inseâ—tatione et perditione digni videantur How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord Mâ—jor City of London to these words of Cassander a Papist to the D. of Clevâ—â—â—â—pist â—â—pist And for those in these dayes that deny or question Paedo-baptisme as I know them not or very few of them so I cannot say what they do or hold as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings onely undeâ—standing by one of your assembly that there was a little book puâ— forth intitled the compassionate Samaritane upon perusall I found that that Author who ever he were accounts it a calumny to charge thâ— Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy But concerning this the confession of faith lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48 49. will give best information But if you meane not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme when I meete with them in your Sermon I shall in their proper place consider whether they do depend on it or no and for the opinion it selfe I say if it be not truth the spreading of it is unhappy if it be truth the more it spreads the more happy it is for the Kingdome YOu say further And so the worke of reformation without Gods mercy likely to be much hindered by it Sir you now touch upon a very tender point in which it concerned you and it in like mannâ—r concernes me and all that have any love to Iesus Christ or his people to be very considerate in what we say I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you and though I have not had the happines as indeed wanting ability to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beene in the promoting of it in which I rejoyce yet have I in my affâ—ctions sincerely dâ—sired it in my intentions truely aimed at it in my prayers heaâ—tily sought it in my studies constantly minded it in my indeavours seriously prosecuted it for the promoting of it greatly suffered as having as deepe in interest in it as other men Now bâ—gging this Postulatum or demand that Paedobaptisme is a corruption of Christs institution which upon the reading of my answer and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned will appeare not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved I say this being granted I humbly conceive that Paedobaptisme is a Mother-Corruption that hath in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners and some of those errors in doctrine that doe dâ—file the reformed Churches and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindred by removing it that indeed it is the only way to further reformation to begin in a regular way at the purging of that ordinance of Iesus Christ to wit Baptisme without which experience shewes how insufficient after-Catechizing Excommunication Confirmation Vnio reformata solemne Covenant Separation the New Church-Covenant invented or used to supply the want of it are to heale the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the priviledge of the Church from whence spring a great part if not all the abuses in discipline receiving the Lords Supper and manners of Christian people And therefore I earnestly beseech in the bowels of Iesus Christ both you and all others that ingage themselves for God to take this matter into deepe consideration I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am and how inconsiderable a number there be that are affâ—cted with this motion I do consider how much against the streame of the Râ—formed Churches such a reformation would be Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptisme are how cleare the institution of Christ is against it how happily truthes opposed with as much pâ—â—jâ—dice as this have beene in processe of time vindicâ—ted of whaâ— moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience how exact a râ—formation our solemne Covenant binds us to endeavour I do not despaire but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts â—here it hath beene rejected at the first nor doe I doubt buâ— in time Gods people will consider what an influence baptisme had of old into the comfort and obligation of conscienâ—es and how litâ—le it hâ—th now And truely Sir though it may be but my weaknes yet I suppose it can doe you no hurt to tell it I feare you want much of that blessing which was hoped for by your Assembly in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively and hastily passe over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined but rather seeke to stop the bringing of it to any tryall But having told you thus much I follow you in your Sermon You say I shall God-willing handle this question more largely then I have done any other in this place and the rather because of three other great mischeifes which go along with it First I see that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day or the Christian Sabbath viz. because there is not say they an expresse institution or command in the New Testament Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth They doe They must Though I doubt not of your will yet I see you want some skil in pleading for the Lords day that others have the truth is that it is neither so nor so They neither doe nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day That they doe not I can speake for one and your owne words delivered after with more caution Verily I have hardly either knowne or read or heard intimate that though few yet you cannot say but you have heard or read or knowne of some that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day but you have I presume heard or read of whole and those reformed Churches that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution who yet are zealous for paedobaptisme Nor must they And to make that good let us consider their ground as you mention it Their ground you say is because there is not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament this then is their principle that what hath not an expresse institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected But give me leave to tell you that you leave out two explications that are needefull to be taken in First that when they say so they meane it of positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites such as Circumcision Baptisme and the Lords Supper are which have nothing morall or naturall in them but are in whole and in part Ceremoniall For that which is naturall or morall in worship they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory
dictate The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidentall then the day it selfe they being commanded both together And for the Lords Supper how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution 1 Cor. 11.23 that it was done in the night and vers 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he had supped I leave to your Assembly to consâ—der Especially those of you that are so stiffe for the sitting together at the Table which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation and therefore may seeme as much occasionall as the other And for that which you intimate as if Baptisme were not the Sacrament for spirituall nourishment growth and continuance in the Covenant as well as for entrance I take to be but a dictate like the rest which upon exact examination will not hold it seems to me somewhat neare of kinne to that of Bellarmine and other Papists that the efficacy of Baptisme extends not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life but of originall sinne onely But you have yet one more Instance and thus you speake The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath the fourth Commandement binds as for the substance of it as much as ever it bound the Jewes there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven which should be of his own choosing Now untill Christs time God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus put an end to the Saturday Sabbath and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day wee need no new Commandement for the keeping of the Lords day being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose the Lord having chosen this the fouâ—th Commandement binds us to this as it did the Jewes to the former so in like manner I say in the Sacrament of Baptisme What I conceive about the Lords day I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I shewed you how different the case of Paedobaptisme is from it which I shall not now repeate Onely whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God about the Sacraments of the Jewes binding us as well as the Jewes you forget the marke at which you shoote the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jewes Sacraments or ours according to the usuall Ecclesiasticall acception and definition of the word You see now your maxime which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined I presume you may see quickly the superstruction it selfe overturned one blow more will doe it You piece things together thus When God made the Covenant with Abraham and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed what God promised to Abraham wee claime our part in it as the childâ—en of Abraham and whâ—t God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee all stand charged with as well as Abraham Wee as Abraham are tyed to beleeve to love the Lord with all our heart to have our hearts circumcised to walke before God in uprightnesse to instruct our children and bring them up for God and not for our selves nor for the Devill to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will to traine them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment All these things God commanded to Abraham and charges upon all the children of the Covenant though there were no expresse reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament And therefore consequently that Command of God to Abraham which bound his seed of the Jewes to traine up their children in that manner of worship which was then in force binds the seed of Abraham now to traine up their children in â—onformitie to such Ordinances as are now in force Supposing you meane by what God promised to Abraham the spirituall part of the Covenant and the persons claiming to be beleevers I grant this passage to be truth for these duties are morall duties and binde at all times but that which follows I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme You say And the sâ—me Command which enjoyned Abraham to seale his children with the seale of the Covenant enjoynes us as strongly to seale ours with the seale of the Covenant and that Command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seale his with the signe of Circumcision which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore for the time doth virtually binde us to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme which is the Sacrament now in force and succeeds into the roome of the other by his owne Appointment This is your undeniable consequence inferred from a Judaizing principle without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion Whereas â— have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle and for the Conclusion what construction can be made of it but this that the Command of God to Circumcise binds us still for that was the seale of the Covenant God enjoyned to Abraham and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites binds Christian men contrary to Art 7. of the Church of England Then must wee Circumcise our Males at the eighth day as they did But you say it binds us virtually only to seale ours with the signe of Baptisme I pray you then what meane you by this virtuall binding The opposite Member was expresly and in Terminis in termes Is this then your meaning that it doth not binde expresly and in terminis but virtually that is implicitely and by Interpretation Tell us then I beseech you by what rule of Divinitie Logick Grammar or Rhetoricke is a man to conceive this Command Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day That is let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants male and female of Beleevers all over or on the face You call this undeniable Consequence if so it 's either Demonstrative from the cause or effect or definition or propertie or the like or it 's onely Topicall and then not undeniable you say 't is by cleare consequence you may as well say this is good consequence Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram Thou art Peter and upon this rocke Ergo the Pope is Monarch of the Church or with Baronius Arise Peter kill and eate Ergo the Pope may deprive Princes if you can apprehend cleare consequence in it you may enjoy your conceit Nos non sumus adeò sagaces wee are not so quick-witted I passe to the next Command which
to Christians and such doe they conceive a Sabbath to be as being of the Law of nature that outward worship being due to God dayes are due to God to that end and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the creation and in all nations in all ages observed enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature and therefore the fourth Commandement justly put amongst the Morals and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good I shall not gainsay though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it it is meerely positive neither from the beginning nor observed by all nations in all ages nor in the Decalogue and therefore a Sabbath may stand though it fall 2. The other explication is that when they require expresse institution or command in the New Testament they doe not meane that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis in so many words in forme of a precepâ— but they conceive that Apostolicall example which hath not a meere temporary reason is enough to prove an institution from God to which that practise doth relate And in this after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament they ascribe much to the constant practise of the Church in all ages Now then if it be considered that when Paul was at Troas Acts. 20.7 the Disciples came together to breake bread and Paul preached upon the first day of the weeke and Paul 1 Cor. 16.1.2 as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poore the first day of the week Revel 1.10 it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day and it was so Sacred among Christians that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity Dominicum servasti Hast thou kept the Lords day to which was answered Christianus sum intermittere non possum I am a Christian I may not omit it it is cleare evidence to me that either Christ or the Apostles having abrogated the old Sabbath Col. 2.16 subrogated the first day of the weeke instead of it Now if a moity of this could be brought for Paedobaptisme in the stead of Circumcision of infants I should subscribe to it with you But Paedobaptisme not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist the Apostles there being no foote-steps of it till the erroneous conceit grew of giving Gods grace by it and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing some hundreds of yeares after Christs incarnation I dare not assent to the practise of it upon a supposed analogy equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision and imaginary confederation with the beleiving parent in the Covenant of grace For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue to wit that in meere positive things such as Circumcision and Baptism are we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us betweene two ordinances whereof one is quite taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolicall example For if we may doe it in one thing why not in a nother where shall we stay They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals doe know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice Purification of women c. that I mention not greater matters I desire any learned man to set me downe a rule from Gods Word how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy and where I must stay when it will be superstition and will worship when not when my conscience may be satisfied when noâ— That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jewes and appointed to us we receive as they have appointed buâ— if any other man if a Pope or Occumenicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Consciences any rite in whole or in part upon his owne conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies it is an high presumption in such against Christ and against the Apostles command to yeeld to it Col. 2.20 though it hath a shew of wisedome v. 23 And the Apostles example Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it when it is likely to bring us into bondage And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptisme is built it is to me very dangerous viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seede that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words which in the plaine sense import this that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justifie and save beleiving Parents but also their children is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes an addition to the Gospell mentioned Gal. 3.8 9. and drawes with it many dangerous consequences which I abhorre You adde Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes that such as indeavour to overthrow it deserve justly to be abhorred by us Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you that from happy events it s not safe to conclude that a thing pleaseth God You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to inferre that their institution is of God because their Orders have yeelded so many pious Confessors Martyrs and Saints it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency by which it hath prevailed in Letters from abroad and suggestions at home still harping on this string that it is the way of God because they that are in that way thrive grow more spirituall then others And if this arguing be good It prospers therefore it pleaseth God then it will follow on the contrary It prospers not therefore it pleaseth not God And if so we might inferre Infant baptisme is of men not of God sith if conscience and experience may speake there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweete comfort of their baptisme as Mr. Shepard in his Epistle before Philips vind of infant-bap The other note is this that when you say that such as indeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day deserve justly to be abhorred by us it must be taken cum grano salis with cauâ—ion of such as doe it against cleare light with a malitious spirit Otherwise your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches their teachers yea in a sort to your selfe who may be said interpretatively to indeavour to overthrow it while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptisme But I proceede YOu say
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside 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 But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
a people in Jobs and Lots families who were not circumcised nor to be circumcised and there may be a people of God whâ—â—re not baptiâ—ed as the thief on the crosse the Catechumeni dying aâ—oâ—e baptisme many martyrs and others that have dyed without Baptisme And in the signes themselves there is a great difference both in the acting of them the one of them was with blood the other without the one took away a part of the body the other not and after the acting the one was a permanent signe the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain The third agreement is both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church which may be granted yet in the solemnity there was a great difference the one to be done in a private house by a private person the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed The fourth agreement is both of them to be administred but once which I conceive true thus to wit that there is no necessity of administring either of them above once but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresie or unlawfull in it self to rebaptize I yet expect Yet this parity hath its disparity For Baptisme is not restrained to any set day but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution Your fifth And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes untill they were circumcised nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews I cannot assent unto you For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight dayes old but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travell through the Wildernesse untill they camâ— to Gilgal and all the females were members though they were not to be circumcised The reason was because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel and therefore he would have the servants born in the house and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abrahams seed circumcised And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians the accounting of them as visible members it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized unlesse you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actuall members of the Church and oppose Whitaker and others of the Protestant Divines herein The last agreement is that none but the circumcised might eat of the Paschâ—â— Lâ—mbe which is true of those that ought to be circumcised but it â—s not true simply taken for the females were to eat though not circumcised On the other side you say none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper This you affirm but you bring no other proof for it but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover and Baptisme and the Lordâ— Supper which can make but a Topick argument and that à simili which iâ— of all other the weakest Place to prove by proportions are weak probation saith Râ—â—therfuâ—d Due right of Presbyteries Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'T is true we find persons ordinarily upon their fiâ—st call were baptized and then after received the Lords Supper and it is true that 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13 baptizing is put before eating and drinking and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering it so yet I make question whether if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely and is not yet baptized suppose for want of a Minister or out of scruple at the way of baptizing only allowed or because the custome is not to baptize but at Easter or Whitsuntide as it was of old or the like reason should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper and there receive it with love to Christ whether he should sin because not baptized as the Jews should sin that did eat the Passeover not circumcised For in the Jewes case a command is broken not here and so no transgression If he come without examination of himself not discerning the Lords body he sins he breaks the command 1 Cor. 11.28 But where is the command that he must be baptized first And for the same reason I question whether a Minister can justifiâ— it before God if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper because not baptized for the aforesaid reasons By this which I have said you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptisme and therefore how poor a proof or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptisme for the making a command to circumcise Infants a command to baptize Infants without the Holy Ghost declaring Gods minde to be so All these agreements yâ—a if there were an hâ—ndrâ—d more cannot make it any other than an humane invention if the Holy Ghost do not shew that they agree in this particular But to make the weaknesse of this Argument the more apparent let me parallel the Priests of the Law with the Ministers of the Gospel as you do Circumcision with Baptisme As God appointed Aergâ—s and his sons to Minisâ—eâ— in the time of the Law so the Ministery of the Gospel now the Apostle makes the Analogy expresly 1 Cor. 9.13 14. and far more plainly then the Text you bring for the succession of Baptisme to Circumcision and they agree in many things As the Priests lips should preserve knowledge Mat. 2.7 Deut. 33.10 so must the Bishop be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.2 As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them Heb. 9. so the Minister by preaching Gal. 3.1 As the Priest was for the people of God so the Minister of the Gospel As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast so the Minister in his heart as the one was to blesse so the other was to pray for them As the Priest had a consecration so the Minister is to have an ordination As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling so neither in the other And many more such agreements might be assigned will it therefore follow that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance or that therefore tythes are due to Ministers jure divino by divine appointment as Bishop Carleton Dr. Sclater and others from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aarons Priesthood would infer or that ordination may be by the people because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites
they are grown men nor any example where ever that was done will any man therefore say that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it If it be said though these things be not expresly and in terminis in the new Testament yet they are there virtually and by undeniable consequence I confesse it is true You do in this perioch give two instances of practice warranted by command or example gathered by consequence in the new Testament in the positive worship of the Sacraments to wit womens receiving the Lords Supper and the baptizing of children of Believers when grown persons which you grant are virtually and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament though not expresly and in terminis in terms Now this thing you need not have proved I readily grant it that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament though it be not in formall terms commanded yet if it may be gathered by virtuall consequence ought to be done Neverthelesse I observe First that you do well expresse the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 when you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them Disciples and then baptize them of which I may make further use afterwards Secondly that when you say there is no expresse command no example in all the new Testament where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper you imply there is for males Now herein you Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake and generally others follow Zwinglius whose conceit this was if he were not the first inventor And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus pag. 22. No particular president more then for this of Infant-baptisme But I pray you tell me is not that 1 Cor. 11.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup an expresse command in formall terms And doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehend both Sexes When the Apostle sayes vers 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord was not that a command and that to the whole Church women as well as men when he saith 1 Cor. 10.17 We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread and are not women as well of the body as men And if so here is an expresse example in formall terms for womens receiving the Lords Supper The like may be said of 1 Cor. 12.13 Acts 20.7 unlesse you will say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself all Disciples comprehend not women because they are of the Masculine Gender which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum Logick regards not sex and that hundreds of places there be where the Masculine Gender is put the matter so requiring it for both Sexes I do not suspect And for your other instance as I do not remember any brings it but your self so it is as little to the purpose as the other For that which you say that there is no expresse command that the children of Believers should be baptized when they are grown men It is true except they professe the faith but there is an expresse command as your self grant to baptize Disciples and so to baptize the childe of a Believer that professeth the faith not otherwise so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it You say further So have we virtually and by undenyable consequence sufficient evidence for the baptizing of children both commands and examples This assertion is full if you mean by children Infant-children of Believers prove this and you need prove no more But your fetching such a compasse about makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes the mountains bring forth especially when your proof is but from Analogy concerning which the rule holds as Mr. Bowles in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17 Allegorica Theologia unlesse the Lord himself make the application non est argumentativa Allegoricall Divinity is not argumentative but it is fit you should be heard You say For first you have Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of all covenanters that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant I grant we have Gods command to Abraham who is indeed called the Father of the faithfull no where that I know the father of all covenanters to circumcise his males of eight dayes old and I deny not but that this was a seal that is a confirming signe of the covenant God made with Abraham whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh Gen. 17.13 and 't is called the covenant of circumcision Act. 7.8 But you have need of the Philosophers stone to turn this into a command to baptize Infants of Believers which you thus attempt You tell us Now this truth all our Divines defend against the Papists that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidentall unto them This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence it had need then be very undeniable and so you conceive it because it is a truâ—h all our Divines defend against the Papists But this is no undeniable Axiome that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it I for my part do disclaim it I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture and have learned from Art 21. of the Church of England that Generall Councels have erred and may erre and consequently all the Divines in the world And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Oecumenicall Councel sometimes And for this which you call a truth all our Divines defend against the Papists I marvell how you can averre it unlesse you had read them all which I think neither you nor any one else hath and for this Maxime I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with because you direct not where they deliver it it is in vain for me to make search it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose that there are commâ—nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews which is granted But then let me tell you I do not assent to this that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews I do approve of the words of R. C. that is as I learn from Mr. Selden de anno civili veter Judae c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge whom he there commends in that book of his which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper chap.