apparent that in both places in Matthew the Noun disciple is included in the Verb though in Matthew 28. 19. it be used actively make disciples in the other Matthew 27. 57. it is used passively he was himself a Disciple The same is to be conceived of the two other places where the word is used Matthew 13. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made a disciple Acts 14. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had made many disciples And this is further proved from the parallel place Mark 16. 15 16. where preach the Gospel to every Creature answers to make disciples all nations and he that believeth and is baptized answers to baptizing them which plainly shews the subject of baptism to be disciples and those disciples to be believers as Chamier proves panst cath tom 3. l. 12. c. 9. s. 15. But such are not infants of believers Ergo they are not appointed to be baptized 2. Those only Christ appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel was preached and the persons taught But such are not infants Ergo. The Major is plain both by the words Mat. 28. 19. make disciples which is by teaching and more plainly from Mark 16. 15. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature which answers to disciple all nations and this is to precede baptism This is confirmed by the Apostles practice which shews how they understood Christs words and how we should understand them for they baptized none till they were taught Ergo neither should we Conformable hereto is the constant exposition observation of former and later writers and Expositors of whom as they have occurred to me I shall set down their words Athanasius Orat. contra Arianos Ideoque salvator non quovis modo baptizandum praecepit sed primum dixit docete ac deinde baptizate in nomine Patris et filii et spiritus sancti ut ex doctrina recta fides oriretur et cum fide baptismatis integra initiatio perficeretur Hieron in Mat. 28. 19. Primum docent omnes genses deinde doctas intingunt aqua non enim potest fieri ut corpus baptismi recipiat sacramentum nisiante anima fidei susceperit veritatem Ordo praecipuus jussit Apostolis ut primuÌ„ docerent universas gentes deinde fidei intingerent sacramento et post fidem ac baptisma quae essent observanda praeciperent which words are also ascribed to Hilarius in Matthew 28. 19 20. And the like to Beda Anselmus Aquinas Paschasius Rabanus Lucas Brugensis Iansenius and many others on Matth. 28. 19. which were it necessary might be produced whence the Ancients deduced that persons were first to be catechized and then to be baptized which was constantly observed except in case of present danger of death towards children of believers untill some later ages But because later Protestant writers are of more esteem with most of my Antagonists I will adde some of them Calvin in Matthew 28. 19. apud Marlor Baptizari jubet Christus qui nomen Evangelio dederint seque professi fuerint discipulos Ursin Cat. Explic. part 2. q. 69. Quasi dicat colligite mihi Ecclesiam per verbum et quos feceritis mihi discipulos toto corde credentes eos omnes et solos baptizate mihi areliquis separate Pareus Com. in Matt. 28. 19. Colligite mihi Ecclesiam inter omnes gentes praedicatione vestra adducentes eos ad fidem Alsted Theol. polem parte 3. pag. 251. Ut praecipitur ex cohaerentia sententiarum Matth. 28. docete omnes gentes nempe praedicando Evangelium baptizantes eos Confer cum Marc. 16. Becm Exercit. Th. 17. p. 259 260. Doctrina praecedit baptismus sequitur Mr. Cotton The way of the Churches in New England chap. 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children This later is his own addition the rest is right and to my purpose But sure Christ did not appoint to preach the Gospel to infants therefore he did not appoint to baptize them For Christ appointed his Disciples to baptize none but they who were first preached to and consequently they do it without Commission from Christ who baptize infants ordinarily without preaching the Gospel to them I suppose no man will conceive Christ appointed infants of a day old to have the Gospel preached to them it had been a ridiculous injunction therefore neither did he appoint them to be baptized For both commands are joined together concerning the same persons 3. The institution is To baptize into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit But the baptizing of infants is not into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit Ergo their baptism is not according to the institution The Minor is proved from the right understanding of the meaning of the phrase of baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Beza annot in Matthew 28. 19. Into the name that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit being called upon And this interpretation is confirmed from the words of Ananias to Paul Acts 22. 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord where is injoined calling on the name of the Lord with baptizing which explaineth what Christ had appointed Mat. 28. 19. Of baptizing into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Or to be baptized into the name is to be baptized with the person baptized his devoting himself to the Service of the Father Son and holy Spirit This is gathered from the phrase 1 Cor. 1. 13. Were ye baptized into the name of Paul Beza annot in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari autem in ejus nomen dicimur cui nos per baptismum dicamus ac consecramus quamobrem recte Paulus negat sese in nomen suum quemquam baptizâsse Or to be baptized into the name of the Father Son and Spirit is to be baptized with profession of that doctrine to wit that Jesus is the Son of God Act. 8. 37. testifyed by the Father Son and Spirit Mat. 3. 17. 1 John 5. 5 6 7. as to be baptized into Johns baptism Acts 19. 3. whether the same with being baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus verse 5. as those conceive that expound the words as spoken of what Iohn did or different yet it was with profession of doctrine as Beza annot in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari in Ioannis baptisma significat doctrinam quam Ioannes annunciabat ac baptismi symbolo obsignabat profiteri baptismo adhibito amplecti I will add the words of Grotius annot in Matth. 289. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum locutio haec varias habeat ex Hebraismo significationes eam his praeferendam arbitraor quae baptismo maximè propria est Est autem baptizari in aliquem vel in ejus nomen se ei auctorare atque devovere de ejus nomine appellari â—elle Paulus 1 Cor. 10.
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respiciens illud Exodi 14. 31. Crediderunt in Deum Mosen servum ejus id est Mosi tanquam Dei ministro cum bona siducia regendos se commisere sic Paulus negat quenquam baptizatum in suum nomen 1 Corinth 1. 13 15. hoc est sibi velut novi dogmatis auctori mancipatum Maimomides de bello capta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizet eam in nomen proselytarum id est in eam religionem quam profitentur proselytae Christiani igitur tres sui dogmatis auctores agnoscere jubebantur Patrem filium spiritum sanctum nihilque ut necessarium admittere quod non ab eis esset profectum id est quod non à patre ortum à filio proditum à spiritu verò esset partim explicatum apertius partim obsignatum Administratur enim baptismus ut loquitur Hilarius in confessione auctoris unigeniti dom But infants of believers do neither call upon the Father Son and holy Spirit nor devote themselves to their service nor profess the doctrine of Christ Therefore they are not baptized into the name of the Father Son and holy Spirit according to Christs appointment Mr. M. Defence page 266. calls these petty reasonings and saith That baptizing into the name of the Father Son and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name and so to make baptism and prayer all one is strange divinity I reply My words are perverted by him I said baptizing is to be with the party baptized his invocation of the name of the Lord not that baptism and prayer are all one but that they should be concomitants and together in the use of baptism after Christs appointment And this is no strange divinity to others however it be to Mr. M. The words of Ananias Acts 22. 16. Beza on Matthew 28. 19. shew it to be no strange or forced Divinity Becman Exercit. Theol. 17. p. 251. hath the like In nomen hoc est invocato nomine Christi baptizamur The New Annot. on 1 Cor. 1. 13. The third reason taken from the form and end of baptism wherein we make a promise to Christ calling on also the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost The words of Grotius a learned man whatever his other qualities were shew it to be old Divinity Annot. on Matthew 28. 19. he speaks thus Post has ergo stipulationes atque responsiones quas verba Sacramenti Tertullianus vocat ad militiae morem alludens sequebatur baptismus cui accedebant preces in quibus nominabantur Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus Orationem hanc propriè ad patrem directam indicare videtur Justinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deinde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Solemne ejus invocations verbum erat Abba Pater ut not at Chrysostomus 8. ad Rom. 15. The words in Chrysostome hom 10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by which we cry Abba Father This holy Ministers know what it is rightly commanding to say this word first at the mystical prayer meaning at baptism Grotius goes on thus His si addas id quod Acts 22. 16. refertur ab Anania dictum Paulo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videbis tum eum qui baptizabatur tum eos qui baptismo aderant neque enim in toto coetu exercebatur primis temporibus quod ostendunt c. solitos orare Deum patrem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quomodo ipse orare nos docet John 14. 13 14. Ut sidem ejus qui baptizabatur liberam illam christianismi professionem muneraret spiritu suo sancto per gradus quosdam quorum initium erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius notes to like purpose on Luke 3. 21. where it is said Jesus being baptized and praying the Heaven was opened which shews Christ prayed at his Baptism and thereupon the Spirit descended which the Ancients conceived as a Rule and is at least recorded as an Example to be imitated Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. pag. 182. cals this New Light which if he mean Ironically as it is likely he doth he may hereby perceive that he is mistaken and for what he excepts against this Exposition that neither in the baptizing of the Samaritans Acts 8. was that Rule observed nor was it possible that the three thousand baptized in one day Acts 2. should arise each of them and call upon the Name of the Lord as they were baptized it proceeds upon a mistake as if no calling on the Name of the Lord were sufficient but that which was set and solemn before the publick Assembly whereas neither is Baptism necessary to be administred before the publick Assembly Grotius proves out of Justin Martyrs words and otherwise that it was administred not as they now do infant sprinkling in the publick meeting place but in some place without aside from the publick Assembly and the calling on the Name of the Lord was or might be ejaculatory whether in the heart onely or by words praying to the Father by Christ for the Spirit Mr. M. makes this inference from my words Then it seems if the party baptized call on the Name of the Lord by prayer that 's all that is intended by baptizing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But this is but another of his pervertings of my words for in the same place I joyned with it devoting themselves to the service of and adherence to the Father Son and Spirit which I proved out of 1 Cor. 1. 13 15. which proves plainly that to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Spirit notes not a Ministers Commission from the Father Son and Spirit nor a Form of words to be used by him at Baptism whether the party baptized understand it or no but in baptizing engaging the party baptized to acknowledg the Father Son and Spirit as Lord and Teacher Diod. Annot. in 1 Cor. 1. 15. In mine own Name as to binde them unto me to acknowledg me for their Head Hence Johns Baptism is the Doctrine he preached and the baptized by him professed Mark 1. 4. Acts 10. 47. 19. 3. and the Pharisees therefore were not baptized of John Luke 7. 30. because they should have professed Johns Doctrine which they were against if they had been baptized of him as their Disciples did their Doctrine and Johns Disciples did his Clear therefore it is that baptizing into the Name doth note not onely the act of the Ministers of Baptism but also the party baptized his act of invocating addicting profession of Service and Doctrine and obediently testifying it by that sign for that is plain from the command Acts 2. 38. Let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the requiring of a duty from them conjoyned with repentance and â—herefore to be baptized is not meerly passive but implies a voluntary yielding of a person to it And it is further proved
referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be
from the words to Paul Acts 22. 16. where he is commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arise baptise and wash which all require voluntary action on his part as well as ministration on Ananias his part out of which this argument is formed They are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers and Spirits Name who do not perform the acts required in that expression But infants of believers do not perform the acts required in that expression therefore they are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers o◠Spirits according to the meaning of it in the institution So that this argument is not a petty reasoning but a solid reason to prove infants baptism not such as Christ appointed As for Mr. Ms. frivolous question Were not the infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision though they could not actually devote themselves Though I am not bound to answer his impertinent questions yet I will tell him they were yet this is nothing to the business in hand about the meaning of the Phrase to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit which manifestly implies the party baptized his act which infants cannot do Whereas no where there is such a command Be ye circumced in the Name of Jesus Christ nor is it all one to be circimcised as to be baptized which is still supposed but never proved 4. I further urged Christ bids the Apostles presently after Baptism Teach them to observe what ever he commanded But this direction could not pertain to infants they could not be taught to observe Christs commands therefore neither were they appointed to be baptized Mr. M. denies that they were enjoyned presently to teach them to observe what Christ commanded But the Text knits these together Baptizing and Teaching so as that they that were baptized should be taught that by them that baptized them which the Apostles could not do being to go up and down from place to place to plant the Churches in all Nations if they had been to baptize infants for then they must have staid many years till they came to understanding to be taught to observe what Christ commanded No man me thinks should imagine Christs appointment to be thus Make infants disciples and baptize them and then after five six or ten years when they are grown to some understanding come again and teach them to observe what I have commanded but that Christ did appoint them to teach them presently after Baptism that is in so many hours or days after that Ordinance was administred as it could be well done Nor doth Mr. Cobbet avoid this objection by saying pag. 179. then they must be presently taught the whole minde of Christ which is impossible For presently is not restained to an instant but comprehends a just latitude of time for the doing of the thing onely it notes that the beginning of it is to be not long after Baptism but sooner by much than it could be done to infants Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof pag. 341. argues thus What Christ hath conjoyned man must not separate but Christ hath conjoyned Discipling and Baptizing I add and Teaching therefore we must not separate them 5. The institution of Christ is best understood by the command of the Apostles the resolution of Philip the practice of John Baptist the Apostles and other men sent by God to baptize but the Apostle Peter commanded first Repentance and then Baptism Acts 2. 38. Philip resolved the Eunuch demanding What hindereth me to be baptised If thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou maist it is lawfull or allowed thee Acts 8. 36 37. John the Baptist the Apostles and other holy men sent by God to baptize baptized none but Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ as may appear by the Texts mentioning their baptizing Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Luke 3. 10. Acts 2. 41 8. 12 13 38 9. 18. 10. 47. 11. 17 18. 16. 15 31 32 33. 18. 8. 19. 5. 22. 16. Therefore Christs institution is of baptizing onely Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ and therefore not infants of believers The major cannot be denied by those that confess that Scripture best expounds Scripture and that the Apostles knew Christs minde and did observe it The minor is manifest from the Texts alleged And Mr. Rutherfords words are express to that purpose Divine Right of Church government cap. 5. q. 1. pag. 257. We reade that John Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sins and professed faith in Christ Jesus To this Mr. M. Defence pag. 227. says that it would be a hard task for me to prove that John baptized none but upon profession of Repentance I reply 1. It is proved already and confessed by Mr. Rutherford 2. I did think Mr. Ms. own words Sermon pag 44. that John did teach before he baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism did amount to as much till Mr. M. to help himself referred then to the time untill Parents were converted not to the time of Johns and the Apostles ministry of which the objection was to which in those words he answered For the objection was that they always taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any and Mr. Ms. words in his answer were John and Christs Disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism which if not understood of the time of their Ministery it was an answer besides the objection 3. Mr. M. hath not yet shewed any other but such baptized by them and therefore it is probable in the highest degree of probability that no other were baptized by them 4. I think an argument in this matter from the Evangelists relation negatively is good proof unless we will suppose John Baptist and the Apostles were defective in their duty or the Evangelists in their narrations of that which frequently if it had been their duty would have occurred and their story lead them to mention and it was of much concernment to the Churches of God in after Ages they should 2. He saith It would be hard to prove that John did impose or require confession of sin before baptism Reply I think not 1. what they did sure was required of them else it had not been an acceptable thing and by John else he had failed in his duty Luke 1. 17. But they confessed sin afore Baptism Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Ergo. 2. He that preached repentance to them that came to be baptized required confession of sins which is a chief part of it afore Baptism But so did John Matth. 3. 2. Ergo. 3. He that preached to them to prepare the way of the Lord required confession of sins afore Baptism for that was the preparing the way of the Lord by bringing persons to confess sins and then to baptise them But
of newness of life and hope of resurrection Becman Exer. Theol. 17. pag. 257. Baptizari in mortem Christi dicimur quatenus stipulamur nos credere in Christum pro nobis mortuum ipsius exemplo veluti enâ—care peccatum ne nobis dominetur But this could not infants do therfore no insants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 1. Cor. 12. 13. For even by or in one Spirit have we been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and have been all made drink into one Spirit or as some copies have it have been all made to drink or drench into one drink into one Spirit That here baptism with water and the drinking the cup in the Lords Supper are meant is manifest the Apostle arguing from the end of those two rites for the union and communication between all Christians as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. he had done in the Lords Supper and Eph. 4. 4 5. he doth from baptism And without that allusion the phrase is not intelligible And the exception of the Antibaptists is vain that it is spirit-Spirit-baptism not water-water-baptism For it is indeed both spirit-Spirit-baptism from the Spirit as the cause and water-water-baptism together as the outward element Now hence three Arguments arise against infant baptism 1. All that were baptized into the body were baptized by one Spirit as the Concurrent cause as Mr. B. saith rightly in his plain Scripture proof c. page 342. that is together with the word as Ephes. 5. 26 is declared by preaching of which the Spirit was given Gal. 3 2. and this was presumed of all as 1 Thes. 1. 2. 4. and elsewhere And Mr. B. truly saith in the same place That it was all that were thus baptized into the body But I subsume infants were not thus baptized Ergo no infants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 2. All that were thus baptized were also made to drink or did drink themselves or were drencht by their own act in the receiving the cup in the Lords Supper unto one Spirit in communion and testification of one Spirit as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. But infants did not thus drink Ergo infants were not then baptized 3. All that were counted members of the body of Christ or the Church were thus baptized and made to drink But infants were not thus baptized and made to drink for if so they received the Lords Supper therefore were not then visible Church members and consequently ought not to be so counted now Gal. 3. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Where the Apostle proving that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ because they had put on Christ must needs intimate that it was by faith in Christ Jesus that they had put on Christ and then the Apostles speech is this As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have by faith in Christ Jesus put on Christ and consequently so many as were baptized were believers and therefore no infants were baptized for want of faith Ephes. 4. 4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one faith one baptism Whence I argue 1. They that have one baptism have also one faith But infants had not one faith Ergo they had not one baptism and consequently are not to have it now 2. One faith is placed before one baptism therefore faith went before baptism in the Apostles daies and consequently infants were not baptized 3. They that were counted of one body had one faith But infants had not one faith therefore they were not counted of one body that is Church-members Mr. Bs. words p. 342. confirm this Ephes. 4. 5. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so hath it one common baptism Eph. 5. 26. That he might sanctify it cleansing it with the washing of water by the word whence Mr. B Plain Script proof p. 342. inferres the whole Church of Christ must in duty be washed with water Now I argue 1. They who were washed with water were cleansed with the washing of water by the word which word is the word preached as where mention is made of baptism there mention is made of preaching of the word going before it and the word doth no where signifie the covenant or promise of God taken precisely or abstractively from the narration of Christs comming and invitation to repentance but altogether as it was preached as may be seen in Peters speech Acts 10. 36 37 38 c. But infants were not cleansed by the word therefore they were not cleansed by the washing of water 2. The whole Church was cleansed with the washing of water by the word But so were not infants therefore they were not parts of the Church and consequently are not now Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism wherein ye have also been raised together through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead Whence I argue They who were buried with Christ in baptism were also therein raised together through faith and consequently were believers But infants were not in baptism raised together through faith therefore they were not buried with Christ in baptism that is they were not baptized and by consequence ought not to be Tit. 3. 5. is usually expounded of baptism as by Mr. B. pag. 342 so by many others But if the washing there be meant of baptism it is such as was with regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost therfore not of infants whose regeneration and receiving was unknown Heb. 6. 1 2. Where the foundation is mentioned this order is observed first repentance then faith then baptism then laying on of hands then resurrection of the dead and lastly eternal judgement now if the Apostle kept a right order here used in teaching and according to the event of things as he seems to have done then repentance and faith went before baptism and so no infants baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. The baptism that saves is accompanyed with the answer of a good conscience towards God This saith Beza in his annot on that text alludes to the Custome of stipulating or promising at baptism by the baptised which if right as is probable then it is manifest that the baptized did answer at baptism which infants could not and therefore were not baptized SECT VI. Mr. Blakes exception against the Major that such institution or example as I require for infant-baptism is unnecessary is refelled AGainst these arguments chiefly the two first brought to prove that infants are not to be baptized according to the institution Matth. 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles besides what is alleged and refuted already many things are alleged Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 411. construes the objection
after and spirit before as Matth. 3. 11. spirit is first and fire after and after the usual manner of speaking it should run thus except a man be born of the spirit and water if it were to be expounded of the spirit which is as water Dr. Homes animadv on my Exercit pag. 30. allegeth Bullinger saying Omnes penè de baptismo Ioh. 3. 5. interpretantur to which he adjoyns Bullingers and his own consent For these reasons I am much inclined to expound it of the Element of Water Yet 2. am very apt to conceive that forasmuch as Mr. Selden de jurenat Gent. juxta discipl Heb. lib. 2. cap. 4. tels us that when the Iews did initiate Proselytes by baptizing them with water they called it Regenerating and that Christ when he taunts Nicodemus with dulness in being a Master in Israel and yet not knowing of Regeneration but by imagining a natural New-birth when Regeneration was frequent in baptizing Proselytes among the Iews insomuch that by it they taught a person lost his natural relations of kinred as he shews lib. 5. c. 18. and hath these words in the place above cited tamet si de eâ quae spiritu fit non solùm aquâ loqueretur Christus our Saviour meant baptism of water not according to his Apostles practice but the Iews and that the sense is this Except a man be born of water and of the spirit that is Except a man be not onely born again by water as ye Pharisees regenerate when ye make Proselytes but also by the spirit as I do beget again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God although he may enter into the Common-wealth or policy of Israel which sense nevertheless doth not assert a necessity of their water-regeneration but onely of Christs spiritual regeneration and the insufficiency of the other by it self which is so much the more probable because I finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is and for but Motth 11. 19. 12. 39. Acts 10. 28. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 26. 29. seems to answer to not onely but also yet because I finde not a place every way parallel I onely propound it to be examined But 3. it being granted that it is meant of Christs water-water-baptism yet Papists themselves make not such a necessity of it as is without limitation and exception and therefore they put in some one some another restriction which Chamier in the place alleged reduceth to four 1. Unless the person be baptized either with the baptism of water or some other thing instead of it as the baptism of bloud and spirit 2. If they may be baptized and they despise it 3. If they be not baptized with that Regeneration which is by water though it may be otherwise also 4. If they be neither baptized in deed nor desire Why may not then this limitation be added Except a man be born again of water that is except such a person of whom baptism is required according to my institution be born of water when he may have it and it s cleared to him to be his duty he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And indeed this and such like speeches Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 18 â—6 c. that require faith as well as baptism are to be understood of persons to whom the Gospel is preached and do or may hear it and speak not of infants whom we finde not that God enters into the Kingdom of Heaven any other way than by his invisible election and operation of his Spirit And it is observable that whereas Iohn 3. 5. our Saviour joyns water and spirit as means of Regeneration yet v. 6. he names onely the spirit omitting water whence may be gathered that water is not of such universal unrestrained necessity that in no case a person is not born again without it nor admissible into the Kingdom of God yet such as is necessary ordinarily to those to whom the Gospel is preached and their duty made known Whence in answer to the Doctors argument I say that his speeches are to be thus limited at least none can enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily without baptism to wit of those to whom the Gospel is preached their duty made known and Baptism may be had and to his later Argument I answer by denying that children are excluded out of the Kingdom of Heaven by denying them Baptism sith those unbaptized persons onely are excluded who are appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel is preached the duty of Baptism made known and they may have it administred to them which cannot be said of infants Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in his Book intituled A Precept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament having premised some thing about the Text Iohn 3. 5. pag. 18 19 20 21 22. about the necessity of baptism of water and the efficacy of it in which many things are meerly dictated and very slightly handled he would infer pag. 23 c. a Precept for infant-infant-baptism from Iohn 3. 5. because infants are guilty of original sin where the disease is there is need of the remedy when Christ doth press a necessity of washing both by water and the spirit he doth not this so immediately in reference to actual sin as in reference to birth-sin and to the natural pollution in which infants are born The same is the plea of Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants Advocate c. 13. Answ. That either baptism of water or Circumcision are made the remedy of original sin is more than I finde in Scripture though it go as currant among many of former and later times It is true our Lord Christ saith Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. and he assigns this as a reason thereof v. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh but that either thereby he intended to make baptism as the remedy of sin or of original sin rather than actual is more than appears For though our Lord Christ v. 5. make regeneration to be by Water and Spirit yet I conceive regeneration is by the Spirit onely as the cause by baptism of water onely as the sign whereby the person baptized testifies that he is born again by the Spirit Now a remedy is a cause and not a sign onely no man calls that which is onely a sign of cure a remedy but that which doth operate for healing That baptism of water is not the cause of regeneration appears 1. Because v. 6. our Saviour giving the reason of the necessity of regeneration and the effect of regeneration leaves ouâ— water and mentions onely the Spirit 2. Because the person baptized is supposed to be born again to be a repenting and believing person afore he is baptized But if baptism were the cause it should be before regeneration for the cause is before the effect and so men should be
meaning is to be taken a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh So that this is the thing that I except against Mr. Bl. for that whereas by the consent of all that I know interpreters besides himself they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. in the apodosis there even so it is now do note legal Justitiaries who are there called the children of the bond-woman not called Abrahams seed for those he had determined before to be those of the faith Gal. 3. 9. Christs v. 29. nor to inherit but cast out he on the contrary makes them Abrahams seed as Arminius doth in his Analysis of Rom. 9. And ascribes to them the inheriting of outward privileges as to be members of the visible Church in that they are born after the flesh Whereas the term born after the flesh is taken in the worser part precisely from the birth from the bond-woman abstractively from generation by Abraham and importing no privilege but a privation of privilege As for Mr. Bayn though he interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham and proves there that it notes not legal Justitiaries because it is applyed to Esau who is considered as having done neither good nor evil Yet Mr. Bl. wrongs him in two things 1. In that he saith Mr. Baine interprets it of a natural seed inheriting outward privileges whereas though Mr. Baine doth interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of a natural seed yet not as inheriting thereby outward privileges 2. That he makes his exposition of children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8 to be his exposition of those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. whereas he expresly saith though children of the flesh in some other Scripture which can be no other than Gal. 4. 29. doth note out Justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law I confess Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus in the place before cited makes Ishmael not onely a Type of Justitiaries Gal. 4. 23 29. but also Rom. 9. 7 8 9. and Isaac a Type of believers in both places and Esau and Jacob Types not of Justitiaries and believers but of uncalled and called non-elect and elect and so the resemblance to be different of the two former brethre◠from the later which to me seems not right for me thinks the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have this sense that the thing he had sayd before did not onely appear in Ishmael and Isaac but also more fully in Esau and Jacob which me thinks imports that the Apostle meant to prove the same thing by Esau and Jacob which he did by Ishmael and Isaac and me thinks the long Parenthesis he imagines from v. 10 to 30. agrees not with that expression v. 10. Not onely so but also they being connexive particles and so not agreeable to a Parenthesis But Cameron and all others I know understand by those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4 29. legal Justitiaries Mr. John Cotton Grounds of baptism c. pag. 158. By such as are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. the Apostle doth not mean such as are born by ordinary course of nature but such as are born and bred of the carnal seed of the Covenant of the Law which as it bego◠by Ishmael carnal confidence of his own strength or else he would never have slighted and mocked the promised seed so it begat in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despair of grace and salvation My fourth exception was whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants to be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a childe interest into the Church of Christ. To this all that Mr. Bl. replies is this If Mr. Tombs his Gloss borrowed from Arminius must stand for the sense of the place that to be born of the flesh is to be under the covenant of works then it will hardly be avoided but in case Mr. Baines interpretation may stand of a birth in nature according to the flesh then the Argument is valid Answ. That Mr. Baines doth interpret no otherwise the term born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. than I do is shewed above yet if it were true that he did as Mr. Bl. mis-allegeth him interpret born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham yet it is false that either there or Rom. 9. 8. he conceived this term children of the flesh to import a natural seed by virtue of it inherititing outward privileges and therefore the Argument of Mr. Bl. is not valid though Mr. Baines were granted to be rightly alleged by him And for that he sayth I borrow my Gloss from Arminius I answer I have shewed that I have deduced it from the Apostles own words and have the concurrent judgment of many Divines of best note to whom it is no disparagement that in this Arminius joyns SECT XXIII Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Hebr. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled THere is another Text to wit Hebr. 6. 2. from which Dr. Homes Animad on my Exercit. pag. 58. and after cap. 10. would prove infant-baptism and with him Mr. John Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Poedob pag. 76. c. which if their arguing were good would not onely prove the practice of infant-baptism but also that it is a principle of Christianity and part of the foundation The arguing is to this effect If the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms cannot be expounded of any other than the laying on of hands for confirming the baptized in infancy than the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms presupposeth infant-infant-baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent The Antecedent is proved by parts 1. It cannot be understood of laying on of hands for healing or miraculous gifts of the Spirit For then the knowledg of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be put among the Principles of Christian knowledg which is absurd To which I answered in my Exercit. pag. 22. that it is no absurdity to put that among the Principles of Christian knowledg those gifts being though by extraordinary power yet frequent in those days and necessary to be known to confirm young Christians that Jesus is the Christ because the Spirit thus given was the great witness concerning Christ that he was the Son of God and shewed that he was gone up to the Father else the Spirit had not descended it was it by which the world was rebuked and the Saints established To this sayth Dr. Homes that I by and by as good as confess it a eogent reason because I go about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for Ordination because it was still in use and to continue to be used Answ. The Doctor misallegeth my
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-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
believers not future But However saith he they may be Disciples who are are not outwardly taught Answ. Who denies it yet they must be learners of Christ in their own persons But then saith he a person may be baptized without personal profession Answ. It is granted when God supplies the absence of it by his revelation otherwise nor is this contrary to the Rule sith that is to baptise known Disciples who are ordinarily known by their personal profession though in this case Gods extraordinary act supplies that want Yet Mr. Cobbets saying is not right that neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule For Abrahams killing his son was in it self contrary to rule yet upon extraordinary command it was to be done And for the third though it might be conceived Christs minde that the children should be instructed though it be not mentioned Luke 18. 16 17. because it was a duty of perpetual equity by virtue of the moral Law yet baptising infants being a meer positive rite that hath no reason or warrant but institution is not to be conceived Christs minde without some declaration which he neither then when he had so fit opportunity nor at any time else expressed There are some more things in Mr. Cobbet censurable as that he makes the infants paterns as well of receiving the kingdom at least externally as of the affection and disposition with which it is to be received whereas â— the words Matth. 18. 3â—4 do plainly make them paterns onely of humility and such good dispositions as are in children fit to be imitated 2. In Mr. Cobbets sense the words of Christ would be false whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe externally by an initial seal or some other visible sign as laying on hands c. shall not enter therein For then that Popish Doctrine or rather more rigid than Popish must be maintained that no unbaptized Martyr or other shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven And in like manner it is gratis dictum without proof sayd of such like infants like them in covenant and Church interest in God is his kingdom there being not a word in the Text that leads to this paraphrase and the plain meaning is before expressed That which Mr. Cobbet sayth in answer to the reason of Piscator Why they were not infants because Christ called them I conceive is not an answer For what he sayth that things ascribed to the children are rather to be understood of parents and he instanceth in Levi's paying Tyths in Abraham Heb. 7. is not right For 1. that which is sayd of Levi is to be understood of Levi not of Abraham for it were neither good sense nor to his purpose to say Abraham payd Tyths in Abraham 2. If things done by a parent and related by the Holy Ghost as mysterious passages are imputed to the children yet it is absurd to understand in an historical narration of facts that to be meant as spoken to the parents which was spoken to the children Other things I let pass which oppose not my dispute but others and what things he speaks in answer to my Objections and what concerns the answering the imaginary absurdities arising from our Doctrine in that chapter I refer to another place This is sufficient in answer to what he sayth in opposition to me about that passage Luke 18. 16 17. Dr. Homes in his Animad on my Exercit. pag. 57 58. argues thus To whom indefinitely as such Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs to them as such the seal of converance and confirmation of Heaven and that blessing belongs For if the Land be mine the Deeds and Seals of Conveyance are mine But Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children more whiles little children so the Text here expresly To them belong or which is all one of such is the kingdom of Heaven and he took them in his arms and blessed them Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the Seal of Conveyance or Confirmation of Heaven and the blessing of Heaven which in the New Testament according to the time Christ spake is baptism Answ. Neither is it true That baptism is the seal of conveyance of heaven and the blessing for it that I finde in Scripture but the Spirit Ephos. 4. 30. Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Nor is it true That heaven and the blessing of heaven belong to little children indefinitely as such that is as little children For then it should belong to all little children nor to them as children of believing parents for it should belong to all children of believing parents but as they are elect And to these I grant baptism belongs when they are called and believe not before as a conveyance may be made to a childe yet he is not to have it in his hands till he come to understand it and is fit to make use of it So that the major may be denied if the belonging of the seal be meant in respect of present use or possession And the minor is to be denied if as such be meant as little children or children of believers and the inference on the conclusion is denied the seal belongs to them Ergo baptism Other arguments of Dr. Homes are answered in my Apology pag. 102. though briefly yet sufficiently Nor hath Mr. Geree in his Vâ—ndiciae Vindiciarum ch 10. brought any thing worth rejoyning in reply to my answer to his sixth argument in my Apology pag. 101 102. It is false which he saith in admitting to ordinances we proceed not upon judgment of certainty but charity nor is a judgment of charity grounded upon hope of what a person may be any rule to us in admitting to baptism For if so then hope of a profane persons amendment were enough to baptize him Mr. Bailleâ—'s reasoning in his Anabaptism pag. 149. since imposition of hands a seal of Christs grace and blessing and of the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants that therefore baptism a seal of that same kinde when once the Lord had solemnely at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denied to them is but dictates 1. He says baptism is a seal of the same kinde with Christs laying on hands which he saith without proof nor is it true For. 1. Christs laying on hands was an act extraordinary done by Christ himself as the great Prophet but baptism was an act of ordinary ministration not done by Christ himself but his Disciples John 4. 1 2. 2. Baptism was the duty of the baptized Acts 2. 38. not onely the baptizers but not so laying on hands by Christ. 3. If baptism be a seal of the same kinde with laying on of hands then laying on hands is a seal and a Sacrament of the same kind with baptism which is counted a point of Popery 2. To
and they were baptized and this must be a rule to us now about baptism of water appointed by Christ which was sayd of het similitudinary baptism then sith the same are meant by Fathers v. 3 4. and they are sayd to eat the same spiritual meat and drink which was Christ which is manifestly meant of the Lords Supper by the same reason which Mr. Bailee brings infants must not be excluded from the Lords Supper Yea but saith Dr. Homes They did not eat all the Lords Supper Refut They did all eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink which if he deny to be meant of the Lords Supper he deserts Protestants and other Divines acknowledging it and may be refuted from the scope of the Apostle which is to shew that they had in a sort in respect of signification and use the same Sacraments with ours and yet were not secured thereby when they sinned But Mr. Cobbet says There must be a Synecdoche in the later not all the Fathers simply being meant but such as were capable of making a spiriual use thereof Refut If all our Fathers must be meant Synecdochically v. 3 4. then also in v. 2. it being the same term in either and the sense of them v. 5. being meant of as many v. 3 4 as v. 2. Yea but there 's a bar put against infants receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28. Refut There are more bars and more express put against infants baptism Acts 8. 37. Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. Ephes. 4. 5 c. which it seems Paedobaptists will leap over or break down notwithstanding they are so plainly set up by Christ and his Apostles to prevent their infant-baptism That which Mr. Ainsworth in his Dialogue brings out of Psalm 77. 17. to prove that the Israelites were indeed formally baptized with water is upon mistake that the water there poured out was on the Israelites whereas his own Annotations on the places and the words of the Psalm refer it to what was done to the Egyptians Exod. 14. 24 25. And thus Junius and others conceive it Yet were it granted him there must be a Synecdoche in the term all the Fathers for the reasons given and otherwise beasts as well as infants must be sayd to be baptized SECT XXII Mr. Blakes Argument from Gal. 4. 29. is answered MR. Blake had in his Birth-privilege pag. 9. argued from Gal 4. 29. for infant-baptism and his passages in his arguing I censured as very gross in my Examen part 3. sect 2. which he seeks to make good Answer to my Letter cap. 4. to which I reply in my Postscript sect Yet he hath thought good to reinforce his allegation of that Text and in his Vindic. Foed cap. 43. sect 1. he argues thus Fourthly They that by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church have right to baptism but infants by birth according to the flesh are in the bosom of the Church Gal. 4. 29. Infants therefore ought to be baptized To which I answer if he mean by the Church the Church Christian visible and by being in the bosom of it having actual visible Church membership I grant the major and deny the minor and for the Text Gal. 4. 29 alleged to prove it am no more induced by Mr. Bls. arguings to believe that it makes to his purpose than I am to think the Snow is black For if it were to his purpose the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have this sense even so now infants by virtue of birth according to the flesh as being the children of a believer by natural generation are visible members in the Christian Church v. g. of Galatia which is as far from the meaning of the Apostle as East from West if either I or those Interpreters I meet with have not lost their common sense This I prove from the true supplement which must make up the words complete sense This will be understood by considering that the whole verse is a compound proposition of that sort which Logicians call comparative as 1 Cor. 15. 22. The terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do shew it to be a comparative proposition and therein are two parts the first called the Protasis then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit that is for I think Mr. Bl. will not gain say this exposition Ishmael who was born after the flesh being the son of 〈◊〉 the bond-woman persecuted whether by mocking or by some crafty undermining device as Heinsius conceives Isaac who was born after the Spirit by Divine virtue according to the promise as Grotius I conceive rightly explains it The other part is called the Apodosis or rendering wherein that which answers to the forepart first held out is expressed now that always notes some agreement correspondence parity or likeness whether in quantity quality action c. But according to Mr. Bls. apodosis or reddition there is no such answerableness or likeness as hath the shew of a comparison of things equal or alike as this is as the affirmative terms shew For who would conceive any better then nonsence in such a speech as this even as Ishmael persecuted Isaac so the children of Christian believers are visible members in the Christian Church it were all one as to say even as Esau hated Jacob so godly men are heirs of Heaven or have access to God the absurdity of which is so gross that I am amazed Mr. Bl. doth not see it or will not confess it there being no likeness or shew of answerablenes either in the compared subjects or in the compared predicates Not in the subjects For in the forepart the term he that was born after the flesh is taken in the worser part as a term importing debasement bondage a curse but in Mr. Bls. own expression Vindic. foed ch 40. the term he that is born after the flesh notes in the better part a natural seed that inheriâ—s outward privilges yea and that no small one to be a visible Church-member by vertue of birth after the flesh And then in the predicates there is less answerablenes For what answerablenes between persecuting him that was born after the Spirit who resembles the true believer and having right to outward privileges as visible Church-membership and baptism by being born of a believer according to the flesh by natural generation and this competent to infants But the supplement is this Even so now the Jew who is carnal seeking righteousness by observing the Law and nâ—â— through the Spirit waiting for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith now persecuteth by words and deeds the Christian believer whether Jew or Gentile who is born after the Spirit that is who by the Spirit doth wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith Gal. 5 5. This supplement is cleared to be genuine from the scope and series of the Apostles Doctrine before and
words for I do not say positively as he cites them but comparatively thus for it is more likely that imposition of hands for Ordination which was still in use and to continue to be used should be there meant than laying on of hands for confirmation after baptism of infants which hath no Rule nor Example in Scripture 2. Saith Dr. Homes Those gifts usual onely in that little time of the Apostles were not to be joyned with and put among the first Principles of Christian Religion to be taught young ones to fit them for baptism or to give an account of their faith after baptism Answ. Those Principles Heb. 6. 1 2. are not sayd to be taught to little ones in age but in knowledg of Christian Religion nor are they sayd to be taught to fit them for baptism or to give account of their faith after baptism they may be principles and a foundation though they were taught them after baptism and to establish themselves rather than to give account to others Now for what reason the knowledg of these might be a part of the beginnings of the Doctrine of Christ to young Christians is given above And there is in the Text that which may induce us to conceive the giving the spirit by laying on of hands meant because v. 4. they that were enlightned which many even of the Ancients understood of baptism commonly called by the Greeks inlightning are sayd to have tasted of the heavenly gift and to be partakers of the Holy Ghost which seems to be meant in respect of these gifts and Paul Acts 19. 2. propounded this as a Catechism question to certain Disciples at Ephesus Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed But I rested not on it because the other of laying on of hands for Ordination seemed to me more likely then 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley It s not likely to be meant of laying on of hands for Ordination 1. Because that 's not fit to be taught younglings children novices as milk Heb. 5. 12. If this be milk viz. the Doctrine of Church-discipline Church-officers Church-goverment c. what shall we call oâ— count strong meat To this was answered that however all the Doctrine about Church-discipline might be unfit to be taught novices yet laying on hands for Ordination being an outward riâ—e of continued use it might be needfull to be taught younglings in Christian profession To this Dr. Homes replies that no ingenuous man weâ—ghing and pondering things will think that little children should be taught as one of the first elements of Christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers To which I say many even of later Writers whom me thinks the Doctor should not deny to be ingenuous men do refer the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. to Ordination Dicson on Heb. 6. 2. Ames Bell. Ener tom 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. th 8. Cartwright Answ. to Rh. Annot. in locum Thomas Hooker Survey part 1. cap. 1. pag. 7. Noyes the Temple measured pag. 70. Hudson Essence and Unity of the Church pag. 9. and Vindic. pag. 22. Dr. Hammond of the Keys cap. 4. sect 28. Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4 cap. 10. sect 38. recites the opinions of Papists as differing some referring to Confirmation some to Ordination some to giving the Holy Ghost The New Annot. Diodati speak as uncertain to which to refer it Grotius refers it to all rites besides baptism and the Lords Supper in Confirmation Ordination curing the sick reconciling penitents blessing the married and therefore whether little children were taught the Doctrine thereof or no many ingenuous men conceive it meant Heb. 6. 2. 2. Though it might be conceived unfit for little children in age to be taught yet it may nevertheless be fit to be taught younglings in Christianity meant Heb. 5. 12. It seems to me to be as fit to be taught little children as the Doctrine of Confirmation and may be as easily learned by them as the points about the Resurrection of the Dead and eternal Judgment 2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley The very putting these two together baptisms and laying on of hands seems in Calvins judgment to import some relation that the one should have to the other as in the other Principles which are by pairs To this I answered that baptism and imposition of hands might be fitly coupled being both Ordinances for initiation the one into the profession of Christianity the other into sacred function To this Dr. Homes replies that imposition of hands initiâ—teâ— but few and that long after they are Church members and that Marriage might better be coupled with baptism or imposition of hands and the Lords Supper Answ. If all this were granted yet the answer stands good that the joyning proves not Mr. Brinsleys sense necessary which is enough for my purpose to shew the insufficiency of his Argument But Dr. Homes thinks to blow away all by avouching his and Mr. Brinsleys interpretation which he cals a naked and honest explication of the Text. And that is that the Doctrine of baptisms is the Doctrine which the catechized of the heathens recited afore their baptism and the Doctrine of laying on of hands was the Doctrine which infants of believers before baptized in their infancy after they were past childhood rehearsed before the Church upon which they were received into the Church by imposition of hands Answ He may well call it a naked interpretation because it is brought into the world without proof there being nothing in the Text for it and all the shew of proof is onely the opinion of some late writers mistaken about the practise of antiquity Yea me thinks if the Doctor with his brethren of the congregational way as it is called did believe this interpretation to be genuine they should admit their infant-sprinkled members by laying on of hands which yet I hear not that they do But against this interpretation are these reasons 1. In it is supposed that the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands is not the Doctrine concerning those rites but the Doctrine recited when those rites were used But the Doctrine then recited being the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment and the profession of repentance from dead works and faith towards God if the Doctrine of baptisms and the laying on of hands be the Doctrine recited by the baptized and confirmed at the use of those rites it will be the same with the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment repentance from dead works and faith towards God and so those several principles will be confounded 2. The Doctrine of baptisms was that which in those to whom the Apostles wrote was layd before which is intimated in the words v. 1. not laying again But they were Hebrews therefore not as the Doctor Heathens that recited it at baptism 3. There 's no distinction in the Text as if some recited the Doctrine at baptism and others who had been baptized in infancy recited
it at laying on of hands but the same persons had the Doctrine of both layd in them 4. There 's not a word of reciting the Doctrine at the several rites by the taught but the laying of the foundation of the Doctrine of those rites by the Teachers 5. The Doctrine of baptisms whether by them be meant those of John and Christ or other and of laying on of hands is more likely and more generally conceived to be concerning the use of baptism and laying on of hands But the Doctrine of the use of these was not recited by either sort of catechized persons though both sorts were taught both doctrines 6. The placing the words the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands in the middle between faith and resurrection of the dead is against the Doctors sense sith the Doctrine of baptisms being joyned by apposition to faith and repentance the sense must be that repentance and faith were the Doctrine recited at baptism not the resurection of the dead which comes after if the Doctors sense were right 7. This order leads us to conceive that the writer of that Epistle did orderly place the elements of Christianity in which Christians were instructed to wit repentance and faith before baptism then the baptism of water and the laying on of hands for the obtaining the Spirit by prayer after baptism and then the declaration of what they were to expect the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement wherein sentence should pass on them concerning their everlasting state 8. The terms of repentance of faith of the doctrine of the resurrection of judgement are all governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foundation as if they were possessed of it as the Grammarians speak the word Doctrine is not joyned by apposition to faith as if the sense were which is the Doctrine of baptisms which must be the sense if the Doctors interpretation be right 9. Those interpreters which are brought as giving us that sense which Dr. Homes and Mr. Brinsley allâ—ge are but late writers and such as speak onely by ghess without proving the antiquity of the use they mention out of ancient writers or alleging any ancient writer expounding the Text Heb. 6. 2. â—s referring to that use Dr. Homes recites p. 59 60. the words of Pareus Calvin Bullinger Marlorat Hofman Theophylact Mr. Cotton of all which there is none afore the 16. Century but Theophylact placed by Dr. Usher at the year 10 70. and his words with the words of Hofman and Marlorat do not at all speak of the use of laying hands on children of believers baptized in infancy and Bullingers words apply the laying on of hands to the ordination of Pastors So heedlesly did Dr. Homes write his Animaâ—versions that his own authors he allegeth are not for him or else against him And for Mr. Cotton he sayth onely There be that conceive and that not improbable there was such an use and that some judicious Divines have conceived that use to be the reason of reckoning the laying on of hands among the Principles Heb. 6. 2. and he brings it to prove that then Elders were not without laying on of hands for all Church-members had hands layd on them and so might more freely lay hands on others which speech if true and the inference be good then women who were Church-members had hands layd on them and might more freely lay hands on others But the New England Elders of whom I think Mr. Cotton was one if not the very Penner of those answers in the Answer to the 32. Question pag. 69. say If it were not so then one of these would follow either that the Officers must minister without any Ordination at all which is against 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 6. 2. So that there it is referred to the same laying on of hands which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. which is indeed a very common exposition of interpreters It is true Calvin and Pareus refer it to the use Mr. Brinsley mentions yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect 39. allegeth with Salmeron Justinian Calvin Beza Aretius Piscator concerning the initial laying on of hands upon the catechized to prepare them to receive baptism for which use Dr. Hammond in his letter of resolut pag. 195. brings some places of the ancients and Calvin in his institutions l. 4. cap. 19. sect 4. disallows Hieroms judgment conceiving that the laying on of hands for confirmation was an Apostolical Ordinance Beza saith that the Doctrine Heb. 6. 1 2. was delivered when they met either to baptize or lay on hands on infants or adult persons so that he speaks as one not fully resolved And indeed interpreters as is shewed above are not agreed whether to refer it to laying on hands on the baptized or the ordained yet very few of the Protestants refer it to the laying on of hands for confirmation of them that were baptized in infancy and the 25. Article of the Church of England makes Confirmation one of those things which have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles I sayd in my Exercit. sect 14. that if Hierom. tom 2 in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture yet he allegeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it but the Examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands in the Acts of the Apostles To this Dr. Homes replies 1. That however the antiquity holds good that imposition of hands was used to be after applied to them that have been baptized To which I say This being granted yet as I shew there and here the use of baptizing infants is not proved thereby nor doth Hierom confirm Mr. Brinsleys Exposition 2. Sayth Dr. Homes In that place he quotes other places than the Acts of the Apostles and speaks to our purpose thus and then reciting some words of Hierom adds so Hieronymus Wherefore he supposeth imposition of hands may be on them that had the Spirit in baptism before which is not denied by me nor do I see what that is to Dr. Homes his purpose to prove that the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. is meant of believers infants before baptized and then upon their own profession received into the Church by imposition of hands Yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 41. allegeth Hierom as referring the imposition of hands to the time of baptism not some years after I sayd in my Exercit. pag. 23. but if it were supposed that this imposition of hands meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptized yet this proves not the baptism of infants in the Apostles days unless it could be proved that it was used after the baptism of infants onely for a confirmation either of the baptism or the baptized On the contrary it is apparent out of Tertullian de corona militis cap. 3. that in the primitive times the baptized did make his confession sub manâ—â— antistiâ—is the
said to save v. â—6 to win 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert James 5. 20. sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctifyed by the Spirit of our God 9. The word holy is expounded in a sense no where else found nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle ch 1. 13 14 15 16 17. 12. 13. For he expounds holy by are admitted to baptism and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere when there was another term baptized used in the same Epistle and familiar to them 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow even by the endeavour of a Father Mother Brother Sister Companion especially a Preacher of the Gospel So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together because one may bring the other to the faith the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter Son and Mother Brother and Sister Companions Preacher and people to couple or live together because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism Himself pag. 257. saith This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing unless there were some hope that the 〈◊〉 of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to tâ—â— saith ' twâ—â—lâ— certainly follow their children were unclean that is not admitted to baptism Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted or without hopes or reasonable presumption that he might be won to the faith by the believer It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it If they do they must quite change their plea and practise about infant baptism their plea being from the imagined federal holines of the childe of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith and their practise being to baptize infants of one believer though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief And for the other proposition it is a like false that whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note as much as hoc posito upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving yoke-fellow and experience of what happened the Corinthian believers yonger children noâ— deemed yet believers were admitted to baptism or were reasonably presumed to be admitted or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists though I know none that so interpret it I use his own words pag. 257. sect 82. mutatis mutandis Now I demand of this pretended interpretation whether it be possible Saint Pauls argument should conclude in this sense Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer and the other an unbeliever could it of them be concluded if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God This were absolutely to confine the Churches designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers as if the childe of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer and hopes it should be so It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow and hopes so of theirs 12. Unto all these I add that I never read or heard any Expositor antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any Sure I am Augustin tom 7. de pecâ— merito remiss c. 26. saith Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo pâ—ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase Sect. 32. he speaks thus That this is the true importance of the Apostles words and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident First by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praeter-tense Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a less reasonable account given than of putting it in the Present-tense in English But sayth he It is put in the Praeter-tense in Greek Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages even in the Greek though it abound in Tenses above other Languages In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present-tense is put for the Future even in the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Dr.