not alleged by any before Mr. B. and therefore besides the impertinency of the words as he himself allegeth them I see no need to search any further into it His allegation pag. 154. out of Iraeneus is impertinent wherein besides other frivolous inferences out of his words he tels us that Irenaeus cannot mean by sanctifying internal real sanctifying onely for then according to their exposition of Renascuntur it should be but Tautology q. d. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified or new born whereas had he heeded these words set down by himself this imagined Tautology had been seen to be his meer mistake for his words are Omnes venit per semet ipsum salvare He came to save men of all ages as Dr. Hammond renders it not as Mr. B. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified And yet if they had been thus he sanctifieth by himself all that are born again or sanctified by him it had not been a Tautology sith it is manifest that Irenaeus by per semetipsum meant by the patern or example of his own age and then it is no Tautology but hath this plain sense that all that are sanctified by Christ he came to sanctifie them by the patern or example of his own age and therefore lived in every age of a man which is the purport of Irenaeus his discourse in that place which is by all sorts of writers censured as his mistake Having said so much of Mr. Bs. mistakes and thereby sufficiently shewed that no writer in the two first Centuries mentions infant-baptism and therefore Mr. Bs. speech is most false that he shall easily prove that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as the Apostles days as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us I leave the examining of the testimonies for baptizing of infants or against them till I have finished the review of the dispute from Scripture testimonies and then I intend not onely to examine what Mr. B. hath scribled in his Plain Scripure Proof c. part 2. chap. 15. and in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 3. but also what Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Young as I am informed and what Dr. Hammond men better acquainted with the writings of the Ancients than Mr. B. or Mr. Bl. have said about the antiquity of infant-baptism and do no whit doubt but that I shall with the Lords assistance make good the assertions of the first part of my Examen that First infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pre ended Secondly that as it is now taught it is a late innovation meaning as it is taught by the Assembly Mr. M. and the reformed Churches called Calvinists As for Mr. Bs. assertion that he should easily prove that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon popish or heretical grounds if he mean the deferring it till a person were catechized and of years sufficient to answer by himself to the three questions about Repentance Faith and Obedience which were still put to the baptized it is not onely vain and inconsiderate but notoriously false it being the constant order of the Church to baptize after catechising and the baptizing of infants onely an exception from the common rule and order in case of danger of death till after Angustines days who flourished in the fifth Century The grounds on which Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen did perswade the delaying of Baptism were neither popish nor heretical as their words alleged in my Exercit. Sect. 22. shew But on the contrary the hastening of infant-baptism manifestly appears by the words of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen alleged there and of â—yrian and Augustine together with the relations of Gregory Nazianzens and Austins Baptism alleged in my Examen Part. 1. Sect. 7 8. to have come from the popish conceit that without Baptism infants could not come to Gods Kingdom or were damned I deny not deferring of Baptism to have been an abuse upon sundry misconceits set down in Mr. Ms. Defence pag. 22 23 24 25. but not one of them popish except that of washing away sins by it which was the very ground of hastening infant-baptism as appears from the passages forenamed by me That which made persons of years defer their own Baptism made them hasten the Baptism of their infants Whereas Mr. B. would have Mr. Cradocks Gospel Liberty read I have read it and do finde that neither in his second part chap. 12. nor here Mr. Cradock is well used by Mr. B. Mr. Cradock pag. 114. counts the custome of the Church the weakest rule to discern by and then onely he leaves Christians to it when there is no other light to go forward Mr. B. himself pag. 302. concludes against Mr. Bedford that in so material a thing as infant-baptism to hold Traditions Apostolical not contrary to Scripture-custome or which may not be confirmed from Scripture as our rule is prejudicial to Scripture and a complying with Papists Besides I need not say anymore than Mr. B. there saith about the uncertainty of Traditions unwritten and customes of the Ancients which may serve for the present till a fuller answer be made to that calumniating question in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 3. Do not you care to smite through Christianity so you may bring down infant-baptism which he hath as much need to answer as my self for he shews pag. 303. by the uncertainty about Easter the mistake of Irenaeus about Christs age how uncertain the relations of the Ancients are about things not set down in Scripture And for the customes of Christians an Age or two after the Apostles Writers do shew many corrupt customes came in about Easter Lent Infant-communion sending the Communion to the absent mingling Water with Wine Monastick profession honoring of Martyrs about Baptism giving Milk and Honey to the baptized anointing them the use of the sign of the Cross which grew to a very great number in Augustines time so as that in his 119. Epistle to Januarius he complained as is before mentioned and yet they increased after in the heighth of Popery by reason of the innumerable company of humane Ceremonies insomuch as that the pure worship and truth of the Gospel was shadowed so much as that for the abundance of such leavs the fruit of the Gospel-worship and doctrine was very little or scarce discernible and Christian Religion was almost wholly placed in those Ceremonies And therefore however there were weight in that argument of the Apostle we have no such custome nor the Churches of God of those times yet especially in matters of Ceremonies and positive worship the former after the Apostles days much less the present customes of the holiest Saints and Churches should not be of any great weight in cases controverted except when they serve to expound some passages of the Scripture that are cleared by them Yet this will no whit infringe the validity of the testimony of the Ancients about the canonical books or right readings of the
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
Scripture no more than the discrediting of the Jewish Rabbins relations about their Traditions doth infringe their testimony about the books of the Old Testament though Mr. B. in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 3. would insinuate as if denying the certainty of Austins rule about Apostolical Traditions must infer an uncertainty about the canonical Scripture which shews his proness to calnmniate me and his inconsiderateness in not observing how this may be objected against his own speeches pag. 303 as well as mine As for Mr Bs. tenth Position though I grant it as it is set down yet in his amplyfying of it there are sundry things that need animadversions 1. That whereas he speaks of some that disclaim Reason because they require express words of Scripture and content not themselves with his supposed evident consequences he may know that I have often acknowledged consequences good proof from Scripture and if others do deny consequences I do imagine that if they were rightly understood it would appear that they deny onely such far-fetcht consequences as are used about infant-baptism resting upon such hypotheses as are taken for granted when they have need of proof or such consequences as are drawn from the rites of the Jews to the Sacraments of the New Testament which if it be their meaning Mr. Bs. censure of them as sensless ignorant wretches is too harsh and magisterial 2. To what he saith Will you allow of such an argument for infant-baptism as Christ brings for the Resurrection I answer for my self and the people of Bewdley to whom that speech was intended we will but withall I say that in viewing of his book I discern nothing but Mr. Bs. vanity in imagining his arguments to be like Christs when upon trial they have little in them but superficial reasonings urged with much confidence and importunity upon mistakes and stuffed with impertinent Texts frivolous questions and childish wonderings fitted like things set in fields and gardens to fright birds to deter the shallow heads of this age from the truth who either have no minde or no ability to examine it scholastically This is my judgment of it Chap. 2. After all his ten Positions Mr. B. hath three more Propositions the first about the difficulty of it in amplifying of which he confesseth the point of infant-baptism to be such as the most godly learned impartial Divines cannot agree in after all their writings disputing studying and praying which being true it is most unjust in Maresius that in his sixth question he makes the error of Anabaptists intolerable in Ministers that they will not permit such as deny infant-baptism to preach nor will either themselves hear them or pray with them or suffer their hearers but renounce communion with them and make separations from them and so shew themselves Schismaticks yea and in their Pulpits and Writings endeavour to make them odious exciting Magistrates to imprison expell and destroy them on the otherside the Parlament is justified in that speech of theirs in the Declaration Ordered March 4. 1647. to be published in answer to the Scots Commissioners Paper that the opinion against the baptism of Infants is such as wherein in former ages as well as this learned men have differed both in opinion and practice and that therein they held it fit that men should be convinced by the Word of God with gentleness and reason and not beaten out of it by force and violence But Mr. B. hath another fling at my speech that it is an easie point and that the reason why so many Divines did not discern it was their wilfulness or negligence and this he imputes to want of humility modesty conscientiousness and that he should tremble to pass so high a censure forgetting what a heavy censure he had past before on others of discovering a seared conscience either taking error for no sin or else daring to venture on sin without fear and betraying their own souls by their laziness p. 6. Who should be Antipaedobaptists without reading and studying first some books there named calling others ignorant sensless wretches with much more of this kinde over all his book in which it is frequent with him to censure me my answers and speeches as if they shewed some fearfull spiritual judgment fallen on me when his own mistakes through heedlesness or uncharitableness are all the occasion of such a censure But for my speech here I say still that I know not how to say otherwise and yet deprehend not any such pride immodesty or want of conscientiousness in my speech nor any such high censure as he should tremble to pass but as humble and fair an answer as is to be given to the question Godly learned and humble men have differed in the points of Prelacy Ceremonies Ordinances even in things that in themselves were easie to be discerned What censure is easier than this when some of them have continued in an error easily discernible to say it hath been through wilfulness or negligence which things are incident to the best and ablest when they have a conceit of the point as of small moment specially in comparison of peace and unity when prejudice by education determinations of Councils Schools leading Writers Magistrates censures c. prepossessing them draw them from examining it or if they do examine it makes them willing to satisfie themselves with imperfect and raw answers to their scruples and most of all when the loss of Preferment Friends Estate Liberty comes to be in question and pre-engagements make it grievous to retract What I said of this is manifest by the instance I gave about Lutheran Consubstantiation which M. B. should have shewed not to be appositely brought and not carp and cavil at my words so often as he doth though they were but in a speech in private conference that he may paint me out in as ugly shape as he can specicially to those of Bewdley my dear Auditors heretofore but now causlesly by his affrightments estranged from me which if it be not a fruit of malevolence in him I know not what to call it As for his talk of his own doubts and pains to resolve himself and the easiness and plainness of the grounds of it it satisfies not me but still I am suspitious of his negligence in not considering better many of those things he hath taken up In which I am confirmed from his own confessions of prejudice unwillingness to be put on this business in that it diverted him from other enjoyments and studies and from his hasty printing his indistinct handling specially of his second argument never clearly opening his terms nor shewing the hypotheses on which he builds his second main argument his disorderly placing his proofs his heaping up impertinent Texts his mistakes of my answers his overly reading my writings out of contempt of them his frivolous questions and expostulations c. And for his inference about my wilfulness or negligence it is but a further piece
drawn that ceremonials give place to morals sacrifice to mercy Sure I am neither here nor any where else in Scripture is there found such an argument as this Thus it was in a ceremony of Moses Law therfore thus is must be in a rite or ceremony of the New Testament Mr. Blake proceeds thus Vpon Mr. T. his desire of rules how farre we may go in this parity of reason and himself allowing this way of reasoning in morals which in many cases might be singularly usefull and very helpful in this particular he is yet silent we may then keep our way of reasoning without rules as well as he his I yet gave in mine which he epitomizes and gives in to the Reader by the halves To whom in the first place I might apply that of the Poet Carpere vel noli nostra vel ede tua Answ. There was no reason I should set down rules about reasoning from analogy in morals how usefull soever they might be For 1. though I said in my Examen pag. 28. for that which is natural or moral in worship an institution or command in the old Testament is allowed as obligatory to Christians yet I did not say that in morals a man may reason as Paedobaptists reason in ceremonials This was a duty or sin in the Old Testament therefore another thing is a duty or sin in the New Testament which was not in the old also by imagined parity of reason as my words Postscript sect 17. import 2 Neither is it necessary to set down any other rules than what either Logicians set down in the Topicks about arguments à comparatis or Divines give in the expounding the Decalogue 3. If any more were requisite yet it would have been to draw me into a dispute on the by to fall on that point in that place 4. If it had been fit for me to do it yet at that time I had no leisure the Postscript being written when my Apology was almost printed as I say in the Postscript sect 1. which is also a reason why I did not set down all his words about his rules in my Postscript sect 17. which he calls epitomizing of them and giving in to the Reader by halves when the rules were as fully delivered by me as himself and only the applications and amplifications omitted nor doth he shew wherein I have omitted any thing of the strength of them But whereas Mr. Blake saith he may keep up his way of reasoning without rules as well as I mine he doth untruly suggest that I keep up any way of reasoning without rules my way of reasoning is such as the Apostle used 1 Cor. 11. 23. and best Divines court certain to take that onely as of Gods appointment in meer positive ceremonies of the New Testament which is gathered by Christ or the Apostles precept or example in the New Testament Pareus Comment in Mat. 26. 26. quicquid igitur Dominus Jesus hic instituit atque praecepit necessariò est observandum nec omittendum quicquid non instituit nec praecepit non est quasi necessarium huic sacramento obâ—rudendum sed rejiciendum Hinc videam illi qui fractionem panis à Domino institutam omittunt vel damnans Which doubtless is as true concerning Baptism Mat. 28. 19. Jus Divinum Eccl. regiminis by London Ministers part 2. ch 10. pag. 99. The power of Church government is not natural but positive Therefore all such power claimed or exercised without such positive grant is meerly fine tiâ—ulo ipso facto null and void And for his way of reasoning without rules to wit to argue thus It was so in a meer positive ceremony of the old Testament now abolished upon this conceived reason Ergo it must be in like sort in another ceremony of the new Testament which is conceived to have in part the same use if he kept it up it will condemn the reformation of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies and justifie the retaining of them The thing I required in my Examen pag. 29. was this I desire any learned man to set me down a rule from Gods Word how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason equity or analogy to wit in meer positive things to frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances whereof one is taken away without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example and where I must stay when it will be superstition and wil-worship when not when my conscience may be satisfied when not Mr. Blake Vindic. foed pag. 375. saies of me Take them as he layes them down Apolog. pag. 142. 1. When parity of reason or analogy doth not institute any piece of worship or the least part of the service of God but onely help to a right understanding of the nature use and extent of that which is instituted 2. When in our reasoning from analogy for the right understanding of any institution or ordinance we do not rest solely on the analogy with other commands but have our further reason for confirmation 3. When the analogy holds full proportion in that for which it is brought so that nothing can fairly be brought against the one but may be also concluded against the other Against these rules he takes three exceptions 1. That never a one of these rules is brought out of Gods Word for there is neither declaration of such rule nor example to prove it The first rule I thus illustrated Ainsw pag. 76. You find nothing in Scripture for excommunication of women yet we find in the old Testament Miriam shut out of the Camp Num. 12. 14. and in all penalties for transgression in Scriptures we find no regard had of distinction of sex and by consequence it is not to be denied that women offending are within this censure Mr. T. magisterially answers The proving of excommunicating of women from Miriams shutting out of the Camp Num. 12. 14. is not a Scripture Collection but a meer device of men If there be no such thing as excommunication in the New Testament as Mr. T. saies pag. 92. and unsaies pag. 93. then I confess what he saies but if there be such an institution which here is not a time to examine as I am sure there is of Baptism then it may be evinced from that place that it reacheth to both sexes Mr. T. would have us to proceed by alterable rules of prudence This prudence as may be inferred is to reach to both sexes Answ. My answer notwithstanding this reply stands good For 1. He brings not any declaration or example where the Holy Ghost argues thus Excommunication extends to women because Miriam was shut out of the Camp Num. 12. 14. It is true the Anti-Erastians as Rutherfurd Divine right of Church-government c. 7. q. 3. attempt to prove that separating from the congregregation for leprosie typified Christian excommunication and thence Mr. Blake would prove Excommunication of women But
neither is any other than an humane device it cannot be proved that onely scandalous sin answers to leprosie original sin or sins of thoughts may as well be conceived to be signified by it and separating from the congregation may as well typifie exclusion from heaven as removal from the visible Church yea more agreeable to the end sith putting out of the Camp was not for amendment as excommunication was That excommunication which the Scripture in the New Testament mentions as belonging to Christians I grant is to be of women as well as men but we need not run to the Old Testament to prove it 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11 12 13. 2 Thess. 3. 6. 14. 2 Tim 3. 5. prove it If that Rev. 2. 20 belong to excommunication a woman is in express terms made liable to it I agree with Mr. Blake In all penalties for transgression in Scripture we find no regard had of distinction of sexe and by consequence it is not to be denied that women offending are within this censure so that by his own grant we need not run to analogy from ejecting the Lâ—per to prove excommunicating of women It is not true that 〈…〉 d unsay my words are plain distinguishing juâ—â—dical Excommunication of superious from social granting this latter though demurring about the former I have shewed my meaning plainly in the Addition of my Apology sect 17. 19. in my letter to Mr. Robert Baillee of Scotland what Mr. Blake holds in this point I cannot well tell Some conference I had with him in London made me doubtful whether he were not somewhat of Erastus his judgement in this point here he doth not say there is an institution of Excommunication as he is sure there is of Baptism But I deny if there be an institution of excommunition that it may be evinced from Num. 12. 14. that it reacheth both sexes much less that any precept may be thence gathered as obliging Christians in the use of excommunication If there were a rule thence obliging it would follow that excommunication is to be but seven dayes and then the excommunicate to be received in again What I said of ordering things by alterable rules of prudence is expressely meant of things concerning which we have not precise direction from Gods Word which I suppose Mr. Blake will not deny to be true though he is pleased to mention it as if it were mine and not his tenent He saith further I brought an instance not for a proof of it self but illustration of another proof from Divines arguing against non-residence from Ezek. 44. 8. This he saies is good after other arguments but of it self is not convincing Such arguments then are of validity when aright placed and marshalled orderly I hope this of mine then is of force it is not in the van but brings up the rear Answ. What I acknowledged that the argument was good after other arguments I mean to illustrate not to prove nor would I deny an argument from Circumcision of infants good to illustrate Baptism of infants if it were before proved from precept or Apostolical example manifested in express assertion or deduced by good consequences But the most of Paedobaptists make the argument from Circumcision their Achilles and by their texts and confession of a Committee of them it was the main if not the onely argument in the Assembly Mr. Bs arguments he puts in the van are no better as is briefly shewed Postscript sect 2. c. Yet for the text Ezek. 44. 8. upon better consideration it seems not fit to illustrate a proof against nonresidence sith the sin there charged was not leaving the Temple themselves but admitting at the will of the Prince other than of the Tribe of Levi to be in Gods sanctuary Num. 18. 4. yea even the uncircumcised and thereby Gods holy things were profaned and idolatry brought in And therefore the observation of the New Annot. of the second edition is that unlawful Ministers false in doctrine soul in life are not to be admitted but ejected But for Mr. Blakes rule there is no one text brought out of Gods Word to prove it that we may argue from analogy so as to infer a duty from an use in meer positive worship of the Old Testament now abolished in the use of a rite of the New without any other precept in the New Testament when we do not institute thence any piece of worship or the least part of the service of God but onely make it a help to a right understanding of the nature use and extent of that which is instituted Yea this rule seems to me to speak inconsistencies For he supposeth that analogy may not institute any piece of worship or the least part of the service of God yet allows direction from analogy in the nature extent and use of that which is instituted whereas the nature use and extent being the chief part or the very service it self and are determined in the institution Mat. 28. 19. if we may take direction from our conceived analogy in them we may not onely institute a piece of worship or the least part of the service of God which Mr. Blake denies but also the main part yea the very service itself which hath no greater parts than the nature use and extent So that Mr. Blakes first rule denying the use of analogy in the least part of Gods service yet allowing it in the nature use and extent of that which is instituted is but a rule destroying in one part what is built up in the other He adds further The second and third rules he saies are not set down from any declaration or example in the Scripture I desire him at his leisure to look again and he may see the second rule confirmed from the Apostles way of thus arguing 1 Cor. 9. and the Lord Christs Mat. 12. The third is confirmed by that reasoning of Christ with the Pharisees before mentioned compared with our reasoning with Antipaedobaptists Answ. I have looked again and I say still these are impertinently alleged by Mr. B. as being not one of them from such analogy as Mr. B. maintaines and I deny as I have before shewed and for Antipaedobaptists reasonings they are the fairest that can be keeping close to the confessed institution of Christ and practice of the Apostles and there is this objection which is fairly brought against Infant-baptism that there is no command or example for it in Scripture which cannot be brought against Infant circumcision and for the hypotheses of Paedobaptists from the Covenant seal succession to circumcision c. there is not one of them true as God willing shall be shewed in the process of this Review Mr. Blake goes on His second exception is These are very uncertain For no reason is given why they may not make a new worship who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament This very well answers Mr. T. his ingenuity to which
express covenanting wherein they renounced the world flesh and devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey him as you may see in Tertul Origen Cyprian and others at large being printed with a ful point at the end are as plain a denial that infants were baptized in the primitive times as words usually express As for the words following I will cite but one for all who was before the rest and that is Justin Martyr speaking of the way of baptizing the aged sayth they are not words if they be restrictive that limit any one 's speech but Justin Martyrs and if by them M B. would intimate that Justin Martyr did not in that speech set down the way of baptizing all that were then baptized the words following saying thus how we are dedicated to God we will now open unto you and then setting down the constant way of baptizing without any exception M. Bs. addition will easily be perceived to be but a shift to avoid the evidence of this relation of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Antoninum being so plain to prove infant-baptism not to have been then in use among Christians Likewise in my Praecursor Sect. 16. pag. 66. I bring an argument against infant-baptism from M Bs. own words mutatis mutandis His answer in his Praefestinantis morator is in these words His Confidence pag. 66. is marvellous I doubt not but that he knows that I take the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth 28. inclusively And so I answer that this solemn instition is our warrant requiring us both to disciple nations and baptize Disciples and we have other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples Answ My confidence is upon good reason M Bs. marvelling is from ignorance what he means by taking the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. inclusively I know not except he mean that time when that institution was given as well as the time after or that institution to be a warrant as well as after precepts or examples Either way the medium of M. B. serves my purpose For it plainly asserts that what we have no warrant in all the New Testament for we are not to do ordinarily what we have precept and example for we are to do Which if he will stand to then his warrant out of the Old Testament is not sufficient for infant-baptism and so it is not fully determined in the Old Testament at what age persons are to be admitted into the Church as he sayd before and what we do we have warrant for by his own grant sith he cannot deny we have precept and example for baptizing professors of faith And then his including here Matth. 28. 19. in his Texts though not brought Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 342. to prove his antecedent is an intimation that in all the rest of the Texts John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38 41. 8. 12 13 16 36 38. 9. 18. 10. 47 48. 16. 15 33. 18. 8. 19. 3 4 5. Rom. 6. 3 c. he findes not precept or example for baptizing of infants and so if he finde not warrant Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing infants all his other proofs are by his own reasoning made invalid For sure the Texts alleged do as evidently prove this antecedent we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. to admit any member into the Church by Baptism but believers by profession but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it as Mr Bs. we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28 to admit any member into the Church without Baptism but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it The consequent then we must not admit ordinarily any by Baptism without profession of faith must by the force of his own illation be undoubted to those that take the word for their rule As for his evasion that he hath other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples how miserably he fails therein will appear by that which follows in this Review The Reader may perceive that whatsoever his talk be about a Gift and Ordinance of visible Church-membership unrepealed and of Christs Laying of hands on little ones and such like Arguments and Texts he brings yet if he will stand to his own reasoning in Arg. 9. against deniers of Baptism by Water pag. 342. of his Plain Scripture proof c. we have no warrant to admit ordinarily by Baptism but according to the precept and example in the New Testament in the Text Matth. 28. 19. and the other Texts before recited Concerning which I have reason to be as confident as of common notions that they include not infants and to marvel that Mr. Bs. prejudice should so blinde him as not to see the futility of his arguings to prove infants to be Disciples included in the institution Matth. 28. 19. But I proceed Because as he sayth pag. 5. An answer cannot be always presently given which may make the case plain to some men therefore Mr. B. should have given his arguments in writing to those that came to him which had been an easier and fairer way than to tell them as he doth pag. 6. If any of you have taken up the opinion of Antepaedobaptism and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet M. Church and other the chief books and been able at least to himself to confute them you have but discovered a feared conscience a most heavy though vain censure shewing what rashness and distemper was in Mr. B. in this writing which either taketh error for no sin or else dare venture on sin without fear and have betrayed your own souls by your laziness as if a man might not be satisfied by reading of the Scripture and conference with the able of the opposite party without reading so many Books Sure Mr. B. who had read those Books shewed little charity to those of Bewdley that came to him for arguments for infant-baptism when he would neither set down his own arguments in writing nor direct them in what part of those books they might have satisfaction but fly upon them with so deep a charge without any moderation of spirit And when he saith pag. 7. He dare say by my books that it is my case not to have received the doctrine of infant-baptism on the best grounds and arguments I reply 1. that there are many passages which make me think he never read my books with exact diligence and heed but if I may use his own words He betrays his own soul by his laziness or prejudice 2. It shews a fond conceit in him of his own arguments which another perhaps will think weaker than those of Calvin Ursin Piscator the Assembly Mr. M. c. which he might perceive by my Exercit. and otherwise that I had considered I said
21. Tit. 3. 4 5. Eph. 4. 4 5. 5. That infant-baptism is not the performance of the duty of being baptized according to Christs appointment 6. That in a regular and orderly way persons notwithstanding their pretended infant-baptism are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized upon profession of their faith in Christ Acts 2. 41 42 1 Cor. 10. 2 3 4. 12. 13. These things I may hereafter have opportunity to debate more fully As for that which Mr. B. saith pag. 10 11. It doth no whit overthrow this necessity which I assert but rather confirm it For Gods freeing us from the great burden of Jewishrites makes it the rather necessary for us to obey Christs appointment in those few Sacraments he hath ordained which Mr. B. truly saith As they are duties they are great and so in themselves considered and not onely in respect of the consequences of them And he saith truly pag. 11. All Christs commands must be obeyed both great and small so far as we know them Yea Mr. B. Scripture proof pag. 342. saith Baptism with Water is Heb. 6. 2. reckoned among the foundations or principles which are of standing use and therefore it is so it self Nor is his interpretation right that the things ascribed to Baptism are ascribed to it without the external washing In all these places Rom. 6. 3 4. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 5. 26 27. 1 Peter 3. 21. the outward use of Water is expressed though the things ascribed to it do presuppose something more as he himself allegeth them pag. 342. which is the meaning of that speech 1 Pet 3. 21. Not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh that is not it onely but the answer of a good conscience towards God joyned with it And whereas Mr. B. tell us that we shall never be able to justifie it if we lay out the hundredth part or perhaps the thousand part of our time study talk or zeal upon this question I confess this may be true at some times in some persons but if other tenets be clear and other duties not neglected and this becomes a doubt of conscience and fals into frequent practice so as that it concerns them much for themselves people and little ones to be resolved in it else they shall sin either by omitting a duty or by doing a thing with gain-saying or doubting conscience it is justifiable though they bestow more than a hundredth part of their time and study upon it And especially if the person be a Minister called to be a Guide to the People and by special providence and solemn covenant led forth to vindicate the truth in such a time when otherwise it is likely to be suppressed and the Assertors of it oppressed In these and such like cases it may be unjustifiable if a person do not spend more than the hundredth part of his time about this question else neither the Hussites will be justified in spending so much time in opposing the half-Communion nor the Protestants in opposing Transubstantiation nor the Non-Conformists in opposing the Ceremonies of Bishops Mr. Tho. Goodwin preface to Mr. Cottons Dialogue for infant baptism saith truly The due application of baptism to all those persons Christ would have it administred unto cannot but be apprehended by all that have any insight into the Controversies of these times to be of very high importance Not that I like their Carriage that neglect other necessary things and spend all their time study talk and zeal about this such hypocrisy I should declaim against with him remembring what our Saviour said in a like case Matth. 23. 23. These things ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone As for M. Bs. third Proposition concerning the grounds on which the point of infant baptism stands that they are of great moment because what he saith rests on the heap of consequences he infers from the denial of infant baptism of which there is scarse any one true and the shewing them to be but vain surmises depends on the dispute it self I shall therefore respite the vindicating the truth from them till I come to examine in this Review the arguments from Scripture urged on both sides after which shall come in those from humane testimony and reason unto which I now apply my self SECT V. The first argument from the institution Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. and the practice in the New Testament against Infant baptism is urged MR. B. saith pag. 8. he will prove 1. That it is the will of God that some infants should be baptized 2. that it is the will of God that all infants of believers ordinarily should be baptized This latter doth better state the question which is about the practice of those reformed Churches that baptize infants whose doctrine is that it is the privilege of a believers child Yet Mr. B. and M. Baillee for some advantage chuse to undertake the proof of the former whereas the true state of it is as in my Examen s. 2. and Mr. Ms. Sermon Whether the infants of believers are to be baptized with Christs baptism of Water by the lawful Minister according to ordinary rule I hold the Negative Mr. Marshall Dr. Homes Mr. Geree Mr. Blake Mr. Baillee Mr. Cobbet Mr. Baxter c. hold the Affirmative My dispute is to this purpose The ordinary rule for baptizing is Christs institution John the Baptists and the Apostles appointment and practice But neither according Christs institution nor according to John Baptists or the Apostles command or practice or any other approved example in Scripture is the baptizing of infants of believers Therefore the baptizing of infants of believers by a lawfull Minister is not according to ordinary rule The Major is confessed by all sorts specially Protestants and Anti-Prelatists Mr. Bs. words are cited by me in my Praecursor s. 16. and the force of his reason is shewed here before s. 4. to contain this Proposition What in baptism we have no warrant for by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of baptism Mat. 28. we are not to do and much more to like purpose may be gathered from other passages of his page 302 303. and Mr. M. in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. is very punctuall for Gods command to be observed in his worship The 28 Article of the Church of England against reservation of the Bread c. hath these words The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or worshipped whereby it is apparent that reservation of the bread is condemned because it is not by Christs Ordinance though Mr. Perkins in his right way of dying well confess it to be antient Bellarmine himself tom 3. cont de sacr bapt l. 1. c. 8. Sacramentum non pendet nisi à Divina institutione Chamier tom 4. panstr cath lib. 5. cap. 14. sect 55.
rule at gathering of churches Nor can they plead their baptism they had in the National and Parochial churches of England For by their principles baptism belongs to the children of believers not as such but as in church-covenant and church-members and therefore they baptize not any but the children of church-members in covenant and yet most of them had their baptism in the churches of England and their parents no church-members and so neither they nor others that gather churches in Old England do keep to their principles in the gathering of their churches 2. But besides what I said before to this objection Mat. 28. 19. there is no such distinction made and we are not to distinguish where the law doth not yea all the institution and every thing in it was to be observed in the churches of Christ in gathering and gathered at all times as is manifest from the promise annexed of being with them alwaies to the end of the world which shewes that he would have that rule continued to the end of the world and to encourage them therein he promiseth to be with them To say with Mr. Sâ—ltmarsh in his Sparkles of glory and some others it is to be read to the end of the age is frivolous sith Matthew 13. 39 40 49. Matth. 24. 3. the very words shew it to be meant of the last time at Christs comming to Judgement But saith Mr. Cobbet the Commission James 5. 14. to anâ—oint with oil is not perpetual Be it so that that appointment of the sign of a gift of miraculous cure now ceaseth yet it doth not follow that the institution Mat. 28. 19. in which a sign of a perpetual duty is instituâ—ed is temporary But saith Mr. Cobbet There are variations in the mention of Christs last Commission about the Lords Supper and therefore another analogy of faith and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures is to regulate us in this point of Sacramental order and so in the other To which I answer 1. That the variations Mr. Cobbet sets down are none of them about the order of the actions appointed by Christ pertaining to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and therefore not pertinent to the presen business 2. If Mr. Cobbet will not have the order in the institution to be moral and perpetual about the Lords Supper then they do ill in his Judgement that contend against Papists Prelates and others to have the Lords Supper reduced exactly to the first pattern as a constant rule there being such variations as disable it from being a rule 3. I grant that analogy of faith and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures is to regulate us in this point of Sacramental order But till Mr. Cobbet shew that in any other Scripture or analogy of faith there is a rule that persons should be baptized afore they be taught his reasoning is not to the present purpose But then saith he If order must be observed so strictly baptizing must go before salvation Mark 16. 16. repentance may be before faith Mark 1. 5. confession before faith Romans 10. 9. if the place in Mark must be so closely stuck to without comparing it with the Scriptures of the old Testament then we must preach the Gospel to Dogs Cats c. since it is expresly said preach the Gospel to every creature Answ. 1. That if it follow not that every thing set before is first in order of time or nature yet what is first appointed to be done in the solemn institution of Sacraments is to be done first as taking blessing breaking bread before eating so teaching the baptized afore baptizing as the Apostles practice shews who best understood Christs appointment As believing upon preaching is to go before salvation so baptizing ordinarily and regularly for which I now contend and yet in special cases as persons may be saved without personal actual believing upon preaching so without baptism To avoid the inference of preaching to Beasts we need not go to the old Testament Mat. 28. 19. â—ol 1. 23. c. yield sufficient light to shew that by every creature is meant all nations of men or Gentiles as well as Jews But saith Mr. Cobbet if it be absurd to say the Gospel is preached to little ones what shall we say of Christs speech Mat. 19. 14. Deut. 30. 6. Acts 2. 38 39. Luke 1. 76 I answer This may be said that all these are frivolously alleged to prove that Christ should appoint the Gospel to be preached to infants which were to make Christ as ridiculous as the Legends do Francis the Fryer sith none of them mention any speech or preaching to little infants though some of the speeches are of or concerning infants As for what he further adds It was no absurdity that infants were circumcised Christ laid his hands on infants Peters feet were washed though these acts were not then understood I grant it and say if Christ appointed infants to be baptized I should not count it an absurdity but sith his express institution is that teaching should go before baptizing till that order be shewed to be alteâ—ed it is a prophane abuse of the ordinance of baptism to baptize those who are not taught Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 243. speaks thus This is the weakest of all arguments to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture so we may say John baptized before he preached the baptism of repentance for his baptizing is mentioned before preaching of baptism Mark 1. 4. So we may say we must have glory first and vertue after for so they are placed by the Apostle 2 Peter 1. 3. Answ. Though in Histories of facts sometimes things are sâ—t down last which were done first yet in setting down institutions order and every circumstance is observed so as thence to conclude it irregular not to observe the order used in the primitive institution 1 Cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing is mentioned before the bread we break and yet it would be counted a disorder and sinful to administer the wine before the bread because in the mention of the institution the three Evangelists and Paul observe exactly the order as well as the use of the elements as delivered by the Lord. In like manner when Christ appoints and the constant practice of the Apostles expounds his words thus that first persons be made disciples and believers and then be baptized sure it is an act of transgression of Christs command to do it otherwise especially considering that by so doing the prime and chief end of baptism to wit to signify the baptized persons engagement to repentance and faith in Christ is thereby evacuated Mr. Blakeâ—aith â—aith Vindic. foederis pag. 136. God is a God of order and he will have order observed p. 164 God will not suffer that disorder that the leading Sacrament should come after I may more truly say God will not suffer the disorder of Mr. Bl. to have baptism
baptized afore they are believers or repenting persons which is absurd and contrary to the Scripture Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. c. and contrary to the order of Christ that persons should be made Disciples afore they were baptized Matth. 28 19. 3. Because it is altogether inexplicable how the use of water can be a cause either principal or instrumental to work a new birth or inward change on the soul If it be sayd that it is by virtue of Gods promise it is meet that promise should be shewed that at by or upon the use of baptism God hath promised to regenerate persons That it is a sign of regeneration will not be I suppose denyed for it is made the sign of repentance which is all one with regeneration and therefore called the baptism of repentance Acts 19. 4. because as Beza on v. 3. baptism was symbolum resipiscentiae the token of repentance And so in like manner it was the sign of faith and therefore the Apostle Gal. 3. 27. saith That as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ that is had by the sign of baptism testified their putting on Christ by faith And in this sense it is termed the washing of regeneration if baptism be meant by it Tit. 3. 5. because by that washing the person baptized testifies his regeneration And Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death that is we by being under water testifie our dying to sin conformably to Christs death and burial And in this sense Paul is bid Acts 22. 16. to wash away his sins that is by baptism to testifie his purging from his sins And so Christ is said to sanctifie and cleanse his Church with washing of water Ephes. 5. 26. that is as Beza Annot in locum as representing what he entirely doth effect within Mr. Iames Cranford in his Epistle to Mr. Thomas Bedford printed at the end of the Friendly Accommodation between Mr. Bedford and Mr. Baxter saith that he conceives the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine de nudis signis in which he is more confirmed by what I answered once to an Argument drawn by him from Ephes. 5. from the efficacy of baptism to inforce the baptizing of infants that if that Tenent could be clearly proved I would no longer oppose that practice Concerning which I say I remember not all that passed from me in the Dispute he mentions I did think that which I put down in my Exerciâ— sect 11. had been his Argument But this I still say that could it be clearly proved that Christ ever appointed baptism of water taken severedly from the preaching of the Word to be the cause of Regeneration or that God had assured that by outward baptism with water he would confer regenerating grace to an infant I should not oppose the practice of Paedobaptism What Mr. Bedford hath produced for the efficacy of baptism hath been answered by Mr. Baxter in his Appendix to his Plain Scripture c. Nor doth it appear to me that Mr. B. is of his minde notwithstanding what Letters have past between them now printed and the syncretism yielded to in the printing of the Friendly Accommodation and leaving out the Appendix Dr. Burges his Treatise of Baptismal Regeneration hath been freely censured by many Dr. Ieremiah Taylour in his Discourse of baptism hath like an Orator rather than a Disputant pleaded for infant-baptism from the efficacy of baptism more from speeches of the Fathers than from the Scripture Sure I am baptism was appointed by Christ and used in the examples of the Scripture as a testimony of Repentance of faith in Christ no cause of either And therefore I deny baptism to be the remedy of original sin or the cause of Regeneration or that Christ intended to assign the use to baptism to heal original sin or to testifie the freedom from it without actual These things have been delivered by Augustine and taught by the Romanists and Lutherans but by many other Protestants disclaimed and refuted and therefore Mr. Stephens Mr. Cranford Mr. Bedford c. in using this Argument do but symbolize with the Papists and revive what many Protestants of best note have exploded SECT XVII The 31. Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture Proof c. is answered and Mark 10. 13 14 15 16. is shewed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism and his description of visible Church-membership is considered and his Argument from Deut. 29. shewed to be insufficient THere are yet some other Texts which are brought by Paedobaptists out of the New Testament for an institution and practice of infant-baptism Mr. B. Plain Scripture Proof of infant-baptism part 1. cap. 31. brings Mark 9. 36 37. to prove that Christ hath expresly assured us that he hath not repealed the privilege of infants visible Church-membership and upon it fals to his Rhetorick and tels us of his boldness in adventuring on this rule All which I judg frivolous nor needs it any further answer there being no new Argument and what he before spake of that Scripture is answered before Sect. 15. where it is shewed that Mark 9. 37. by little childe is not meant one that is so in respect of age but in respect of quality and that the receiving is not meant of baptism but entertainment in receiving the Doctrine brought and shewing kindness to their persons But he adds And it is not once but oft that he hath thus manifested his will in the very next Chapter he doth it more fully yet Mark 10. 14 15 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased and said to them Suffer ye little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe he shall not enter therein and he took them up in his arms put his hands on them and blessed them And is not here enough to satisfie us yet that he doth not cast all infants in the world out of his visible Kingdom or Church but that it is his will they should be admitted Will any say that it was not infants in the former Text and this that Christ speaks of Did he take any but infants into his arms Was it not plainly them that he did bid them receive in the former Chapter and was it not them that he would not have to be kept from him And was it not them that he bid should be suffered to come that is to be brought and was it not them that he blessed Answ. Mr. M. in his Sermon had alleged this Tex to prove that the infants of believers even while they are infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men I answered 1. It is doubtfull whether those little children Mark 10. 14.
they run into wilde fancies as that they believe in the Church in their Parents in their sureties in their being baptized But Mr. Bs. hold is in his Parenthesis against which I except 1. that his speech of admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples supposeth that a person is first admitted into Christs Church and then to be his Disciple whereas no man is rightly admitted into Christs Church who is not first a Disciple 2. That he saith This Luke 18. 16. is a standing Commandment But this we must take on Mr. Bs. word there 's nothing in the Text or in Mr. Bs. writing to prove it Nor is it likely For if so me thinks the Apostles and the Writers of the New Testament should not have been so negligent as neither to observe this command after this time nor to have recorded any act done by the Apostles according to that command 3. That Chists speech is of the species of infants and not of these individuals onely 1. Is said without proof yea it is more probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as Suffer these little children to come to me and that because as Paedobaptists urge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such is the Kingdom of Heaven which is the reason of Christs injunction is meant of those infants 2. Were it granted not to be meant of those individuals onely yet this is all that can be thence proved that if after that time other infants were brought to Christ in that manner to be touched by him they should be suffered It may be granted that there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church But this is enough to prove that there is now no such visible admittance to Christ as those Mark 10. 14 had who were admitted to Christs person to be touched by him and not into his visible Church by baptism 5. Saith Mr. B. If of such be the Kingdom of God then of such is the visible Church but the former is true Therefore c. Answ. The consequence is denied Of infants in the mothers womb as Jacob John Baptist c. is the Kingdom of God and yet the visible Church is not of such But saith Mr. B. Here they have two cavils against the plain sense of the Text 1. By such is meant such for docâ—bleâ—ess and humility To which I answer 1. Then it seems they are so docible and humble that the Kingdom belongs to them For if it belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to others also Answ. Mr. Bs. censure of the Answers I gave as cavils is as the rest of this his Dispute rash and inconsiderate For the very words Mark 10. 15. do directly lead to that sense I give and the words of Christ Matth. 18. 3 4. plainly expound wherein they that enter into the Kingdom of God must be like children But to the matter of his Answer 1. The conclusion is granted nor was it ever denyed by me that of some infants is the Kingdom of God and particularly of those whom Christ blessed but yet not because of their docibleness and humility but because of Christs blessing Nor do I allow Mr. Bs. consequence that if the Kingdom did belong to others because they are such as them then it must needs belong to them also For the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to others because they are such as them in the properties common to them with other children But the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to them as blessed by Christ not in respect of docibleness and humility It may be it will be said that then little children have those properties for which of them may be the Kingdom of God I answer it doth not follow but this onely follows that there is such teachableness and humility in little children in other respects which other men imitating and expressing in spiritual things and so becoming such as they are by analogy and resemblance in that respect belong to the Kingdom of God 2. Saith Mr. B. Doth Christ say To such as them in this or that respect onely and not to them or saith he not in general To such even to such as he took in his arms and blessed He would not have taken up and blessed any for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed he would not have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility and innocency If Christ say of such is the Kingdom I am bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate me to restrain it And therefore must understand it to such both of that age or any other age Who dare think that the word to such is not rather inclusive as to them than exclusive If I love humble poor men and my servants keep them from my house because they are poor and if I chide them for it and say Suffer such to come to me and forbid them not for my delight is in such who would so interpret this speech as to think I would exclude them while I command their admittance And that I meant other humble ones and not these Answ. Doth Mr. B. say To such in general in respect of age onely belongs the Kingdom of God If he do say so as his words seem to import then it follows that to every infant whether of believers or unbelievers elect or reprobate belongs the Kingdom of God If not then he must say as I say if he will speak truth that 1. To those infants belonged the Kingdom in this respect onely as they were blessed by Christ or elect 2. If it be applied to other infants it can be applied to no others but such as are blessed by Christ or elect 3. And for other persons that under the term of such are meant also persons of age like them in humility and teachableness is so manifest from v. 15. Matth. 18. 3. 4. 5. that it is nothing but cavilling in Mr. B. thus to carp at my plain and clear exposition of the words agreeable to the most approved expositors as Beza Annot. ad Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est horum similium ut supra 18. Piscat sch in Matth. 19. 14. talium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quales scilicet sunt isti pueruli nempe credentes in me demissè de se senâ—ientes confer supra c. 18. 2. seq that I omit others Neither do I nor need I say that Christ took them or blessed the little ones for a meer Emblem of such as were blessed or that he might by like reason with mine have taken up and blessed a Lamb or a Dove as Emblems of humility And though Mr. Bs. rule may be questioned whether a man be bound to take Scripture in the most extensive sense till there be a plain reason to necessitate him to restrain it yet I gainsay it not to understand to such
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
for Christians in the use of baptism 4. The institution and practise would have been conformable to it But the contrary appears 1. In their baptizing no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversion whereas the Iews baptized onely the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting not the infants of those who were baptized in infancy Selden l. 2. de Iure nat c. cap. 4. sed vero non aliter atque Israelitae ipsi filii proselytorum circumcidendi tantum erant nec quemadmodum parentes sive illi sive filiae baptizandae Nunquam enim solennis proselyti baptismus ille iterandus erat nec in ipso qui primo baptizatus tamet si apostata factus in ritus Iudaicos rediret nec in posteris So that if it be true that the Jewish baptism of Proselytes is the pattern of the Christian then no infant of Christian race is now to be baptized but such as were born when the first Gentile Ancestors were converted Yea the Jews were so far from baptizing any infants of proselytes born after theâ—r first convesion and baptism that they resolved as may be seen in Selden ubi supra and Dr. Hammond himself allegeth sect 109. if a woman great with childe become a proselyte and be baptized her childe needs not baptism when t is born So that whereas the Doctor brings the Iewish custom as a pattern for Christian baptism so as that it may be reasonably thought to belong to all that among the Jews were usually baptized his own arguing will prove that no infant of Christians now descerded from Christian Ancestors or born of parents formerly infidels after the parents were baptized should be baptized because it is against the Jewish custom of baptizing any childe of a Gâ—ntile infidel born after the parents were become proselytes and baptized But secondly besides this first and main thing wherein the Doctors patern is incorgruous to Christian baptism there are many more disparities which shew that the Iewish baptism of prâ—selytes was not the patern of Christan baptism As v. g. 1. The baptism of males must be also with Circumcision and an offering 2. There must be a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voyd Dr. Hammond sect 114. Among the Iews saith the Gemara Babylâ— the infants used to be baptized upon the profession or confession of the house of judgment the consistory and the Gloss saith the Triumviri are set over baptism and are necessary to it and so they become to him a father and Maimonides he must be baptized before the Triumviri 3. It was not to be on the Sabbath or feast day or in the night 4. The body must be washed not in a made receptacle of waters as a vessel or font but a natural one as a river pool well 5. No part of the body but must be washed if any scab or blood hardned or filth fâ—â—ck on the body so as that water could not come to the whole supersicies it was not accounted right baptism yet they allowed garments which separated not the water from the body 6. While the proselytes stood in the water the precepts of Moses were recited by the three Israelites skilfull in the Law and he was to take on him the observation of them all not one excepted or else not accounted a Proselyte 7. A woman proselyte was placed in the water unto the neck by women which baptized her while the three Israelites stood after the manner observing the baptism yet they were to turn away their faces and go away when the woman came out of the water 8. Elder Gentiles were made proselytes according to their own choice younger as males before thirteen years and a day old females before twelve and a day old according to the minde of their father or the court to which they were subject were admitted to Judaism The same right was of a natural foole Yet if a person under years when baptized did after as soon as he came to age renounce Judaism then he lost what privilege he had by baptism either by assent of the parent or the court 9. The baptism did give them interest in the policy of the Iews as other Israelites except some things peculiarly reserved to natural Israelites 10. Yet a servant without his Masters consent was not made free 11. A blessing was to be used at baptism but unless he were made free not by the servant but by the master 12. A young one as an infant whether taken or found the Israelite that possessed it might baptize it either into the state of an ingenuous person or freed person or a servant 13. They taught that a person baptized was so born again that lying with his own natural sister was no incest 14 If the person be privily baptized though before two yet he was not counted a Proselyte All which may be seen in Selden l. 2. de jure nat Gent. juxta discipl Ebr. cap. 2 3. 4. lib. 1. de Syned Ebr. cap. 3. So that if the baptism of Proselytes among the Iews be the patern of Christian baptism baptizing of women must be by women no one single Bishop or Presbyter must baptize but three at least there must be no private baptism no baptizing in Fonts or Basons no baptism without the whole body be washed and so as that no filth or scab hinder the water from coming to the skin there should be no infants baptized but at the first conversion of the parent no Iew should be baptized none baptized in the night on the Sabbath or other Feast-day In most of which Christ Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles varied from the Iews and therefore they took not their baptism for their patern and if they did not make the Jews baptism their patern in baptizing neither are we to do so but to follow the rule of Christs institution and the Apostles practice and not the Iews use which is not delivered in Scripture and much of it according to the superstition and dotages of their Rabbins and was not a meet religious Sacrament but a kinde of mixt rite partly religious and partly civil intitling to Civil as well as Ecclesiastical right and done by persons Civil rather than Ecclesiastical and so of a far different nature and use from the Christian baptism I think Dr. Hammond were he a Bishop would censure such baptizing as the Iews used as irregular and then he may well bear with Antipaedobaptists though they reject his new conceit of making the Iewish baptism our patern and thereupon grounding the baptizing of infants Himself in his Practical Catechism lib. 6. Sect. 2. allows of sprinkling though the Iewish custome was dipping yea they so precisely require it that it was not counted baptism except the whole body were washed and yet the Doctor confesseth that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under water
own and others conceits of his writings for infant-baptism I should think it lost time to bestow it in an exact examination of his inconsiderable dictates As for the present instance of M. B. of the Apostles arguing from analogy he may see it now fallen and so likewise the next of which he speaks thus I instanced in the Apostles arguing 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. he makes it good that partaking together of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we are made one Ecclesiastical body by way of Analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles to which Mr. T. saies this argument is to prove that they which profess Christ may not partake of the things of Idols From this general truth that they which join in the service of any God they hold Communion with that God and are one with those that worship that God this the Apostle proves by instances in the Christian and Jewish services So that this argument is from a genoral truth proved by induction of instances Mr. T. mistakes the Apostle takes no such general truth for granted but affirms that we are one body at the Lords table which he first proves by analogy in the instances mentioned and then concludes thence against communion with Idols That which the Apostle disputes he lâ—ies down but we have not these words in the text Answ. There is no mistake in my Analysis of the Apostles words He had v. 14. warned them of Idolatry to wit in going with the Infidels to their Idol feasts and to make them more heedful of what he said he prefaceth v. 19. And then argues not thus they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one Ecclesiastical body by way of analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles For then the conclusion to be proved should be we are one body Ecclesiastical at the Lords table and the sacrifices of the Gentiles should be the medium to prove it which had been ursi for such a proof nor in any passage of the Apostle is used to that end For how inept an Argument had this been the Gentiles in their sacrifices had communion with the Idol therefore they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one body Ecclesiastical Nor would the proof be much otherwise if it were thus as Mr. Blake makes it we are one body Ecclesiastical who partake of the Lords Supper therefore in Gentile sacrifices we communicate with Idols And me thinks there is a circle in this proof by the Gentiles sacrifices to prove we are one body Ecclesiastical in the Lords Supper and thence to prove we communicate with Idols in Gentile sacrifices But the scope of the Apostle appears by the words v. 14. and v. 19 20 21. evidently to be the disswading them from the Idol-feasts on their sacrifices because they had therein fellowship with the Idol did partake of its cup and table and so with Devils v. 20 21. which had been an argument in concludent were it not thus made To have fellowship with the Idol is evil to be avoided by Christians as being Communion with Devils But to partake of the thing offered to Idols is to have fellowship with the Idol Ergo The Minor which alone is proved rests on this general maxim They have fellowship with a true or supposed Deity who partake of his service and this the Apostle proves to be true by the instances of the Christians and the Israelites v. 16 17 18. I know sundry Protestant Expositors make the argument to be thus Ye may not partake of the Idol banquets because ye are partakers of the Lords supper But I conceive this not right For v. 16 17. the Apostles medium is not from the matter of fact what they did or duty what they were to do but from the tendence of their action in common construction and interpretation of the end and use of such actions which did shew they had Communion in the body of Christ. Which is clearly proved from v. 18. where the Apostle allegeth the Israelites partaking of their altar to the same purpose to which he had used the former v. 16 17. now the Christians neither did nor were to partake then of the Jewish altar and it is not a reason from their fact or duty but onely from that wherein Christians breaking bread Jews and Gentiles eating of their sacrifices did agree that these actions testified their fellowship with that Lord for whom these services were performed And therefore by Piscator Dicson and others the argument is thus framed Israelites by eating of the sacrifices testified they were professors and partakers of the Jewish religion therefore they that eat of Idol sacrifices they testify that they Communicate with Idolaters in their idolatry Yea Mr. Blake himself in his answer to my Letter pag. 74. doth plainly acknowledge the Apostles argument to be from a general maxim common to all religious service when he saith yea he further makes it good that which he concluded before in the words following even from the Heathen it is of the nature of religious worship whether true or false to make those of one body as I may say religious that partake of them Whence it is apparent that it is not an argument to prove any duty in a Christian rite of the New Testament from the ceremonial law sith it is by his own confession even from the Gentiles sactifices which sure by analogy or resemblance being altogether forbidden cannot make us a rule in Christian meer positive worship and therefore there is no such argument in the Apostles speech from analogy as I oppâ—gn Mr. Blake yet adds I instanced in Christs defence of his disciples from the charge of the Pharisees Mat. 12. 3 4. by analogy and proportion of the like in David Mr. T. answers that is only an instance to prove that sacrifice must give place to mercy a ceremonial to a moral duty not an argument from meer analogy or resemblance of things different He proves that truth then by analogy if not by meer analogy and he tells us of no other thing that is joined to help it out and make it an argument compleat To these abundance more might be added Answ. It is enough to shew this instance impertinent in that it is not from such analogy as is used to prove Infant-baptism by Infant-circumcision Thus it was in a rite in the old Testament upon this ground Ergo it must be so in a rite of the New Testament because the same pretended ground remains other than Gods command or institution which I called meer analogy in meer positives without a distinct command about each rite As for my exposition it was right that Christ allegeth Davids fact as an instance that ceremonials give place to morals and sacrifice to mercy as appears by v. 7. And hence in giving rules about exposition of the Decalogue usually from this passage a rule is