them sufficient till I hear from Mr. T. the contrary Answ. I have made it appear that these rules are not sufficient to make good the proof from analogy disproved by me nor was it formerly uncertain to me they are not sufficient yet I might say truly it is uncertain whether these rules be sufficient whether there be no need of any more to satisfie others who may think them too few as well as otherwise imperfect I for my part do judge them notwithstanding Mr. Blakes plea to be insufficient and all arguments inferring duty as of Gods appointment in the use of a rite of the New Testament from some likeness or agreement with a rite of the Old Testament now abolished without direction in the New as frivolous and serving onely to make wrangling fill people with superstitions and to weary Scholars as I say in the Addition to my Apology in answer to Mr. Baillee sect 15. Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediv. part 4. ch 1. against Dr. Sanderson saying Divine right or institution is that First which is properly and primarily such as what is first enjoined by express ordinance of God or secondly what may be deduced therefrom by evident illation Secondly that which is secondarily and consequently such To which four things say they are required 1. equity 2. analogy 3. insinuations in the new Testament 4. continued practice of the Church speaks thus But this proceeding seems not sufficient 3. There are things now in common use which have all the four conditions and yet he will not say they are Divine institutions as the observation of Easter c which yet are confessedly but Ecclesiasticall And will Mr. Cawdrey make a Divine institution of Infant baprism which in the next page he saith we have no express command nor express example of it in Scripture from grounds which at most can make but analogy without equity for in meer positive rites there is no equity but the appointers will insinuations in the New Testament or any truly wel proved continued practice of the Church However Mr. Cawdreys words are sufficient to shew though they oppose himself that he counted analogy not sufficient no not though accompanied with equity insinuations in the New Testament and continued practice of the Church to make a thing of Divine institutution but only Ecclesiastical Which being granted Mr. Marshals analogical argument as he calls it which with him the words of the Assembly intimate to be the chief prop of the Divine institution of Infant baptism falls to the ground But le ts hear what Mr. B. saith also What need saith Mr B. the same thing to be done twice except men had questioned the authority of the old Answ. The Holy Ghost hath delivered many things twice in the Old and New Testament yet sure it was needful else it is not likely it would have been done Will Mr. B. charge the Spirit of God with needless committing so many histories sayings of Christ c. to writing because they were written before And to his question I say If there were no other need yet there was this that the agreement of the Old and New Testament might appear whereby the authority of both is greatly confirmed The whole Scripture saith he is the perfect Word and Law of God and if he should reveal all his mind in one part what use should we make of the other Answ. The Gospels of the four Evangelists are the perfect Word and Law of God they need no unwritten tradition for a supplement in them those things are written by which we may have life John 20. 31. yet there is use of Pauls Epistles Suppose all Gods mind revealed in one part so as no more doctrine or truth were in the rest than in one yet there is use to confirm explain inforce that which is elsewhere written in that one part And indeed this reasoning of his would prove that book or part of Scripture to be of no use as suppose Marks Gospel which is counted an a bridgement of another or so much of that Gospel as reveals no more of Gods mind than another doth which me thinks Mr. B. on better consideration should disclaim He goes on How silent is the New Testament concerning a 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 in the old This also is the very case in the question in hand Answ. The Anabaptists as they are called of former times or some of them as it is reported for their own books I never saw of them denied it lawful for Christians to be Magistrates to war to swear not onely because of the silence thereof in the New Testament but also because they mistook the meaning of the texts as forbidding them Is. 2. 4. Micah 4. 3. Zach. 9. 10. Iohn 18. 36. Mat. 20. 26. Mat. 5. 34 35. Luke 22. 25 26. c. And so either did or seemed to do some of the Antient Christians even those who are called the Fathers of which may be seen Sixtus Senensis Biblioth sanct lib. 6. annot 25 26. And yet learned men do not think the New Testament silent of a Christian Magistrate of an oath or war but that there are texts for them in the New Testament of which some are brought by Grot. l. 1. de Iure Belli ac Pacis c. 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. Rom. 13. 1. c. And though there be no example of a Christian King Parliament man or Justice of Peace yet we find a Christian Centurion Act. 10. a Christian Deputy Act. 13. 12. Christian parents husbands masters whose government is allowed and rules given about the managing of it Wherefore I conceive Mr. B. doth too much betray Christian Magistracy souldiery civil judicature c. who suggests to his Reader as if the New Testament were silent of Christian Magistracy and sparing about war or oaths before a Magistrate I confess the determination of the Old Testament is obligatory because these things are moral not peculiar to the Jews but it doth not follow therefore that an argument is valid from analogy conceived between rites of the old Testament and the new or the Jewish policy and the Christian to conclude an obligation to us in a rite of the New Testament the rites of the Old Testament being meerly positive not from the beginning proper to the Jews and together with the policy of the Jewish Church now abrogated But there seems to be more difficulty about the Sabbath Mr. Marshall had said in his Sermon that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do and must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day In my Examen part 2. sect 8. I denied it there being something moral from the beginning in the Sabbath not
so in Circumcision and there being something in the new Testament to prove an institution of the Lords day nothing about infant baptism To this Mr. M. replies However the determinate day doth depend wholly upon institution therefore they who reject that which depends upon positive institution unless its institution can be expresly found in the New Testament are as much at a loss for the Lords day as for baptizing of infants 2. And the advantage is here for infant baptism above the Lords day because in the proof of infant baptism there is only need to shew the subject to whom baptism is to be applyed in the Lords day the institution of the day it self Answ. 1. That which he saies first confirms my exception for therein he acknowledgeth there is something natural or moral by institution about a Sabbath but shews nothing natural or moral in Circumcision 2. I never rejected infant baptism because its institution cannot be expresly in so many words or syllables without consequence found in the New Testament but because it is not there either in express words or by good consequence 3. If the determinate day require positive institution there is institution brought out of the New Testament if not express yet by good consequence which I count sufficient 4. Yet I do not count Mr. Ms. consequence good by analogy in his Defence pag. 208. The Jews keep the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the week ergo the Christians keep the Sabbath on the first day of the week Of my judgement herein with other Antipaedo baptists more may be seen in my Praecursor S. 15. And for the other thing Mr. M. adds it is nothing to the business in hand which is not about the greater or lesser necessity of clearing the institution of the Lords day or infant baptism but about the principle by which infant baptism is rejected whether it necessitate us to reject the Lords day which I denyed because this principle That use of a meer ceremony or positive rite which hath neither precept nor example in the New Testament is to be rejected will not reach the Lords day which is not meerly positive but in part moral and hath precept and example for it in the New Testament neither of which can be said of infant baptism That which Mr. B. adds next about the desperate highest sort of Antinomians who wipe out all the Old Testament with a stroke and that they may as well do so by the New Testament too if they please and telling us the question whether infants should be baptized is turned into a higher whether the Scriptures be the word of God or not I might well let pass as being nothing to the point in hand the denying of infant baptism to be in the Old or New Testament neither being upon the higher or lower sort of Antinomians if there be such difference of them principle they that deny infant baptism being not necessitated to it nor so far as I find in their writings except what I have met with in Mr. Dens Books denying the obligation of moral precepts of the Old Testament All that they are necessitated to maintain is that Ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament and imagined ANALOGIE between Baptism and Circumcision the Jewish Church state and the Christian are of no force to conclude a divine appointment concerning any Sacrament or meerly positive worship of the New Testament And therefore his Pathetick Rhetorick though elsewhere of use yet in a dispute as this his writing should have been hath the face either of malignancy towards his Antagonists or of an indirect trick to prepossess people with horrour of that opinion which he would refuse afore he comes to his Arguments which is the chief part of his skill And for what he saith further that incestuous marriages are not forbidden in the New Testament and tells the men of Bewdley That some of eminency that deny Infant baptism deny either incestuous marriages or any thing else not forbidden in the New Testament to be sin It is like the former sith he might know that Antipaedo baptists are not necessitated to deny the obligation of the moral Law in which the Laws about incestuous marriages appear to be in that the Canaanites were punished for their incests Levit. 18. 25. And Mr. B. if he had any mind to deal candidly with me might have told them that I was none of those men sith he might if he did read my books with any heed of which I much doubt have told them that to this objection I answered in my Examen pag 111. 1. That the instance of the Lawes about forbidden marriages brought by Mr. M. is not to the point of the obligation of meer positive ceremonial worship sith the command about prohibited degrees in marriage is moral 2. That yet there is for one branch of Incest an express censure in the New Testament proving the unlawfulness of it To which Mr. M. page 196. of his Defence saith But how would you laugh at such a consequence in another a man may not marry his Fathers wife a thing which by the light of nature was abhorred among the Heathens ergo all the degrees of forbidden marriages in Moses Laws stand firm whereto I reply I made no consequence but this one branch of Incest is expresly censured in the New Testament therefore it is unlawful And this I only brought to shew the impertinency of Mr. M. allegation to prove the matter in question it being granted by me that a morall precept of Moses is in force thought not a ceremonial and yet Mr. M. brings instances only of morals standing in force none of ceremonials and instead of cleering the pertinency of his own instances makes a consequence as mine which saith he I would laugh at in another which dealing is cavilling not answering The like to which is that which follows in him The like say you against Polygamy there is proof against it Mat. 19. 5. 9. But is this an express prohibition of it Must you not be compelled to go by a consequence to bring it in which is ab I contend for Whereto I reply Though Mr. M. page 3. of his Defence charged me unjustly with a Socinian plot in my writings to question all conclusions deduced by consequence from Scripture yet page 205. he saith of me That I neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practice of some things in the worship of God which are not expresly laid down in the New Testament and therefore he might easily have seen if he would that to prove we may go by a consequence is not all he contends for it being known to him that I grant it But this he is to prove or else he still is besides the business that a consequence is good from analogy of an abrogated rite of the Old Testament to prove a Divine
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
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.
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
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
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-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
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
Cyprian as he avouched infant-baptism so he did rebaptization and that as from the Apostles Augustin as he avouched infant-baptism by Apostolick tradition so he did also infant-communion But of these things if God will more hereafter if it appear necessary This I take to be sufficient for the present to answer Dr. Hammonds new device which he vainly boasts to have all the weight that a Divine Testimony interpreted by practise can afford and is as great as any such matter can be capable of FINIS Errata Page 1. line 7. reade my Apology p. 4. l. 8. r. Areo. p. 8 l. 15. r. Church p. 13. l. 10. r. in tersering p. 17. l. 1. r. mens p. 18. l 30 r. not p. 22 l. 3. r. materially p. 23. l 1. r. is p 24. l 23 r. did p 25 l 31. r. that l 32. r. Circumcision p. 26. l. 11. â— he p. 27. l. 33. r. 17. 12. p. 28 l 8. r. 12. p 31. l 19. r. 15. p. 45. l 3. r. keep p. 46. l. 33. r. superiours l 35. r. â—o p. 47. l 3. r. excommunication p. 50. l 6 7. dele will be proved p 51 l. 22 dele not l. 25 r. paria p. 52. l. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 38. r. Mathematicis p. 53. l. 3. r. malits l. 5. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 61. l 31. r. â—esute p. 63 l. 16. r. Janu 1. or in p. 64 l. 38. r. is or dele can page 65. line 2. r. he page 68. line 6. r. Anti. page 69 l. 29. r. actus p. 70. l. 6. r. Bishops page 76. line 4. r. fearfull page 86. line 20. r. gentes page 87. line 4 r. peâ—cipitur p 88. l. 21. r. arbitror p. 99. l. 23 24. r. renewing p. 104. l. 29 r. There p. 112. l 2. is it p. 119. l. 1. r. miraculous p. 126. l. 2. r. serve p 148. l. 16. r. 28. l. 20. r. accept p 153. l 34 r. Disciple is p. 162 l. 31. dele not p. 170 l. 28. dele not p. 171. l. 9. dele in l. 10. r in locum p. 175. l 38. dele not p. 179. l. 2. r. I finde p 182 l. 16. r. heating pâ—91 â—91 l 18 r 19 p 195 l 37. r peculiar p 197 l 9 r relation p. 220 l 37 r use of p 226 l 9 r. them p 265 l 35 r oft p 276 r without p 279 l 1 r the p 290 l 9. r 29 p 294 l 17 r in p 306 l 18 r right that the sea 1 Cor. 10 1 2 p 308 l 28 r before p. 314 l 17 r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 321. l. 6. reade them p. 329. l. 29. reade v. 16. To be added after many p 220 l â—9 what Dr. Ward and Dr. Davenant have sayd for Regeneration and Justification of infants by baptism hath been accurately examined and â—â—ervated by Mr Gâ—taker in Latin Collings vindic minist Evan. pag. 67. It is a rotten distinction to distinguish of substantial and circumstantial acts in businesses relating to Gods worship in which we must have an eye to every tittle of institution Cawdrey Sab. Rediv. part 2. ch 7 pag. 277. The subject or material thing is the substance of a command Cawdrey Sab Rediv. Part. 2. Chap. 6. pag. 226. A â—teer positive law which is special to some person or nation is of no force under the Gospel unlesse it be ratified by the Gospel Baxter plain scripture proofs pag. 341. Nature telleth us nothing of meer positives Mr. Collings caveat for Proph. pag. 77. The equity of the ceremomonial law is a dark notion to me Christ is she equity of it The Apostle cals it a shadow the equity theÌ„ of it is the substance of a shadow and what that is I cannot divine besides Christ whose shadow it was I alwaies understood by the ceremonial laws those laws that concerned the worship of God in that time which were wholly ceremonial and abolished being fulfilled in Christ. To Mr. Fisher urging 1 Cor. 9. 10. for an equity of the Geremonial Law to prove Christmas Mr. Collings Caveat p. 77. saith The Apostle indeed 1 Cor. 9. 10. urgeth the equity of that piece of the Law Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe c but I never took that for a piece of the Ceremonial but for a piece of the Judicial Law Mr. Fox in the second Book of the Acts Monuments as the years 636 664. See Sprint of Conformity Mr. Blake Vind. foed cap. 6. That is the Covenant draught terms of the Covenant we finde He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16 M. Collings Episto the Reader before his Vind. Minst Evang. In things relating to the worship of God it is a general rule in which our brethren and we have long since agreed That nothing ought to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel Mr. Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries pag 364. what the Apostles commanded not in Gods worship that the Churches must not do Piscator observ in Matth. 28. 19. Docete omnes genâ—eâ— nempe praedicando Evangelium ut declarat Marcus baptizantes eos vult ergo ut prius constet de alicujus â—ide quam is baptizetur Collings vin Min. Evang pag 36. It is the first act in ministerial Commission Mat. 28. 19. first preach then baptize Mr. Fox in the Acts and Monuments of the Church relates how in the disputation at Oxf. 1554. with Mr. Latimer Dr. Weston objected this thing and Mr. Latimer answered he found a womans receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28. Mr. Will. Cook Font. uncov pag. 16. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes the species or kind of man distinct from other creatures without difference of age or sex Ames Bell. Enerv. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 7. Th. 11. Protest Acts 15. 10. Lex Mosis dicitur jugum importabile Chamier Panstr Caâ—h tom 3. l. 11. c. 15. spends a whole Chapter to prove against the Papists that the yoke there is the Moral as well as the Ceremonial Law Yea Mr. B. himself Direct 10. for peace pag. â—1 hath these words They were therefore said to be in bondage to the Law and the Law was said to be a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear Acts 15 10. Vide Pareum Bell. Casâ—ig de Justific l. 5. c 14. is the common Doctrine of Protestants to interpret the yoke of the whole Law intolerable because of the curse Vide Dr. Field of the Church l. 3 c. 1. Vide Selden de jure naâ— c. l. 6. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 11. 1â— which is less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a little childe that could call to his fellows Knolls History of the Turks in Solyman the magnificent