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
Sect. 92. he sayth Baptism is a Sacrament that Sacrament an institution of Christ that institution not founded in any reason of immutable truth but onely in the positive will of Christ and so that there is nothing considerable in this question or any of this nature but how it was delivered by Christ. And Sect. 94. that which was done by the Apostles if it were not a Rule for ever yet was an effect of such a Rule formerly given by Christ and interpretable by this practice to be so And Practical Catech. lib. 6. sect 2. he expounding Christs institution sayth that the words import that the person baptized acknowledgeth maketh profession of believing in three delivers himself to three as Authors of his faith and to be ruled by the direction of this Master and this he will have to be meant by baptizing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Whence I infer that if baptism be a Sacrament and made so by Christs institution and that institution founded onely in his positive will and the will of Christ be that baptism be into the name of the Trinity and this is when the baptized makes profession of believing in three to be ruled by them and the Apostles practice interprets Christs rule no infant that doth not profess faith is baptized into the name of the Trinity nor was appointed to be baptized by Christ nor did the Apostles baptize them and therefore they are not baptized according to Christs institution and so no Sacrament to them Yea if the positive will of Christ be the reason of baptism they usurp upon Christs prerogative who baptize otherwise than Christ hath appointed then if the precept of Christ doth not necessarily infer infantbaptsm which the Doctor ingenuously acknowledgeth it doth by manifest consequence deny it sith he forbids that to be done otherwise han he hath appointed when he hath determin'd how it should be done The Doctor when he sayth above the words I baptize into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost must be indispensably used me thinks by the same reason should conceive Christs institution should be unalterably used in baptizing those onely whom he hath appointed to be baptized But let us consider what shift the Doctor makes to elude the force of Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. that it may not be thought to exclude infants from baptism I grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is best rendred make Disciples and like it well that he acknowledgeth makes Disciples and baptizeth John 4. 1. is all one with making Disciples baptizing them Matth. 28. 19. But I deny 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well paraphrased by receive into Discipleship all Nations baptizing them in the Name c. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them For by it the making Disciples is made the same with receiving into Discipleship or receiving Disciples and baptism the ceremony of receiving into Discipleship which is as truly the act of the baptized thereby professing or avouching his Discipleship 2. That the making or receiving Discipleship supposeth not any precedent instruction but looks wholly on it as subsequent For 1. that which in Matthew is expressed by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature which shews how they should disciple all Nations Now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made Disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving Disciples Matth. 28. 19. supposeth precedent instruction 2. Such as the making Disciples was Ioh. 4. 1. such is the making Disciples Mat. 28. 19. For by the Doctors confession they are all one But that was by preaching as is plain concerning Iohn Matth. 3. 1 2 5 6. and concerning the Apostles Mat. 10. 5 6 7. Ergo. Whence 3. I further argue That way the Apostles were to disciple all Nations by which they were to disciple the lost sheep of the house of Israel but that was by preaching Ergo discipling supposeth precedent instruction 4. From the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so is used Matth. 13. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last Translators and can be no otherwise rendred than made a Disciple by teaching So Acts 14. 21. it is sayd Having preacht the Gospel to that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and having taught or made many Disciples Whence 5. it may appear how the Apostles understood the Precept of Christ to preach the Gospel to persons and thereby make them Disciples 6. A Disciple and a believer appear to be the same by comparing Matth. 28. 19. with Mark 16. 15 16. For as the way of making Disciples is more fully expressed by preaching the Gospel so the Disciple to be baptized is expressed by the believer which is put before baptism Nor is it against this that after baptism they are to be taught Matth. 28. 20. For that teaching is expressed to be the teaching the observation of all that he commanded But the teaching that makes Disciples is the preaching the Gospel So that the plain order and meaning of Christs words is this that 1. the Apostles should not stay onely within the Land of Israel but go into all the World 2. That they should by preaching the Gospel declaring that Jesus was the Christ make them Disciples that is taught concerning Christ or believers in him 3. That they should baptize them 4. That they should then teach them to observe all his commands Now infants are not made Disciples by preaching the Gospel therefore by Christs institution not appointed to be baptized and therefore are baptized without his warrant and consequently unlawfully What Dr. Hammond sayth sect 26. were it all granted him yet it would no whit avail to prove that an infant may be a Disciple appointed by Christ to be baptized For let putting to school be as early as the Doctor will imagine yet none is put to school till he doth know his Teacher and so none is Christs Disciple in the Scripture-language till he know Jesus to be Christ and take him for his Lord which infants being not capable of they are not Disciples nor to be baptized according to Christs appointment What he adds s. 27 28. is not right For 1. it is not true that a Disciple and a Proselyte are perfectly all one For a Proselyte notes one that is by birth an alien from the Common-wealth of Israel and comes to the Israelites to own their God and be part of their policy not to be taught but to enjoy privileges with other Jews whether Civil or Ecclesiastical There is no mention of the Disciples of the Priests but of the Pharisees and Sadduces But a Disciple of Christ is one that owns Christ for his Teacher and Lord onely for spiritual benifits Nor doth the Holy Ghost at any time call Christians Christs
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
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
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
have told him that he makes two contradistinct species of birth that both cannot be incident to one man no more than a man be a brute beast or a brute beast a bird when it is plain that here is not a distribution of a genus into several species but a distribution of a subject according to its several adjuncts of which I give several instances Answ. I sayd in my Postscript that I not orely make birth after the flesh and after the spirit contradistinct but also contrary Contradistinct species may be incident to the same person the same man may bâ— loâ—g and broad just and temperate but not contrary as white and black just and unjust Birth distributed into birth after the flesh and after the spirit must needs be a genus or an equivocal term it cannot be any subject either quod or quo it being neither substance quantity nor quality but either action or passion action as from the mother passion as in the person born Now actions though they are capable of various modifications yet I do not think any Logicians call them subjects or their several modifications adjuncts but the substance whose action or passion it is is the subject both of the action and passion and their degrees and modifications and these are adjuncts of that substance Mr. Bl. adds of me He is pleased to deny that it is a distribution of the subject according to its adjuncts and gives in the thing in dispute for a reason Then the same person he says would be born after the spirit and after the flesh Answ. I give in this reason I confess but I did not think this was in dispute but out of all dispute the Apostle making them two sons born of two mothers v. 22. two several ways v. 23. born to two several estates v. 24 25 30. the one persecuting the other and all these diversities are in the persons which are Types and in their Antitypes and the Apostle thence inferreth that the one are not the other v. 31. whence it follows that birth after the flesh and spirit are not adjuncts of the same subject but contrary attributes of several subjects Mr. Bl. proceeds Presently he confesseth that Isaac was born after the flesh in the two senses I mention And I am sure Mr. T. will not deny that Isaac was born after the Spirit and then either truth is very absurd or else Mr. T. hath quit me from absurdity but then he says It is untrue in the Apostles sense for then he should be the childe of the bond-mayd not by promise a persecutor to be cast out not to inherit To which I answer that my sense is the Apostles sense and Mr. T. his sense far from it For though the Apostle doth indeed allegorize the Text as Arias Montanus renders it quae sunt allegorizata yet the Apostle in the parallel looks at the letter of the history as I have shewen not at the Allegory which Mr. T. had not a face to oppose either he must deny now and then to be Adverbs of time or else he must allow of my interpretation Ishmael did never as a Justitiary prosecute Isaac under the notion of a follower of Evangelical righteousness Answ. I do confess Isaac was born after the Spirit and that he was born after the flesh in the two senses of Mr. Bl. for one born of natural parents Abraham was his natural father and in the sense more common in Scripture for the outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth though I do not find the phrase born after the flesh in this later sense in Scripture not Phil. 3. 4. Rom. 9. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 5. 16. where the term flesh is used and yet I think onely in the first place importing prerogatives no where the phrase born after the flesh in that sense yet not in the Apostles sense in which to be born after the flesh notes birth without consideration of the father as by a mother that was a bond-woman and so no prerogative is intimated in it but a debasement or deminution and so Isaac was not born after the flesh that is not of a bond-woman by an usual way of generation but of the free-woman by Divine virtue according to a promise to her when past childe-bearing in the course of nature And this to be the Apostles sense is proved before and Mr. Bls. sense proved very absurd and his reasons for it answered Yet he adds of me After some concessions in full contradiction to himself I deny not saith he but legal Justitiaries may be in the visible Church as Ishmael in Abrahams house though the Apostle make the parallel onely in the casting out that they might not inherit Apolog. pag. 114. he saith if Mr. Bl. would gather anything hence for himself he must prove that the Apostle makes some to be of the visible Church by virtue of being born after the flesh as their prerogative which is as wide from the Apostles meaning as the East is from the West as far as the East is from the Sun-rising he should have said that is the thing that I have proved and do maintain I laid down by way of Syllogism and have an Apology instead of an answer Mr. T. hath a notable faculty in begging of the question in agitation The Apostles full scope I confess is another thing but I still affirm that he occasionally expresses that from whence this is evidently deduced namely a distinction of births literal not allegorical which Mr. T. never will be able with any reason to deny till it can be proved that then and now look at the Allegory not at the History I can prove from Luke 13. 16. that the Israelitish women are daughters of Abraham though it is plain that another thing there was Christs main intention Answ. Mr. Bl. continues to write at random There 's no shew of contradiction much less a full contradiction in my words to my self This may be true Justitiaries may be in the visible Church and this also To be born after the flesh or to be a Justitiary doth not import a prerogative giving title to be of the visible Church my speech was right and needs not to be mended by any of Mr. Bls. flâ—â—ts He hath a full answer to his Syllogism before and so he had before in the Apology the strength of his arguing being thus expressed here The consequence is plain birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church interest which is denied to be proved from Galat. 4. 26. and was denied before And though being an answerer I need not prove and therefore begging the question is charged on me frivolously by Mr. Bl. For he only begs the question who takes for granted that which he should prove which is Mr. Bls. fault who useth to dâ—ctate when he should prove yet did I prove that the Apostles scope is not onely another thing than the asserting of a prerogative of visible Church-membership by being born after
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-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
Minister laying hands on him To this Dr. Homes says 1. That the learned men before quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity But how little to the purpose their words are or how destitute of proof is shewed above 2. He cites in the Margin Tertul. de bapt Cyprian Ep. 3. 70. August Tract 6. on Johns Epist. But none of the passages he cites prove the use of laying on hands after the baptism of infants which is many years after baptism but of laying hands presently after baptism 3. He excepts against my allegation out of Tertullian that he there disputes for receiving unwritten traditions that he alludes to no Scripture authority or to any approved Antiquity Which doth no whit infringe my allegation For notwithstanding these things his testimony is valid for the practice of what was done at baptism in his time of which no doubt he was often a spectator 4. Saith he Sub manu is a Phrase that hath so many senses as it is no ways certain that here Sub mann under the hand signifies imposition of hands Haply it may rather signifie the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer as Pacianus hath it We obtain sayth he in Prayer pardon and the Holy Spirit in baptism by the mouth and hand of the Antistes Answ. The most likely sense is the Bishop laying on his hand as being nearest the use of the phrase Dr. Homes his sense is not likely 1. Because that which is sayd was done under the hand of the Bishop to wit the protestation of the baptized intimates that the Bishop did not then lift up his hand in prayer but hold his hand on the head of the Protestant Nor is it likely he would then be praying when he should attend to his confession 2. Dr. Homes shews not the phrase to be used elsewhere in his sense For that which he cites out of Pacianus is a different expression by the hand is not all one with under the hand And yet Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 28. refers that obtaining by the hand to the imposition of hands at baptism I added further And to save labour in reciting testimonies Chamier may be seen who in his Panstr Cath. tom 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 14. c. at large proves out of the Ancients that the imposition of hands which was after made a distinct Sacrament called Cofirmation was either a part or Appendix of baptism and cites many passages to shew that it was when the baptized was to confess the faiâ—h and renounce Satan Against thâ—s Dr. Homes excepts that Chamier quotes but few and those not of credit But though the Books some of them be not the Authors works whose names they bear yet many of them are of credit yea all for what they are brought and for the purpose for which they are alleged however Dr. Homes scorn or score with his nails those Fathers if I may use his own words of my doing which is more justly to be charged on himself Dr. Homes grants there imposition of hands presupposeth baptism precedent though in men of ripe years but he should have added at the same solemnity joyned with it The other testimonies are sufficient to shew the practice in the Age in which the Writers of them lived But for Dr. Homes to say that Chamier doth not assert as from himself or from antiquity that imposition of hands was to be conjoyned with baptism when he doth at large undertake to prove it was a part or appendix of baptism is too much boldness in the Doctor much more to say But rather tels us the contrary partly from himself partly from the Authors he quotes as that men were reconciled in penâ—nce by imposition of handâ— Sect. 53. which is nothing to the business For though imposition of hands in reconciliation might be unconjoyned to baptism yet what Chamier says stands good that imposition of hands for Confirmation was a part or appendix of baptism And what the Doctor adds Sect. 54. that though Confirmation belongs to the solemnities of baptism yet after a while after baptism is a plain confession of what I allege as averred by Chamier that that imposition of hands which after was made a distinct Sacrament long after baptism did formerly belong to the solemnity of baptism which shews how little regard the Doctor had to his own allegations But it is not Chamier alone who avers that anciently baptism and laying on of hands were together Salmasius also a man of very accurate study in Antiquity in his Apparatus ad librum de Primatu Papae pag. 84. speaks thus Discat igitur in Aegypto in Graecia in toto Oriente confirmationem quae separata est à baptismo non fuisse notam Unus idemque Presbyter in omnibus Orientis Ecclesiis simul semel in baptismo conferendo etiam Chrismationem cum manuum impositionâ— ac signaculo Dominico dabat egressis è piscinâ— sive baptisterio which he proves there out of Severus Alexandâ— Cyrâ—llus Hierosolymitanus and refers to more testimonies in his Treatise De Chrismate And he says p. 1â—4 Primis temporibus in Occidente Chrismatio manuum impositio sequebantur post baptismum posteaquam à baptismo separata est confirmatio aliquando in sola Chrismatione constitit pag. 182. he proves in Tertisllians Cyprians and others times that Haetres erant baptismi hoc est unius Sacramenti partes lotio unctio impositio manuum Out of all which I conclude that the laying on of hands for the confirmation of children of believers baptized in infancy when they came to years and professed the faith was altogether unknown in the Eastern Churches anciently and in the Western onely in the declining times and therefore notwithstanding Calvin and Pareus his conceits there was no such thing meant Heb. 6. 2. as baptism of infants and their receiving into the Church many years after by laying on of hands there being no such things known in the days of that Writer nor some hundred of years after and therefore Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes Argument from thence for infant-baptism is of no weight I go on SECT XXIV Dr. Hammond his way of proving infant-baptism from the Jews baptizing Proselytes children is shewed to be vain DR Henry Hammond in his Letter of Resolution to six Queries in the fourth Quere Sect. 23. speaks thus But there is no need of laying much weight on this or any the like more imperfect ways of probation meaning the example of Circumcision Gen. 17. of baptizing a whole houshold Acts 16. 33. Christs reception of little children Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10 16. The whole fabrick being sufficiently supported and built on this Basis the customary baptism among the Jews and that discernible to be so if we consider it first negatively then positively First negatively that Christian baptism which is an institution of Christs lightly changed from the Jewish custome of receiving of Proselytes by him appointed in
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-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
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-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-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