuition of that more than possibly effect may reasonably move the Christian party not to forsake the other voluntarily are added without any thing in the least intimated by the words of the Text but the contrary even according to his exposition who makes the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified refer to some past known Examples and therfore the forepart of the verse hath not at all that which answers to on presumption c. there is great reason of hope c. which import a contingent event for the future not a thing past which is always certain 4. The term young children of Christians which cannot as yet be deemed believers is more and otherwise than is in the Text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy nor doth it appear that your doth imply they were considered as Christians so as that there should be this construction your children are holy because they are children of Christians distinguishingly from infidels but your children that is the children of you that doubt who have had unbelieving husbands and wives and have had or may have children by them So that the term your onely notes the particularity and individuation of the persons and if considered in any respect besides it is their doubting condition or their having unbelieving