my old artifice of framing many senses which yet in this point were but two for which he blames me as if it were blameable whereas it is the only way to cleer truth to shew the divers senses of a speech for avoiding of ambiguity according to that saying Qui benè distinguit benè docet he that distinguisheth well teacheth well and his not distinctly answering by shewing in what sense his speech is meant tends to nothing but the hiding of truth Then he tells me That I vent my Criticisms and undertake to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to teach cum effectu or to teach till they were made Scholars my word was disciples and that they were not to baptize till they were disciples and then saith But Sir what need all these things The meaning is plain that other nations should be taken in likewise as the Jewes according to Isaiah 19. 24. when other nations should by receiving and professing the Gospel come under Gods wing they should partake of the same Covenant which the Jews had before enjoyed he would henceforth be the God of them and their seed Whereto I reply 1. That in his upbraiding me with venting my Criticisms as he calls them about the word disciple ye he excepts against me for doing that which was necessary to be done to wit to cleer the meaning of the word by which the sense of the text is manifested 2. When he should answer the thing I alleged and proved that nations are not appointed to be baptized without any other circumscription but disciples or believers in them he repeats his dictates as obscurely as before bringing a text impertinently which doth not at all say that all the nation of Egypt that is every man woman and child that is an Egyptian shall be his people but such as know the Lord do sacrifise vow a vow return to the Lord verse 21 22. which was fulfilled either when after the return from captivity in Babylon many of the Egyptians became Jewish proselytes who were very probably many when Pâ—olomy Philadelphus appointed the Bible to be translated into Greek as Josephus l. 12. Antiq. c. 2. relates or if it were fulfilled in the time of the Gospel the stories of the Church refute that conceit that the whole nation of Egypt were a national Christian Church as the Jews before Christs comming so as that all the people men women and children were Christians though it be true that God had his Church at Alexandria in Egypt somewhat early of which Mark is said to have been Bishop of which more may be seen in Selden on Eutychius and if that passage 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon elect together with you be meant of Babylon in Egypt it is plain that the Church there was an elect company chosen out from the rest and therefore not the whole City men women and children and consequently not a nation entirely nor is there a word either in Matthew 28. 19. or in the places Mr. M. compares with it Mark 16. 15. Gal. 3. 8 9. Rom. 1. 16 17. or Acts 11. 18. to prove that any other of the nations should partake of the Covenant the Jewes before had enjoyed than those that receive the Gospel believe and repent or that they that believe should partake of the promises of the Covenant as it was national and contained the promises made to Abrahams natural seed or that he would henceforth be the God of the Nations professing the Gospel and their seed But the texts all of them prove plainly that the term nations Mat. 28. 19. is limitted to those of the nations that were disciples or did believe Mark 16. 16. that did repent Acts 11. 18. that believe Romans 1. 16 17. As for Gal. 3. 8. I admire that not only Mr. M. but also the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith chap. 28. art 4. to prove the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized should cite Genesis 17. 7 9. with Gal. 3. 9. 14. which if it were alleged any thing to their purpose to include infants as Genesis 17. 7 9. then nations must be taken to comprehend all of the nation and the blessing of Abraham meant of visible Church-membership wheras the text expresly expounds all nations to be meant of them which be of faith and the blessing to be justification and the promise of the Spirit through faith inferring from thence that God would justifie the heathen through faith yea it is so frequent to understand the term nations synecdochically for a part of nations that I find no fewer than eighty times and of these at least eight in Matthews Gospel the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations or Gentiles in the New Testament taken so as not to include infants in the speeches in which it is used But of this I have said enough in my Praecursor sect 22. in my Postscript to M. Bl. s. 14. M. B. in his Praefest Morat s. 22. saith that my speech he excepts against that no one Countrey were discipled was meant by me not onely of a past event but also of a duty that it is not the Ministers duty to endeavour the discipling of any whole nation for then he must endeavour to disciple infants nor a part of the work of that commission and this I confess is true and I still think it yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that Christ had bid them disciple the whole nations even infants then he had bid them preach the Gospel to infants which had been a command of a man not in his wits and which the Apostles never obeyed and therefore I must blaspheme Christ if I expound the words as Mr. B. doth nor doth any promise of Christ foretel that he will make the whole of a nation even the infants disciples What is in his addition page 339 340. I know not I had thought I had all his addition to his third edition when I had his Friendly accommodation and his Praefestinantis morator what the reason is I know not but I cannot yet get his additions yet I conceive in his addition there is but a greater heap of impertinent texts He saith of me As for what he saith of Moses and Magistrates if you peruse what I have said to that already I think it will appear that he is no where more vertiginous than in this To which I answer I said that if Christ would have had a whole nation made his Church as the nation of the Jews was comprehending old and young he had used Emperours and Kings to gather his Church as he did Moses to gather the Jewish Church in the Wildernesse by his authority not Apostles and Preachers by perswasion What he saith to it in his first edition shall be God assisting in its place fully answered I may more truly say that in this conceit of his that Christ should bid the Apostles disciple infants there is giddiness if
not an higher degree of folly And my speech is so agreeable to reason that if I be vertiginous in it I shall then begin to turn Sceptique and question whether any thing be certain As for what Mr. Blake saith about the rule of knowing a chosen believing nation giving title to infants of that nation to be baptized as the Jewish infants were circumcised I think there is no need to add any more to what I say in the Postscript s. 15. sith he confesseth page 67. as the nations are discipled so they are to be baptized and the infants of a nation are baptized by vertue of a privilege from their parents not from the nation Though Mr. Rutherfords words Temperate pleach 12. concl 1. arg 7. Due right of Presbyteries ch 4. sect 6. pâ— 260 261. do intimate that the children in a chosen nation are holy with the holiness of the chosen nation though father and mother be as wicked as the Jewes that slew Christ who were certainly unbelievers and they must stand to this if either they will justify the ordinary practice of baptizing any infants of any Atheâ—stical profane Scoâ—ters Persecutors Blasphemers of God and Religion if they were baptized in infancy and are called Christians or stand to their principle that the commission is to baptize all nations in the same latitude that the Jewes infants were to be circumcised which was and ought to be done though the parents were such as Ahab and Jezabel But however those of the Congregational way who say we are freed from the paedagogy of the Jewes and deny that now there are national Churches by institution as the Jews were and that it is sufficient now to make a member of the Church because one is by birth of this or any other nation as then it was because one was born of the nation of the Jewes as Mr. Burroughs vindic against Mr. Edwards aspersions pag. 23. me thinks should reject the interpretation oâ— making disciples all nations in like wise as the one nation of the Jews were circumcised which was by vertue of their birth according to Gods appointment as descended from Abraham or as joined to that people Yet Mr. Cobbet Just vindic part 2. ch 3. s. 4. argues thus All nations are the subject to be discipled and baptized by commission and therefore at least all the specifical parts of the nations all sorts of persons in the nations but not all of every sort To which I reply The consequence is not of any validity all nations therefore all sorts of the nations It follows not all nations shall serve him therefore all sorts of the nations all nations compassed me about therefore every sort of persons in a nation But saith Mr. Cobbet I would know then why the collective nations are mentioned under that title of nations rather than that of grown persons of the nations To which I answer the reason is because the thing said suffiently shews who of the nations are meant and it is very frequent to restrain the extent of speeches pro subject a materia as the matter spoken of will bear it with truth and sense And that this is usual in the use of the term nations is shewed before As for what Mr. William Cook saith in his Font uncovered page 14. children are not to be excluded Mat. 28. 19. because children are a very considerable and essential part of a nation it is frivolous For 1. If he mean by children infants it is false that infants are an essential part of a nation it is possible there may be a nation which may have for some time never an infant in it 2. If it were true yet it is not to his purpose till he proves that nations Mat. 28. 19. is not taken synecdochically for a part of the nations those that are of age to understand preaching of the Gospel but that it must comprehend every essential part in its full latitude And in like sort Mr. Nathanael Stephens his reasons taken not from the text but from his own conceit That nations must be taken as nation was in the application of it to the Jewish Church and that otherwise there should be a shortning of the Covenant they have been often answered and shewed to proceed upon such mistakes as these that the Church of Christians was to be modelized after the fashion of the Jewes and the use of baptism was to seal such a national Covenant and that title to a Covenant made by God gives right to baptism And for his instances page 9. of his Precept for infant-baptism to infringe our argument from John 4. 1. to prove that Mat. 28. 19. only disciples actually made are the subject appointed to be baptized they all proceed upon a mistake of the reason as if from the example there were gathered an universal rule whereas it is onely brought First to explain the meaning of the phrases Mat. 28. 19. of making disciples and baptizing them Secondly that example is brought not by it self alone as Mr. Stephens brings it but together with the institution and all the examples in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism irregular but his single instances do not infer And whereas page 10 11. he takes on him to shew a certain rule to know a discipled nation he should have added initiating infants of that nation to baptism and sets down their publique profession he cleers not the difficulty except he tell what profession and whose makes it a publique profession whether when the representative of it professeth or the King or the Major part or every person of understanding and if he mean these wayes or any other how he can acquit the Apostles from swerving from Christs rule never looking after any other than personal profession nor baptizing any infant upon his imagined rule and if as he speaks as the parents do now receive the faith so far they and theirs must go under the account of a discipled nation if they profess to bring up theirs in the faith then though the children and servants be professed infidels yet the parents and masters being believers and promising to educate theirs in Christianity these shall be baptizable because part of a discipled nation And when he saith Not only the families of those that truly believe but the families of others also that are willing to yield to the Christian education and to live under the tuition of a Godly Magistracy in the Commonwealth and the instruction of a powerful Ministery in the Church so far forth as they are willing to be guided by the Lawes and the Government of the Church of Christ and are no worse so far they must go under the notion of a discipled nation and parents and children both be the lawful subject of baptism He speaks nothing but riddles leaving it to his Reader to study what he means by so many so fars whether he thinks all these do amount to a profession of the faith whether these do make a man
sure not to every house yea sometimes they were restrained as Paul from preaching in Asia Bithynia Acts 16. 6 7. nor was there ever by the Apostles or any other the Gospel preached so successfully as that there was ever one whole nation I mean totaliter tota comprehending every individual humane person of that nation discipled thereby so as that every one of the nation not one excepted did upon hearing the Gospel freely or of their own accord soberly or in their right wits seriously or not in jest understandingly or knowing what they spake become disciples of Jesus confessing him to be the Christ the Son of the living God But Mr. Blake goes on Vindic. foederis pag. 195. And as it is against the letter of the text so it is plainly against our Saviours scope and end in giving this Commission Mr. T. Examen page 130. saith This enlargement unto all nations in this place was in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10. 5. now in that nation to which there they were limited the whole of the nation was in covenant all the Land was the Land of Immanuel Isa. 8. 8. And consequently so it was to be in other nations by vertue of this happy inlargement or else the opposition is utterly taken away the meaning of the words clouded and the Apostles at a losse for understanding of them for having spent their pains before in a nation all disciples and now having a commission for the discipling of all nations how shall they understand the words unlesse the whole of the nation where they come are to be discipled Answ. The nation in which the Apostles according to the commission Mat. 10. 5. 6. before spent their pains were the people of Israel and to say that nation were all disciples understanding it of disciples of Christ and of every person of that nation is to say the snow is black For the contrary is manifest by expresse Scripture John 1. 11. 7. 5 48. 9. 28 29. 10. 20. 12. 37 38. But saith he The whole of the nation was in Covenant I grant that the whole of the nation were in the Covenants at Horeb Exodus 19. and in the plains of Moab by Moses his edicts from God Deu. 29. But what is this to prove that the Apostles spent their pains in a nation all disciples every person or persons even the infants of that nation were disciples of Christ. Were all of the Jewish nation when the Apostles preached to them disciples of Christ because in Moses his time many hundreds of years before all were engaged in the covenants at Horeb and the plains of Moab by Moses authority It is but a new non-sense gibberish to make these terms synonimous to be disciples of Christ and to be in covenant according to the manner of the Jewes being in covenant And the reason of Mr. Blake is as frivolous All the Land was the Land of Immanuel Isaiah 8. 8. therefore The whole of the nation were in covenant that nation were all disciples of Christ. For first it is plain that the Land of Immanuel there is not the people but the ground or earth they inhabited because it is that The breadth of which the King of Assyria did fill with his wings that is his forces and did pass through 2. How doth Mr. Blake prove that it was called The Land of Immanuel because the whole of the nation was in Covenant It might be called Immanuels land when the Assyrians Chaldaeans and other strangers inhabited it Israel being expelled because of Gods title to it and the people might and shall be in covenant when they shall not be in the Land 3. But it is in my apprehension a meer whimzy to infer the whole of the nation was in covenant in Isaiahs days therefore the nation of the Jewes were all disciples of Christ when the Apostles spent their pains in preaching according to the commission Mat. 10. 5 6. 4. There is no less dotage in the rest of his frivolous speech that it is plainly against out Saviours scope and end in giving the commission Mat. 28. 19. to understand make disciples in I said of all nations that if the whole of the nation be not in covenant in other nations as in the Land of Immanuel by vertue of this happy enlargement the opposition is utterly taken away the meaning of the words clouded and the Apostles at a losse for the understanding of them All which are but vain words The meaning is plain enough as I conceive it was understood so by the Apostles and hath been so by Expositors as I have shewed even by the chiefest of the Paedobaptists without any such construction as Mr. Blake makes Mr. Blake goes on thus And hereto accord the prophecies of the Scripture for the calling of the nations of the Gentiles God shall enlarge Iaphet and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem Gen. 9. 27. Sem was wholly in covenant not by pieces and parcells but universally in covenant Iaphet is to come in succession into covenant in like latitude Psal. 28. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession It is not some among the nations of the heathen that are to be the inheritance of Christ but the heathen To which agrees Revel 11. 15. The Kingdomes of the Earth shall become the Kingdomes of the Lord and of his Christ Immanuel of old had one now he shall have more Kingdomes And they become his no other way than by discipling Gods Ministers are his men of War for subduing and captivating them 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. and Kingdoms are promised them not some in a Kingdom Alexander would not sit down with such a conquest neither would Jesus Christ. If to possess some in a Kingdome be to possess a Kingdom then Antichrist of long time hath had his Kingdom All Kings shall bow down before him all Nations shall serve him Psal. 72. 11. All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee O Lord and shall glorify thy name Psal. 86. 9. Thou shalt call a nation which thou knowest not and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee Isaiah 55. 5. There God calls the nation and the nation doth answer Gods call In that day Israel shall be a third with Egypt and with Assyria even a blessing in the midst of the Land whom the Lord shall blesse saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my hands and Israel my inheritance There Egypt and Assyria are in equipage with Israel all three sister-Churches Israel without any preheminence either Israel then was not a nation of Disciples a nation wholly within covenant or else there are to be national Churches the whole of the nation to be discipled and brought into Covenant Answ. Mr. Blake saith The prophecies of Scripture accord hereto that Mat. 28. 19. they were to make all in a nation disciples
the whole of the nation was to be discipled and that the words were not otherwise to be understood If this reason were of force where any thing is said of the nation it must be understood of the whole of the nation of every person in it or of it even the infants Which how monstrous and wild a conceit it is will appear by multitudes of instances Matth. 21. 43. The Kingdom of God shall be given to a nation contradistinguished to the Jews bringing forth the fruits of it If Mr. Blake say right there is a prophecy of a nation the whole whereof every particular even infans should bring forth the fruits of the Kingdome of God Mat. 24. 9. Ye shall be hated of all nations for my name sake that is the whole of all the nations and if so then of the Christians even themselves who are a part of the nations Besides if this were the meaning the prophecy of Christ would be contradictory to the prophecies Mr. Blake brings in the latitude in which he expounds the word nations Mat. 24. 7. Nation shall rise up against Nation and Kingdom against Kingdom that is if Mr. Blakes fuâ—ile dictates were ought worth the whole of the Nation and Kingdom even the infants should rise up against the whole of another Nation and Kingdom even the infants Acts 11. 18. God hath given repentance to the Gentiles or nations that is according to the rate of Mr. Blakes expositions the whole of the nations even the infants Acts 15. 3. The conversion of the Nations that is of the whole of the nations even the infants ver 17. All the nations upon whom my name is called that is the whole of the nations even the infants The instances are so many to shew the futility of Mr. Blakes reasoning that I hope either he himself will discern his folly and those that magnify him his weakness herein or else me thinks the impudence of such reasoning should be exploded But to shew further the vanity of his dictating rather than disputing He mentions Gen. 9. 27. as a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles but he takes it as presupposed but proves it not and what exceptions ly against it will appear in that which follows in answer to Mr. Cobbet And then he saith Sem was wholly in Covenant not by pieces and parcels universally in Covenant if he mean it of the Jews in the sense wherein being in covenant is as much as being disciples of Christ by profession it is most palpably false for they disclaimed it John 9. 28. But were it granted that they were in Covenant wholly yet where is there a word to prove that Japhet is to come in succession into covenant in like latitude Again he saith Psal. 2. 8. It is not some among the Nations of the heathen that are to be the inheritance of Christ but the heathen In which speech either he deals deceitfully or unskilfully For whereas to it is not some among the nations he opposeth but the heathen he should if he would speak congruous sense have said all of the heathen for ah is opposed to some But instead thereof he saith but the heathen which is either to delude the unwary Reader in that indefinite expression as if it were all one with an universal or to trifle sith some of the heathen may be called the heathen it being but an indefinite term and doth not stand by any rule of Logick necessarily for all heathen and therefore it is all one as if he had said It is not among some of the nations but among some of the nations Besides what sense is there in these words some of the nations of the heathen What are the heathen but the nations Heathen Gentiles the Nations are all terms of the same sense answering to the same words in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to say some of the nations of the heathen is all one as to say some of the nations of the nations which is to trislle Then Revel 11 15. is brought in which prophecy is not to be fulfilled till the seventh Angel sounds till then he shews not That Gods Ministers have Kingdoms promised them not some in Kingdoms And even then The nations were angry and the Wrath of God was come and the time of the dead to be judged ver 18. which sure was not in Johns daies â—or is it to be imagined to be fulfilled in our daies His talk of Christ as emulating Alexander the Great is most vain Christ conquers those whom his Father hath given him be they fewer or more and sits down with that conquest untill his foes be made his footstool but it is most false that there is any Scripture that tells us that all the Kingdomes of the world shall be Christs so as that the whole of each nation shall be disciples of Christ or willing subjects to him For then at his comming he should have no enemies to put down none to condemn No doubt Antichrist yea and the Devil too hath had of long time a Kingdom some its likely in most or every Kingdom yea even where Christs Kingdom hath been Doth not Christ say The Angel of the Church of Pergamus dwelt where Satans throne was Neither Psal. 72 11. nor Psal. 86. 9. nor Isai. 55. 5. saith That the whole of the nation shall be disciples of Christ and if the prophecies were understood in that latitude they were most palpably false Nor is Isa. 19. 24 25. certain to be a prophecy of the call of those people in the times of the Messiah but may be understood of the succession of Proselytes thence after the return from the Captivity and if it were yet there is not so much as the term nation nor is it absurd to deny Israel to be a nation of disciples or a nation wholly within covenant as being within covenant is equipollent to being disciples of Christ nor can national Churches consisting of the whole of a nation even the infants be proved thence or by any History The whole of the nation to be discipled and brought into covenant is a meer phantastick dream M. Bl. yet ads These prophecies or a great part of them I produc'd in my Answer of Mr. T. passing by other in silence as having nothing to reply he marvels that I am not ashamed to produce Psalm 72. ver 11. Psalm 86. ver 9. to prove that the whole of the nations even infants must be included Matth. 28. 19. As if it were foretold that the whole nation even infants should come before God and worship It is strange if Mr. T. be ignorant that prophecies in the old Testament of the glory of New Testament times are in Old Testament phrases by way of allusion to the worship of those times set forth to us Now it was the practice of the people of the Jews for their males of growth and strength to appear before the Lord and neither females noâ— infants as Ainsworth on
the general term all nations Mr. Blake goes on He further saith that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an express example in formal terms of womens receiving the Lords Supper we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of one bread I demand of Mr. T. whether the Apostle speaks in the person of Christians or in the person of women not of women sure for he takes in himself and he was a man and then the formality of an express example falls When it is said that the whole house of Israel is circumcised in the flesh Mr. T will not yield that there is a proof not by any consequence that women though of the house of Israel were virtually circumcised but all partaking of one bread there is a proof formal and express that they were at the Lords Supper Answ. An expresse formal example is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 17. of womens receiving the Lords Supper there being relation of partaking the bread in the indicative mood and the term we all according to Grammar construction the matter not excluding them comprehending women as well as men For the Apostle under all we expresly comprehends all the many that were one bread and one body who are all Christians both Jewes and Gentiles 1 1 Cor. 12. 13. Mr. Blakes demand makes a disjunction of members coincident which is illogical However to it as it is I say the Apostle speaks in his own person not in anothers yet he speaks of the persons of all Christians both men and women and he takes in as expresly the women as the men and the formality of the example is of one as well as the other As for the other passage alleged by Mr. Blake the Predicate circumcised in the flesh being necessarily understood of actual circumcision there is a necessity to understand the Subject the whole house of Israel synecdochically else the speech would not be true But tropes are not to be made but where there is a necessity to make good the speech or to make it agree with the scope circumstances and other expressions of which there is no necessity 1 Cor. 10. 17. to verify the speech of the Apostle but that it is true of women as well as men and must be so understood without a trope and therefore there the speech is to be expounded according to the plain Grammatical meaning as expressed formally without the like trope Mr. Blake saith of me He brings Acts 20. 7. that the disciples on the first day of the week came together to break bread Here is an example as express and formal Mr. T. cannot infallibly prove by help of consequence much less expressly that there was a woman there At that night meeting there might be none but men as at the first institution It can never be an express example till it be made appear that none are disciples but women Answ. I had thought when it is said it is appointed unto men once to dy Heb. 9. 27. death passed upon all men in that all have sinned Rom. 5. 12. it had been express and formal for womens and infants dying though there be other men than women and infants and yet in both places men in Greek is in the masculine gender Disciples in the Acts note all Christians Acts 11. 26. Tabitha is named a disciple Acts 9. 36. and therefore there being no reason to make a trope Acts 20. 7. in the word Disciples Christian women as well as men are comprehended And by breaking bread say the Assembly at Westminster Answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren page 67. Sacramental breaking of bread is understood generally by all Acts 20. 7. The like is said by Chamier Panst. Cathol tom 4. l. 7. c. 6. s. 13. And it is confirmed 1. from the text the words importing that the breaking of bread is there meant which was the end of their customary meeting on the Lords day But this was Sacramental Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. where the Lords Supper is called breaking bread as the usual known term among Christians This seems to me infallible proof that women were there or which is to my purpose that usually they did meet with other disciples to break break As for what Mr. Bl. addes That if I had the texts in hand of a whole houshold baptized they would be sufficiently formal for infant-baptism I tell him no for I could not have withstood the clear light to the contrary from the words Acts 16. 18. and elsewhere which limit the whole house to persons that did hear the word believe receive fear God c. Ampsing dialog contra Anabap. page 206. Idem quoque vobis responsum volumus ad loca illa Act. 16. 34. 1 Cor. 16. 15. Tit. 1. 11. ubi quaedam de totis familiis enunciantur quae non nisi de adultis accipi possunt It is false that the Commission Matthew 28. 19. is to baptize Nations but disciples in or out of nations as is proved above Providence hath not ordered that nations including infants have been brought into the Church as Christ appointed to wit by preaching the Gospel but the national Churches are gathered otherwise than Christ appointed by human laws and infant-baptism I value as much the Churches practice as ever but it is false that in no controverted thing the Church is found so unanimous as in this of infant-baptism It is more unanimous about Episcopacy Prelatical use of the sign of the cross and many other things as may be seen in Mr. Sprint of Conformity pag. 85. c. I shall in convenient time I hope shew the mistakes of Paedobaptists plea for infant-baptism from antiquity The other speech of Mr. Blake That which will speak for infants to receive them into Heaven will speak also to receive them into the Church by baptism is not true For Election the Covenant of Grace a secret work of an initial habitual seminal or actual holiness or faith being supposed may speak to receive them into Heaven yet not to baptism Nor doth it follow that if want of faith exclude them from baptism then by the text Mark 16. 16. the same want of faith excludes from salvation For as I answer in my Praecursor s. 6. a want of faith dogmatical excludes from baptism and yet excludes not infants from salvation SECT VII Mr. Ms. exceptions that Matthew 28. 19. is not the institution of baptism that onely disciples are not appointed to be baptized that this was a rule only for a Church to be constituted are refelled THere are many other exceptions against the argument from the institution Matth. 28. 19. to be considered Mr. M. in his Sermon page 44. saith 1. That of matth 28. is not the institution of baptism 2. It was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant 3. It s only an inlargement of their Commission To which in my Examen I said 1. If this be not the first institution yet it is an
nor is there any consideration of a Father entering into Covenant for his childe more than of a Husbands entering into covenant for his wife or a Masters entering into Covenant for his servant and therefore if this fact were good to prove if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering for him and his it is good to prove that if the Husband or Master be a believer the wife and servant are entered into Covenant the Husband and Master entering it for them and theirs and so wives and servants shall be visible Church-members as well as infants of believers by the faith of Husbands and Masters 2. If the parents faith procure this privilege for the child then either because it is his childe and then it procures it for the childe while it is his childe though the childe be at years and an infidel for then it is his childe or else upon condition the childe agree to it but then the privilege belongs not to infants and there is an inherent condition required to wit the childes consent besides the parents faith if it be said that it procures it to the childe while aâ— infant but not when it comes to years how can this be true that the parents faith or covenanting should immediately and directly constitute them visible Church-members when infants because they are their children and the covenant is made with them and their children as they say and yet they not visible Church-members while they are children surely the immediate cause continuing the effect continues and therefore if the parents faith with the covenant make the childe in infancy a visible Church-member it must also make it a visible Church-member at years though an infidel 3. Whereas it is supposed by Mr. B. that the parents as believers entered the covenant Deut. 29. it rather appears by Moses his preface v. 2 3 4. that Moses did therefore draw them into this solemn Covenant because they were to that day unbelievers 4. It is false that this entering into covenant did make them Church-members For. 1. The end of it was to prevent them from backsliding v. 18. to Idolatry and to prevent Gods forsaking them thereupon v. 13. 2. They were Church-members before both by Gods special separating of the whole nation to be his people and the solemn Covenant at mount Horeb and so were members of that Church as part of that nation 3. If this entering into covenant made them there Church-members visible then it made their posterity also then visible Church-members for with them also was that covenant made v. 14 15. and so persons should be made visible Church-members afore they are born 5. If it were true that that covenanting made them visible Church-members of that Church yet it advantageth no whit to prove infants now visible members of the Christian Church which is not national as that was nor gathered by the chief Magistrate as that was nor injoyned such a national Covenant as that but consisting of particular believers of all nations gathered by the Preaching of the Gospel and voluntary personal covenanting for themselves onely testified by their being baptized into Christ. If any ask whether a national covenant or a covenant of parents for children be now allowable I answer I deny not but such a national or parental covenant may be allowed and in some cases covenient yet I say that it makes not all the subjects and children Church-members nor bindes them without their consent any farther than the matter of the covenant it self bindes As for that which Mr. B. saith if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out it is false if we understand it in respect of Church-membership of children at years they may be in the Church visible though their parents were unbelievers and left out of the Church though believers if of justification it is false both of infants and children of years And it is utterly untrue that in the Christian Church children are made visible Church-members by parents faith or left out because of their unbelief For 1. There is no word of Scripture that saith so The three Texs Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16 17. c. 1 Cor. 7. 14. are fully discussed already in the first part of this review and what Mr. Blake hath replied shall be examined God willing in that which follows 2. No one passage of the New Testament doth shew that any infant was reckoned for a visible Church-member of the Christian Church in the New Testament but many shew they were not 3. If the infant children of the faithfull had been accounted in the Apostles times visible members of the Christian Church there had been some thing done by the Apostles and other holy men to have preserved their right but no practise of baptism on them nor any other act can be produced that the Apostles or other holy men did to preserve such a right Ergo. 4. The Covenant of the Gospel is with particular persons made believers out of all nations their gathering by Preaching the Gospel to them which evidently shew that God intended to take in persons into the Christian Church upon their own faith and not in a national way as he did the Church of the Jews 5. The Texts besides the three forenamed brought by the Assembly Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. to wit Ezek. 16. 20 21. Gen. 3. 15. Gen. 17. 7. and the Texts brought by Mr. B. not here examined to wit Matth. 23. 37 38 39. Revel 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. 7. 22. Rom. 4. 11. Exod 20. 6. Iosh. 7. 25 26. Deut 13. 12 13 14. Psal. 37. 26. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16 17. Deut. 28. 4 18 32 41. Mal. 2. 15 are so palpably impertinent to prove the visible Church-membership of infants now that I am in a demur with my self whether it be fit for me to bestow any more pains in shewing the impertinency of them 6. The speeches of Protestants of note do make the persons own profession that sign whereby they are judged and from whence they are termed of the visible Church Synops. Profess Leydens Disp. 40. sect 32. Ecclesia visibilis appellatur non tam quia homines ipsi visibiles sunt sed quia ipsorum ordo professio communio sensibus exponuntur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 9. sect 3. visibilis dicitur Ecclesia ratione communionis sensibilis membrorum inter se. Mr. Marshall himself in the Sermon at the Spiâ—â—le April 1652. stiled by Mr. B. that late excellent honest solid Sermon for unity pag. 15. hath these words Secondly that part of the Church which is upon the earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it ly in internal grace which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church but now as the same Church and members doth make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eys and
â—is solis baptizare competit quibus Commissio data est baptizandi Haec propositio per se patet quia baptismi institutio pendet à sola voluntate instituentis itaque ex hac sola meâ—â—enda quomodo eucharistiae Lib. 8. c. 2. s. 3. Quod si igitur tota sacramenti essentia est ab institutione divina profectò hac violata non potest sacramentum consistere C. 8. s. 14. He cites Calvins words Institutio enim Christi est certa regula à qua si deflect as jam rectum non tenes S. 21. At nos contra hanc sceleratam audaciam ratum habemus illud Bielis in Canonem lectione 35. sacramentum irritum reputatur si contra institutionem celebretur L. 7. c. 13. s. 17. sed non peccari in missa privata negatur non enim aliter potest si contra institutionem admittatur sic consentiunt omnes peccatum fuisse cum baptizarentur mortui quia videlicet institutio habuit doceri baptizarique gentes in quibus mortui nulli numerantur Sic emendatum fuit quod olim admittebatur ut infantibus porrigeretur eucharistia quoniam institutio habet ut seipsum probet qui de hoc pane sit esurus similis omnino communionis ratio quandoquidem disertum Accipite edite Mr. Selden lib. 1. de syned Ebrae c. 13. pag. 500. Modorum temperamentorum ejusmodi ex arbitrio Humano accessione ut id quod esset institutum aliquod Divinum novaretur aut ullatenus mutaretur nunquam ritè permissum est If all these testimonies satisfy not the Apostle Pauls speech 1 Cor. 11. 23. yields us this truth that the institution of Christ is that whereby an abuse in a sacrament is to be reformed and therefore is the ordinary rule according to which the sacrament is to be administred Whence the New Annot. on that place infer The only way to reform any abuses in the Church is to have recourse to the word of God and first institution And even the Assembly itself Confession of faith chap. 20 make many things used by Papists as private masses half-communion adoration elevation reservation of the bread contrary to the nature of the Sacrament and to the institution of Christ and prove it only by these texts 1 Cor. 10. 16. Mark 14. 23. 1 Cor. 11 25 26 27 28 29. Math. 15. 9. which are no proof without this Proposition To vary from the institution in things appointed is evil as being an humane invention or worshipping of God after the commands of men contrary to Matth. 15. 9. The Minor is confessed by Mr. Cawdrey Sab. Rediv. part 4 ch 1. num 59. We have not in Scripture either precept or example of children baptized Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 35. that there is neither express command or example in the New Testament that children should be or were baptized and pag. 44. It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no express mention of any other and a little after both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of baptism But that we may not seem to beg what is to be proved I further argue thus The institution and practice of the Sacrament of Christi an baptism is set down in the New Testament But baptizing of infants of believers is neither according to the institution of Christ nor any practice or example therein Ergo. The Major is plain of it self For Christian baptism being a Sacrament of the New Testament must have its institution and example to regulate it there or no where It is frequently put into the definition of the Sacraments of the New Testament that they are ordained by Christ himself and for defect of Christs institution in the New Testament sundry things are denyed to be Sacraments of the New Testament The Minor is proved from the texts which speak of baptism either of the institution or practise From both which I argue thus Matth. 28. 19. is Christs institution Mr. B. calls it The solemn institution of baptism But the baptizing of infants of believers is not according to Christs institution of baptism Matth. 28. 19. Ergo. The Minor is proved First from the Subjects appointed to be baptized to wit disciples of all Nations They that are not disciples of Christ are not appointed to be baptized Norton resp ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 34. non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizandi Matth. 28. 19. discipulate baptizantes But infants of believers are not disciples of Christ Therefore they are not appointed to be baptized That disciples included in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Rom. 4. 4. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them is proved from the expression John 4 1. where it is said when the Pharisees heard that Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh disciples and baptizeth This the Evangelist saith was done by the Disciples of Christ. Now what they did before in Judaea they were after appointed to do among all Nations Matth. 28. 19. Therefore no other were appointed to be baptized than were baptized before Iohn 4. 1. saving only with greater extent that is disciples made of or among or in all Nations Beza annot in Mat. 28. 19. Discipulos facite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est discipulos mihi facite ex omnibus gentibus Make to me disciples out of all Nations Ursin Explic. catech part 2. q. 69 Verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo Christus utitur proprie est discipulos facite quod declaratur a Ioanne c. 4. 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ useth is properly make disciples which is declared by Iohn ch 4. v. 1. Pareus Comment in Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est idem quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discipulos facere Christo ut explicatur Iohn 4. 1. It is the same with to make disciples to Christ as it is explained John 4. 1. The New Annot on Matthew 28. 19. of the first edition which is now altered in the second edition to hinder truth teach Greek make disciples of as Iohn 4. 1. all nations not Iews alone but Gentiles also Acts 10. 34 35 47. Chamier Panstr cath tom 3. l. 12. c. 9. s. 15. It was the express command of Christ teach or make disciples in all nations Norton resp ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make disciples Joh. 4. 1. Cameron in his Lecture on Mat. 19. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a proselyte is as Mat. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said for to make a disciple This is confirmed in that what is said of Joseph Mat. 27. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the vulgar Latin Beza our English c. who also himself was Iesus disciple is Iohn 19. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being disciple to Iesus Whereby it is
that infant-baptism wants an institution as if the meaning were that it wants an institution with limit to infant age and then talks thus at randum This Objection if it have force in it followed home will overthrow all baptism at any age and every other new Testament ordinance whatsoever For according to this rule a person must bring a precept for one of his age to be baptized But this is M. Blakes mistake of the objection For in it an institution is not required with limit to infant age but such an institution as comprehends by any description ordinarily infant age But then saith he upon the same account church-members in covenant of any age ought to be baptized and so the institution is not in question about that there is an agreement but whether infants be in covenant whether they be any church-members is to be disputed which already is satisfied Answ. It is false which he faith that there is an agreement about the institution I deny that the institution is Baptize persons in covenant except he mean persons in covenant by their own profession and promise or that it is all one to baptize disciples and to baptize persons to whom God hath promised or covenanted Christ For then the Jews yet uncalled should be baptized to whom Gods covenant is Romans 11. 27. It is false also that upon the same account upon which the institution of baptism with limit to infancy is waved church-members in covenant of any age in Mr. Blakes sense ought to be baptized and that the question is only whether infants be in covenant whether they be any members He knows well that I yield that infants are in the covenant of grace in respect of Gods promise to as many of them as are elect whether believers children or not and that I grant that many of them are members of the invisible Church yea he himself in his 43. chap. of Vindic. foederis sect 3. had disputed against my tenet denying a connexion between the covenant and initial seal and therefore this speech of his shews either his oscitancy or his willingness to mislead He then repeats his arguments in his Birth privilege in the same words he then used to prove the institution to comprize infants which were answered in my Examen sect 13. and my answer there vindicated in my Postscript sect 14 15 18. in answer to the 11 chapter of Mr. Blakes answer to my Letter I will not here repeat what I then answered but reply to what he excepts in his Vindic. Foederis pag. 413. where he doth not shew insufficiency in what I say Apol. page 147. to answer his allegation of Isaiah 49. 22. But saies he doubts not I abuse my memory Concerning which I yield it not unlikely my memory did fail me in that thing of his alleging Isaiah 49. 22. as an argument by it self I hope this may satisfy Mr. Blake and the Reader if he read the places in my writings here mentioned may be satisfyed that it proves not any thing for Mr. Blakes purpose Likewise for what I answered in my Postscript sect 18. to his allegation of Mat. 18. 5. 10. 42. Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 47 48. he refers to Mr. Baxters book page 22. I shall refer the Reader to my answer to Mr. B. here M. Blake only adds that the denyal that infants are within the verge of the Commission Mat. 28. 19. involves the Apostles and all that are imployed in their work in succession in a contradiction The nations are to be discipled Infants bear a part of the nation and yet infants are in an incapacity wholly of it See Mr. Cooks answer to the Challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford pag. 14. I reply Mr. Blakes words are so obscure as many of his speeches are that I understand not his meaning when he saith The denyal that infants are within the verge of that commission Matthew 28. 19. involves the Apostles and all that are imployed in their work in succession in a contradiction whether he mean thus my denial involves the Apostles in a contiadiction to their own sayings or to Christs words either way understood I discern not any truth or shew of truth in Mr. Blakes words Christs words are a command and not an enunciation and therefore there can be according to exact expression no contradiction to them and for any sayings of the Apostles which should be involved in a contradiction by my denial it is beyond any art of divination of mine to ghesse which and where they should be And for his syllogism it is false consisting of four terms 1. The nations 2. to be disciples 3. infants 4. bear a part of the Nation If it were good I might from the parallel place Mark 16. 15. argue in the same manner Every creature is to have the Gospel preached to it Infants bear a part of every creature therefore to infants the Apostles were to preach the Gospel Nor is there any contradiction in these two Propositions The nations are to be discipled and yet infants are in an incapacity of it no more than in these God hath granted repentance to the Nations Acts 11. 18. yet not to infants All nations and all people are exhorted to praise God Rom. 15. 11. in him shall the nations trust verse 12. yet not an infant meant The speeches are so plain Acts 15. 3. declaring the conversion of the nations verse 7. God made choice among us that the nations by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe verse 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Nations to take out of them a people for his name verse 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord and all the Nations upon whom my name is called verse 19. Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Nations are turned to God Acts 20. 25. As touching the Nations for the word translated Gentiles and Nations is the same in all these places which believe we have writen and yet in no one of these places are infants meant under the term Nations And when our Lord Christ expresseth what he said Matthew 28. 19. Disciple all nations by the words preach the Gospel to every creature Mark 16. 15. as the comparing the texts shews and interpreters confess I know not how to conceive with what Spirit Mr. Blake is moved who doth so often seek to impose his stale all egations so often and so plainly refuted Will any man conceive that Christ bid them preach to infants and yet his bidding them to disciple all nations is as much as to bid them go preach to all nations If men do swallow down such fancies I can hardly judge but that they are willing to be deceived In Mr. Cookes book in the place to which he refers me I find no more then in Mr. Blakes and therefore need give no other answer than what is given to him But Mr. Blake addes
not yet that which alone denominates Disciples If his disjunction were good he should prove that capacity of a title or Gods intention of shewing mercy without actual learning or professing Christ is enough to denominate a person a Disciple of Christ which is so manifestly contrary to all the use of the word in the new Testament and to expositors of Matth. 28. 29. that I am now bold to say that it is no better than height of impudence after so evident proof to maintain so gross an absurdity But I am necessitated to follow Mr. B. in his vagaries 1. If infants saith Mr. B. are capable of being Gods servants then they are capable of being Disciples For as they signify here the same thing and denote the same sort of persons so there is the same capacity requisite to both or if you will make a difference there is more required to a servant than to a Disciple But infants are capable of being Gods servants this is plain For the Lord God himself doth call them his servants Levit. 25. 41. 42. they are commanded in the year of Iubile to let their brother that was sold to them and his children depart and the reason is added for they are my servants that infants are here included among his children cannot be denied or doubted of Mr. T. began to deny it but he quickly recalled it Is not here then direction enough to help us to judg of the minde of God whether infants are his servants and Disciples or no Doth not God call them his servants himself what more should a man expect to warrant him to do so men call for plain Scripture and when they have it they will noâ— receive it so hard is it to inform a forestalled minde It may be some may say They were then capable of being Gods servants but they are not so now But this were a wretched answer For their capacity was the same then and now Infants then were like infants now Answ. It is certain that the term servants of God is not always equipollent to a Disciple of Christ. For Jer. 43. 10. Nebuchadnezzar is called Gods servant and the heavens Psal. 119. 91. But then when it is taken in the sense the Apostle useth it Rom. 6. 16. His servants ye are to whom ye obey and therefore unless he means by servants of God men voluntarily obeying the Gospel yea and visibly appearing so to do I shall deny his consequence and his dictates that either Acts 15. 10. or Matth. 28. 19. a Disciple and a servant of God in his sense signify the same thing or denote the same sort of persons And if more be required to a servant than a Disciple it follows that a person may be a Disciple and yet not a servant of God and so the terms are not reciprocal and his consequence so much the more infirm As for his minor it is denied understanding it of capacity of infants while infants in an ordinary way and of being Gods servants in the sense used Rom. 6 16. in which alone it is equipollent to a Disciple As for the Text Levit. 25. 41 42. though it be plain Scripture yet there is nothing plain or obscure in it for Mr. Bs. purpose to prove that the infants of believers of the Gentiles now are Gods servants in a sense equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. For. 1. the passage is meant onely of Hebrews as Exod. 21. 2. is expressed and the Text it self shews it 1. From v. 55. where it is said unto me the children of Israel are servants they are my servants whom I brought out of the Land of Egypt in which are two discriminating notes differencing them from others 1. That they were the children of Israel descended from Iacob by natural generation 2. that they were brought out of the Land of Egypt by God 2. v. 44. 45. do explain it where God allows them to take Bond-slaves of the heathen that were round about them and of the children of the strangers that did sojourn among them which is the description of Proselytes of the Gate that is such as acknowledged the God of Israel but did not submit to Circumcision and the observation of Moses Law of which sort was Cornelius Acts 10. 2. Such an ones children were not Gods servants in the sense there meant Yea Ainsworth in his Annot. on v. 42. citeth Maimony resolving that an Israelites children begotten on a Canaanitish bond-woman are but Canaanites in every respect not Gods servants in the sense there meant 2. What is said there is said not onely of Infants but also of Parents yea though they were idolaters as those that worshipped the golden Calf or joyned themselves to Baal Peor or who hardened their hearts and could not enter into Canaan for unbelief Heb. 3. 18 19. even the woâ—st of them with whom God was not well pleased which were not true of servants of God in a sense equipollent to a Disciple of Christ Matth. 28. 19. 3. Diodati expresseth in his Annot. on Lev. 25. 42 in what sense they are called Gods servants to wit in as much as none could get sovereign Dominion over them to prejudice his therefore they are there called Gods servants in this respect onely in that they were to be disposed of not as men would but as he would who had right to them by his purchase in bringing them out of Egypt So that they are called Servants of God in that place not out of any either voluntary obedience to his Precepts or peculiar right to visible Church-membership but in respect of Gods sovereignty over them to dispose of them as Hebrews which was not belonging to believers or their children or other Nations not joyned to the policy of the Hebrews And therefore I still say Mr. B. doth but trifle as a man that superficially looks over a Text when he talks so vainly as he doth of direction enough to help us to judg of Gods minde whether Infants are his Servants and Disciples or no. Nor is it tru which he saith that the capacity is the same then and now For though infants then were like infants now yet the judicial Laws of Moses and the peculiar condition of the Hebrews is not now as then But he goes on May I not make this a third Argument of it self If God call Infants his Servants though they can do him no service then we may call them so too for we may speak as God doth but God doth call them so therefore we may Answ. The Conclusion is granted he may call Hebrew infants Gods servants in the sense meant Lev. 25. 41. But if he cal the children of Gentile-believers Servants of God in a sense equipollent to a Disciple Matth. 28. 19. He must bring better warrant than that Text or else I shall deny it slighting his vain censure of a forestalled minde and conceiving rather it verisied of himself As the Man thinketh so the Bell tinketh Again saith Mr. B.
as belonging to Christ and as a Disciple of Christ in Christs language is all one for they plainly express the same thing intended in all From whence I infer that if the same thing be intended in all and all express the same thing then is no other thing intended or expressed Luke 9. 48. than what is expressed and intended Matth. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41. Matth. 10. 42. and then it is certain that Luke 9. 48. is not meant of a little infant in age nor the receiving such as agrees to such an infant sith it is certain that Matth. 18. 5. Marke 9 41. Matth. 10. 42. are not understood of either of these and it follows upon Mr. Bs. confession that some of these Texts speak not of infants that none of them speak of infants sith they all express and intend the same thing and thus Mr. Bs. own observation refuâ—es himself But saith he when they are baptized it is into his name Answ. Mr. B. it seems would have this the sense whosoever receiveth to Baptism in my name one little childe receiveth me to Baptism which should imply it to be a gratefull office to receive him to Baptism and the offending Matth. 18. 6. and despising v. 10. should be not admitting to Baptism and when it is sayd whosoever shall receive one such little one it would imply it to be a gratefull work for any person though no Minister to receive to Baptism and an ungrateful work for any to refuse to baptize I grant that in the places named to be such a little one Matth. 18. 5. to belong to Christ Mark 9. 41. to be a Disciple of Christ Matth. 10 42. note the same sort of persons yet I deny that proposition which is the hinge of Mr. Bs. proof every one that belongs to Christ is a Disciple of Christ For the holy Angels those yet uncalled whom his Father hath given him John 17. 10. belong to Christ and yet are not to be called Disciples of Christ. And therefore I infer that Mr. B. hath no encouragement from Christs exposition of these Texts to account infants Disciples and what he collects in his own fancy without the Text is frivolous and self contradicting so little worth the standing on that for my part I think this sheet of his Book what ever be said of the rest worth no more than a sheet that is made thur is piperisque â—ucullus yet he cannot forbear but must add more of this frivolous stuff In answer to this objection Infants cannot learn and therefore cannot be Disciples he adds thus much more 1. They can partake of the protection and provision of their Master as the children of those that the Israelites bought and enjoy the privileges of the family and school and be under his charge and dominion and that is enough to make them capable of being Disciples Answ. What privileges of Christs family and school infants enjoy I know not what ever they be what ever protection provision rule care is for them yet this is not enough to make them Disciples as Christ meant Mat. 28. 19. till they have learnt or profess learning of this Lesson that Jesus is the Christ all that is said here of Children may be said of slaves bought with money they are all then with him Disciples of Christ though professed infidels 2. They are saith he devoted to learning if they live however they are consecrated to him as their Master who can teach them hereafter and that is yet more Answ. I may add they may cry as Cyprian and his sixty six Bishops alleged for their Baptism and suck and smile and play with the mother and that is more than this but neither the one nor the other any thing to the denomination of a Disciple of Christ. 3. Saith he I wonder you should be more rigorous with Christ in this case than you are with men Is it not common to call the whole nation of the Turks both old and young by the name of Mahometans or Disciples of Mahomet Answ. What a pretty passage is this to set out a man as rigorous with Christ who expounds his words Matth. 28. 19. according to his constant language in all the Evangelists because he allows not infants to be called Disciples as if Christ forsooth did plead for infants discipleship and I were so stiff as that I would not yield to him But he thinks I will allow Mahometans children to be called Mahomets disciples for it is the common use and why not then we and our children by the name of Christians and Disciples of Christ. Answ. I confess I think the common use now is to call the Turks young and old Mahometans and in Chorographical relations English French c. are called Christian Nations old and young termed Christians but neither do I finde the common use to be to call infants either Mahomets or Christs Disciples nor if I did should this sway me at all to allow infants discipleship according to Matth. 28. 19. till Scripture use of the term Disciple applicable to that sense can be shewed But Mr. B. hath more of this childish arguing And when a man hired a Philosopher to teach him and all his children were they not all then Disciples of that Philosopher They are entered under him as their Master for future teaching are at present in the relation of Disciples Answ. It is no such strange thing to hear of a Physician taking a stipend to cure a man and all his children but to hear of a Philosopher hired to teach a man and all his children even his infant children and counting them Disciples and entering them under him as their master is so strange to me that it seems to me somewhat like a tale of a man of Gotham Yet if there were any such thing acted by wise men in sober sadness it is nothing to prove infants Disciples in Christs or his Apostles language But the prettiest part of this Comedy or poppet play of Mr. B. is yet behinde 4. Saith he And truly I wonder also that it should go so currant that infants are not capable of learning the mother is a Preacher to the infant partly by her action and gesture and partly by voice Answ. And why not by smiles and kisses and whipping But what then They can dishearten and take off from vices and teach them obedience Answ. T is true they can still them from crying but how they can take them off from vices and teach them obedience to Gods Command I am yet to learn it may be nurses may better inform me than Mr. B. Me thinks saith he we should not make an infant less docible than some brutes What doth Mr. B. mean by this Doth he think they that deny infants to be Disciples allow brutes to be Disciples A parret I think will sooner learn some words of Christs than an infant yet I think neither learn any thing of the Doctrine of Christ till they understand it But I am