I may reply by way of retortion why may not Mr. T. as well deny an institution and destroy it as well as curtail that which is instituted we shall be able to make it good that he curtails Christs institution in the New Testament cuting off many Churchmembers in Covenant he shall never be able to prove that we extend it by analogy or otherwise beyond the institution Answ. That exception of mine did very well agree with ingenuity and it might have stood better with Mr. Bs. ingenuity to have taken the exception as sufficient to invalidate his rule than to have made this taunting reply The answer had no fault but that it was a little more modest than might have stood with truth For 1. I might have said truly not onely that no reason is given but also that no reason can be given why they may not make a new worship who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament For their analogy being a meer humane invention if they have authority to enlarge the ordinance they have authority to make a new worship the Papists if they have authority to appoint Baptizing of bells they have authority to appoint the Sign of the Cross for the same end for which baptism was the same authority which serves for the one serves for the other Yea if the analogy direct in the nature use and extent of an instituted worship what doth it else but make a new worship And that it may be seen how dangerous it is to follow Mr. Blakes rule I would have it considered how we shall avoid justifying the Popish mass if we stick to it He allows analogy in the understanding of the nature or use of an instituted worship the Lords Supper is an instituted worship and it is conceived it succeeds the Passeover as Baptism Circumcision if then by the analogy of Circumcision we may gather the use of Baptism we may in like manner from the analogy of the Passeover gather the use of the Lords Supper It is certain from he Apostles words 1 Cor. 5. 7. For Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us that the Passeover was a sacrifice and such a sacrifice as resembled Christ and therefore propitiatory and then by analogy the use of the Lords Supper is so too which is the chief point whereby the popish mass is established The very self same rule will prove the Ministers of the Gospel who succeed the Priests of the Law and by analogy from whom according to Mr. Blake the Apostle reasoneth 1 Cor. 9. 13 14 will be proved sacrificing Priests if as Mr. Blake saith analogy may direct us in the use of an instituted ordinance 2. I say Mr. Blake doth by his analogy according to his first rule allow the making a new worship For the worship is not the same but a new worship when though the same element be used yet the nature use and extent of is otherwise than the institution as though the Pharisees used water according to the tradition of the Elders Mark 7. which is the element used in Baptism yet their washing their hands was another worship than Christian Baptism because the nature use and extent of it was other than the institution of Baptism So likewise though water be retained in their so called Infant-baptism yet it being neither used in the manner appointed by Christ to wit by dipping but by sprinkling or powring nor on the subject appointed by Christ to be baptized to wit disciples or believers in him but on Infants who are not such nor to the end Christ appointed that is to testifie by that act their owning Christ for their Lord their dying to sin and rising to newness of life but onely to seal the Covenant of Grace I say a new worship is made in their Infant-watering as there was of old a new worship made in Infant-communion and is at this day in the Popish mass and Baptizing of bells As for Mr. Blaks retortion I do grant Mr. T. may as well deny an institution and destroy as well as curtail that which is instituted But that by denying Infants visible Churchmembership in the Christian Church of the New Testament and their being in Covenant and right thereby to Baptism I curtail Christs institution I do then expect he will be able to make good when he proves the snow black and the crow white And whether I prove that by analogy or some other way Baptism is extended beyond the institution in Infant-baptism I leave it to the Reader to judge Mr. Blake goes on thus The second rule he saies overthrows all for if we may not rest solely on the analogy why at all How then is that collection from Ezek. 44. 8. good after other arguments against non-residence neither do I say that it may not go alone but it will hardly go alone but other arguments will be found to second it in which I also gave instances Answ. 1. The collection from Ezek. 44. 8. is good to illustrate not to rest on as a proof yet with the correction of my speech as above 2. I did not charge him that he said it may not go alone nor is it to the purpose which he tells us that he said analogy will hardly go alone But this I say His second rule is that reasoning from analogy holds when we do not rest solely on the analogy with other commands but have our further reason for confirmation which doth plainly intimate that we may not rest solely on it Now I argue if it be a good proof we may rest solely on it For one good proof is enough for a man to rest upon though more arguments make it clearer If then we may not rest solely on analogy with other commands as Mr. Blakes words intimate then it is not a sufficient proof To which in Mr. Blakes words there is no reply nor hath he avoided my objection that his second rule overthrows what he contends for the validity of his analogical arguments impugned by me Mr. Blake of me He adds this is enough to shew that analogy hath no strength that indeed it doth not onely illustrate connot prove what is an argument by analogy but an argument à simili I had thought there had been much difference between these two kinds of arguments à pari à simili pari à similibus omninò differunt saith Scheibler in his Topicks I may send him to his Dictionary to see whether one be not Englished equal or even and the other like or semblable I may send him to the Predicaments whether one be not in Quantity the other in Quality and demand of him whether there be magis minus par aequale as there is magis minus simile And to con ult with the Topicks whether that be not one head from which they draw arguments which in their judgement are valid Hath Mr. T. never read de paribus idem est judicium quod valet in re
for Christians in the use of baptism 4. The institution and practise would have been conformable to it But the contrary appears 1. In their baptizing no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversion whereas the Iews baptized onely the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting not the infants of those who were baptized in infancy Selden l. 2. de Iure nat c. cap. 4. sed vero non aliter atque Israelitae ipsi filii proselytorum circumcidendi tantum erant nec quemadmodum parentes sive illi sive filiae baptizandae Nunquam enim solennis proselyti baptismus ille iterandus erat nec in ipso qui primo baptizatus tamet si apostata factus in ritus Iudaicos rediret nec in posteris So that if it be true that the Jewish baptism of Proselytes is the pattern of the Christian then no infant of Christian race is now to be baptized but such as were born when the first Gentile Ancestors were converted Yea the Jews were so far from baptizing any infants of proselytes born after theâ—r first convesion and baptism that they resolved as may be seen in Selden ubi supra and Dr. Hammond himself allegeth sect 109. if a woman great with childe become a proselyte and be baptized her childe needs not baptism when t is born So that whereas the Doctor brings the Iewish custom as a pattern for Christian baptism so as that it may be reasonably thought to belong to all that among the Jews were usually baptized his own arguing will prove that no infant of Christians now descerded from Christian Ancestors or born of parents formerly infidels after the parents were baptized should be baptized because it is against the Jewish custom of baptizing any childe of a Gâ—ntile infidel born after the parents were become proselytes and baptized But secondly besides this first and main thing wherein the Doctors patern is incorgruous to Christian baptism there are many more disparities which shew that the Iewish baptism of prâ—selytes was not the patern of Christan baptism As v. g. 1. The baptism of males must be also with Circumcision and an offering 2. There must be a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voyd Dr. Hammond sect 114. Among the Iews saith the Gemara Babylâ— the infants used to be baptized upon the profession or confession of the house of judgment the consistory and the Gloss saith the Triumviri are set over baptism and are necessary to it and so they become to him a father and Maimonides he must be baptized before the Triumviri 3. It was not to be on the Sabbath or feast day or in the night 4. The body must be washed not in a made receptacle of waters as a vessel or font but a natural one as a river pool well 5. No part of the body but must be washed if any scab or blood hardned or filth fâ—â—ck on the body so as that water could not come to the whole supersicies it was not accounted right baptism yet they allowed garments which separated not the water from the body 6. While the proselytes stood in the water the precepts of Moses were recited by the three Israelites skilfull in the Law and he was to take on him the observation of them all not one excepted or else not accounted a Proselyte 7. A woman proselyte was placed in the water unto the neck by women which baptized her while the three Israelites stood after the manner observing the baptism yet they were to turn away their faces and go away when the woman came out of the water 8. Elder Gentiles were made proselytes according to their own choice younger as males before thirteen years and a day old females before twelve and a day old according to the minde of their father or the court to which they were subject were admitted to Judaism The same right was of a natural foole Yet if a person under years when baptized did after as soon as he came to age renounce Judaism then he lost what privilege he had by baptism either by assent of the parent or the court 9. The baptism did give them interest in the policy of the Iews as other Israelites except some things peculiarly reserved to natural Israelites 10. Yet a servant without his Masters consent was not made free 11. A blessing was to be used at baptism but unless he were made free not by the servant but by the master 12. A young one as an infant whether taken or found the Israelite that possessed it might baptize it either into the state of an ingenuous person or freed person or a servant 13. They taught that a person baptized was so born again that lying with his own natural sister was no incest 14 If the person be privily baptized though before two yet he was not counted a Proselyte All which may be seen in Selden l. 2. de jure nat Gent. juxta discipl Ebr. cap. 2 3. 4. lib. 1. de Syned Ebr. cap. 3. So that if the baptism of Proselytes among the Iews be the patern of Christian baptism baptizing of women must be by women no one single Bishop or Presbyter must baptize but three at least there must be no private baptism no baptizing in Fonts or Basons no baptism without the whole body be washed and so as that no filth or scab hinder the water from coming to the skin there should be no infants baptized but at the first conversion of the parent no Iew should be baptized none baptized in the night on the Sabbath or other Feast-day In most of which Christ Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles varied from the Iews and therefore they took not their baptism for their patern and if they did not make the Jews baptism their patern in baptizing neither are we to do so but to follow the rule of Christs institution and the Apostles practice and not the Iews use which is not delivered in Scripture and much of it according to the superstition and dotages of their Rabbins and was not a meet religious Sacrament but a kinde of mixt rite partly religious and partly civil intitling to Civil as well as Ecclesiastical right and done by persons Civil rather than Ecclesiastical and so of a far different nature and use from the Christian baptism I think Dr. Hammond were he a Bishop would censure such baptizing as the Iews used as irregular and then he may well bear with Antipaedobaptists though they reject his new conceit of making the Iewish baptism our patern and thereupon grounding the baptizing of infants Himself in his Practical Catechism lib. 6. Sect. 2. allows of sprinkling though the Iewish custome was dipping yea they so precisely require it that it was not counted baptism except the whole body were washed and yet the Doctor confesseth that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under water
and the words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he sayth Being by Christ prescribed to his Disciples must indispensably be used So that when the Doctor pleaseth the Jewish custom must be the patern and when he likes it not or the Bishops Canons otherwise order it he may vary from it in one thing which Christ did not prescribe as the Doctor sayth nor did the Apostles that we finde so conceive it yet Christs prescription must be indispensably used yet in another thing though appointed by Christ and according to the primitive ancient custom a dispensation is allowed by the Doctor because later custom varies from Christs appointment and the primitive ancient custom Such a Lesbian leaden Rule the Doctor dictates by fit for such as have resolved rather to forgo Christs appointment than the Bishops Canons It is conceived Christ instituted the Lords Supper somewhat like the Jews Postcoenium after the Passover Shall then the Iews after-Supper be the patern to the Christians in the Lords Supper If so the Lords Supper must be in private in the night administred by the master of the house no more to receive than were usually at the Passover not many hundreds c. The Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 11. 23. in the use of the Lords Supper sets down what he received from the Lord without mentioning the Iewish usage which shews he would have Christians in that rite keep to what Christ appointed not what the Iews practiced And should it not be so in baptism also It is conceived the use of laying on of hands in Ordination and the term Presbyters were from the Iews Must we then or may we take Rules from their practice in Ordination and not ty our selves to the Apostles Canons and practice One Presbyter or Doctor it 's sayd according to the ancient manner of the Iews might create another and sometime by an Epistle or Books an absent person might be created as may be seen in Selden de Syned Ebrae vet l. 1. c. 14. Must these usages of theirs be a patern to Christians The use of Excommunication came from the Iews discipline into the Christian yet so as that the same manner effect was not retained in both sayth the same Authorin the same book c. 7. Out of all which I infer that in the use of those rites which were taken from the Iews and brought into the Christian discipline yet our Rule according to which Christians are to observe those rites is to be taken from the words and example of Christ and his Apostles which I doubt not to make it appear do no whit serve for Dr. Hammonds purpose Mr. Marshall in his Defence p. 170 171. thinks this to be a good Argument that baptism belongs to infants as well as grown men because baptism being in use before as an Ecclesiastical rite though it begun to be a Sacrament of divine institution when Iohn was sent to baptize into the name of Christ there arespecial testimonies in the Talmud which declare that infants both of Iews and Gentiles were thus admitted the male children by Circumcision and baptism the females by baptism c. especially since there is not the least hint given in the word that when it was thus advanced to be a Sacrament it should not be applied to those persons to whom before it was viz. infants as well as grown men But I think Mr. M. cannot finde in the Talmud the Iews or their infants were thus baptized since the time of giving the Law Exod. 19. 10. I confess the Gentiles infants were baptized as is abovesayd yet as Mr. Ms. learned men mentioned in his Defence pag. 227. confess that the baptism of Iohn and of the Pharisees was for a different end so Dr. Lightfoot Harmony part 1. pag. 138. saith the Iews baptism was clean of another nature from Iohns And in the second part of his Harmony on Iohn 1. 25. pag. 76. he shews sundry differences between them and cites out of the Iewish Doctors some of those differences before alleged which are enough to shew that our baptism is not to be regulated by their practice Sure it is a wonder to me that Mr. M. engaged to reform the worship of God according to Gods Word and in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. Admiring that ever mortal man should dare in Gods worship to meddle any jot further than the Lord himself hath commanded should yet in the point of infant-baptism follow the Talmud quite besides the Lords command But I return to Dr. Hammond SECT XXV Dr. Hammonds elusion of Matth. 28. 19. alleged against infant-baptism is refelled SEct 25. Ubi suprà he sayth thus And in the New Testament I cannot foresee any words that may come under suspition of doing so but those of Matth. 28 19. Goteach all Nations baptizing them c. And those words being duly weighed are far from doing so For the phrase which is there used in the original is a singular one not duly exprest by our English teach It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples or receive into Discipleship all Nations baptizing them in the Name c. making this form of baptism their ceremony of receiving them You may see the word explained in a parallel phrase John 4 1. The Pharisees heard that Jesus makes more Disciples and baptizeth than John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where to make Disciples and baptize is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the baptizing being immediately annexed to the making or receiving Disciples and the receiving Disciples not supposing any precedent instruction but looking wholly on it as subsequent in like manner as in this place v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teaching follows after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizing all that are thus brought and received ad discipulatum to be for the future instructed and instituted in the Christian faith may surely be received by baptism the ceremony which is there prescribed by Christ with which to receive Disciples Answ. Though I conceive Dr Hammond to ascribe more power to the Canons of Prelates about the Sacraments than is meet being one who hath written in defence of the Common-prayer Book yet by this allegation of Matth. 28. 19. he seems tacitely to yield that if the words there include not infants under the discipled then there is something in the New Testament which excludes infants from baptism although he say Sect. 96. I do not believe or pretend that that Precept of Christ doth necessarily infer though it do as little deny that infants are to be baptized But me thinks if the Doctor will stand to his own words elsewhere he must acknowledg that by the precept of baptizing Matth. 28. 19. infants are excluded For the Doctor sayth Sect. 55. Christs institution makes dipping or sprinkling with water a Sacrament which institution is Matth. 28. 19. and therefore the Doctor will have the words there indispâ—nsably used in baptism and
I shew in my Examen part 1. sect 8. But I need say no more to refute this exposition being the most unlikely of all that I have hitherto met with He tels us Sect. 34. What is thought fit to be brought for the eluding and avoiding this interpretation will be most fitly considered anon in answer to the Anabaptists plea. Answ. The falsly so called Anabaptists have not allowed Dr. Jeremiah Taylour to make their plea nor do they all if any of them frame their plea as he lays it yet it is shewed above that the Reply Dr. Hammond makes to overthrow their pretended answer overthrows his own exposition But he goes on Mean while for the confirming of it it may be remembered what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy is known to signify in the sacred dialect not onely an inherent but a relative holiness being separate or set apart to God discriminated from common ordinary things or persons and as that belongs to higher degrees of separation the office of a Prophet or the like so the lowest degree of it is that of being received to be members of the Church into which all are initiated by baptism And accordingly all visible professors and not onely those that are sincerely such are in Ezra 9. 2. the holy seed and in the Epistles of the Apostles called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy Answ. This being all granted confirms not Dr. Hammonds exposition now they are holy that is admitted to Christian baptism The Doctor knows its no good argument à genere ad speciem affirmative the children are holy that is set a part for God discriminated from common ordinary things or persons Ergo they are set apart by the special way of baptism And it being granted that all visible professors and not onely those that are sincerely such are in Ezra 9. 2. the holy seed and in the Epistles of Paul called holy though that term Ezra 9. 2. hath a far different notion as I shew in this Review Antipaed part 1. sect 13 25. from what the Doctor imagines yet till the Doctor prove infants to be visible professors he hath not confirmed that the taking of holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. for infants admitted to baptism is agreeable to the Apostles language He adds Sect. 35. And secondly how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean is used by St. Peter Acts 10. 14. for those that must not as he conceived be received into the Church as God 's having cleansed is Gods reputing them fit to be partakers of that privilege Whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptism may be expressed by those phrases Answ. I deny not the fitness of the expressing receiving and not receiving to baptism by the terms of holy and unclean if the Holy Ghost had so thought good But suâ—e the Doctor is mistaken in the notion of unclean Acts 10. 14. For it is plain from Acts 11. 3. that an unclean person is in that place one that was not onely out of the Church but also one that a Jew conceived he might neither go into nor eat with him yea though he were a Proselyte of the Gate and owned the God of Israel Now then if the same notion of unclean and holy be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as is Acts 10. 14. an unclean person is one that a man may not go into nor eat with which applied to infants is ridiculous else if the unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been sanctified that is brought to the faith by the conversation and diligence of the believer your children had been unclean that is such as they might not go in to nor eat with them but now their inâ—ants are holy such as they might go in to and eat with them Thirdly sayth he how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is ordinarily to sanctifie doth among the Jews whence this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken as when the high Priests washing his hands and his feet ten times on the day of Expiation is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ten sanctifications Joma cap. 3. sect 3. which being the word which denotes the washing some part of the body and distinguished in use from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the immersion of the whole body may perhaps be an intimation that the primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body but that sprinkling of some part the literal importance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications might be sufficient Answ. If this reason were good it would rather confirm this exposition The unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified by the Wife that is the unbelieving Husband hath been baptized by the Wife or washed than this the children are baptized for they are noâ— sayd to be sanctified but to be holy And then the Apostle relates it as a thing oft used among Christians that believing Wives did baptize or wash unbelieving Husbands which so expounded is a plain testimony for womens baptism of their own unbelieving Husbands so hath better ground from this Text than infant baptism What the Doctor draws in besides the business to put some colour on their sprinkling instead of baptism is but a fig-leaf too narrow to cover the nakedness of their practice The Doctor himself pag. 180. makes the baptism which was a Jewish solemnity the washing of the whole body And Sect. 71. pag. 185 186. he sayth Jethro was made a Proselyte by immersion or baptism in waters and the manner of this immersion is sayd to be that they should be set up to the neck in water And pag. 184. Unless he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptized he is a Gentile And out of Arrian the Jewish Proselyte is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dipped and he that is onely so in shew not in deed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a counterfeit baptized person In his Pract. Catech. lib. 6. sect 2. By Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should be received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under water three times His words following intimating as if sprinkling were appointed by Christ instead of it are his own figment Pag. 35. he makes the ancient manner of putting the person under water and then taking him out again to denote dying and rising again with more of the like confessions and even in this place sayth the washing some part of the body is distinguished in use from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to the Greek word Baptism which is immersion of the whole body And yet the Doctor is not ashamed to say that primitive baptisms were not always immersions of the whole body which me thinks he should hardly believe himself in and because the besprinkling of some part which I think is not true if sprinkling by water and not bloud or ashes be meant for the Priests in their sanctifications dipped their hands and feet in water is called 〈◊〉
of petulancy to insinuate that of me in which my Apology Sect. 4. might have undeceived him though it were not then so easie to discern that error as now after so much debating of it did not pride prejudice fear or some other partial affection hinder And for Mr. Bs. conceit of his grounds though I neither finde them easie nor plain yet it is no marvel others discern not how infant-baptism can be inferred from them which can at most prove a reasonableness of the thing as Mr. Bedford Dr. Field Dr. Hammond and others speak but not an institution of God which must be gathered from precept or example in the N. T. and can onely warrant our practice as the minde of God in meer positives about worship in the New Testament In the explication of his second Proposition pag. 10. he again objects my speech that Mr. Ms. Principle on which he establisheth his Proof from Circumcision for infant-baptism is one of the first condemned Heresies by which I meant that Proposition which he hath in his Sermon pag. 35. that all Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant and were not accidental to them in which thus much is maintained that some part of the command of Circumcision and the other Sacraments of the Jews binde us as much as they did the Jews which is expresly condemned Acts 15. 24. as subverting the souls of the Gentiles and is called the heresie of the false Apostles by the Century-writers Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 5. and others condemn it under the title of Judaism But then saith Mr. B. Mr. M. is an Heretick with me and all the Divines in the world that go his way To which I answer This inference hath too much shew of Sycophancy being urged so often and to the People of Bewdly my quondam Auditors For 1. though I say that Doctrine is such an Heresie yet I do not say Mr. M. still holds it as his words did import yea I did acknowledg in my Apology pag. 99. and in this writing Sect. 2. that Mr. M. doth deny that we are tied to any practise of the ritual part which is indeed to retract his former speech in his Sermon 2. But were it tru that he did still hold it yet it would not follow that he were an Heretick with me For 1. I should not take him to be an Heretick that holds that Doctrine which is Heresie if it were not so directly but onely by consequence not heeded as this of his is 2. Nor do I take him to be an Heretick that doth hold that which is Heresie directly except he hold it in or with a party made to maintain it And therefore I do once more protest against Mr. Bs. calumniatory inference and deny that I account Mr. M. an Heretick and yet I account still his Principle mentioned if it were held as the words in the Sermon did import to contain one of the first condemned Heresies to wit Judaism To this calumny Mr. B. adds another Because I used the words of the Apostle Acts 20. 26 27. in a Sermon he from the report of his Notary and a multitude of my Auditors likely his tale tellers without sending to me about the truth of it prints what he received from them and thence infers that the baptizing of persons of years notwithstanding their infant-baptism is taken by me for a fundamental point which the salvation or damnation of men doth necessarily depend on Or what I meant to say their bloud be on their own heads he knows not And yet he conceives me to contradict my self when I blame the Papists for making baptism of necessity to salvation To which I reply that herein Mr. B. shews his inconsiderateness or his minde to calumniate or both For 1. he might have interpreted my words as I think when I spake them they were meant in reference to other duties which I had taught them with that of Baptism 2. If it were meant particularly of Baptism yet the threatning I conceive was not to the bare omission but to the omission joyned with opposition 3. I am sure if I did threaten their bloud should be on their head for omission of Baptism it was not simply or barely for the omission but for the omission after teaching and upon supposition of conviction by it of their duty And this I think Mr. B. doth not stick to do to his hearers in case after teaching and supposed conviction by it they practise not a duty though non-fundamental as suppose reproving of their neighbours For then they live presumptuously in sin and such sinning consists not with sincerity and truth of Regeneration And yet this doth not suppose the point in it self fundamental that is such as the meer ignorance of it or the bare omission of it doth damn a person or exclude out of the kingdom of God in which sense I blame the Papists for maintaining a necessity of an infants being baptized to its entering into the kingdom of Heaven But Mr. B. doth not think God lays so great a stress on this point as I and others do Answ. That which I hold is this 1. that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Christ that bindes Christians now as well as in the Apostles days Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Act. 2. 38. 10. 47 48. Ephes. 4. 5. And I detest the audacious impiety of Socinians and those in our days who count themselves above Ordinances that is as Mr. B. well interprets it Plain Scripture Proof c. pag. 24. above obedience to God and so Gods as being one of the most palpable delusions of unsound men in our days who place their perfection in a manifest disobedience to Christs appointment and some of them in an Antichristian presumption as if they sate in the Temple of God and shewed themselves as God do most arrogantly of their own heads without any allowance of God make void the express prime Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ calling it a low dispensation c. I hope I shall have liberty hereafter to shew the frivolous allegations and pretences of these men In the mean time they may see what Mr. Laurence Mr. Bartlet M. B. pag. 341. of this his Book have written for these Ordinances 2. I hold that every Minister of the Gospel is bound as to preach the Gospel so to baptize those that are made Disciples Matth. 28. 19. 3. That every believing Christian is by necessity of precept tied to be baptized that is dipped in water in testimony of his profession of Christ his Lord upon his being made a Disciple of Christ Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. Acts 2. 38. 22. 16. 4. That this is ordinarily where and when it may be had without unmercifulness defect of water or some other like reason a necessary means of salvation Mark 16. 16. 1 Pet. 3.
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications to intimate as if any kinde of sanctification of a part of the body though but by sprinkling with water were baptism It is a like abuse when Christ bids baptize to sprinkle onely or pour water on the face as it would be when he bids to eat onely to chew in the mouth or when he bids to drink to wet the lips onely But that to sprinkle is not to baptize is elsewhere asserted Addition to the Apology Sect. 22. The Doctor goes on in his dictating way thus Fourthly it is known of the legal uncleannesses contrary to those their sanctifications that they were the cause of removing men from the congregation they that were so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean might not partake of the privileges of the Temple till they were washed and sanctifyed and that is proportionable also to the notion here given of it that the Christian children are holy i. e. not inherently they are not capable but in the account of God and men capable of separation for the service of God of being entered into the Church into Covenant which denominates men holy as the Gentiles as long as they were out of it were unclean and unholy Acts 10. now are they holy i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time to admit to baptism such infant-children of Parents of whom one is Christian though not of others Answ. It is sayd without proof that the uncleanness excluding from the Tabernacle and sanctification restoring are proportionable to the notion here given of childrens being excluded or included in the Church Why should Cornelius be counted out of the Church by God or men when God sayth He was a devout man and one that feared God with all his house who gave much alms to the people aend prayed to God always Acts 10. 2. It 's true he was excluded from the familiar society of the Jews according to their superstition and so unclean but not accounted by God to be out of the Church but in it That Christians children are denied to be capable of holiness inherently will not be granted him much less his paraphrase on the words now are they holy i. e. it is the present practice of the Church that Apostolical Church of S. Pauls time to admit to baptism such infant children of parents c. It will not stand with his own exposition as hath been shewed and it makes the Apostle relate a matter of plain fact in obscure terms Augustin did disclaim this interpretation Hierom and Ambrose gave another and so did Tertullian de animâ cap. 39. what he adds is frivolous And to put all out of question the aneient Fathers which certainly knew the sacred Dialect call baptism sanctification So Cyprian Epist. 59. Eum qui natus est bapt zandum sanctificandum He that is born must be baptized and sanctified where baptizing is sanctifying of infants So Greg. Nazian Orat. 40. Edit Bill pag. 658. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T is better to be sanctified without sense of it I. e. baptized in infancy when they are not sensible of it than to depart or die without the seal of baptism And again pag. 648. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be sanctified from the infancy I. e. baptized then And many the like For 1. That the Ancients of the third or fourth Century knew certainly the sacred Dialect especially the Latin Doctors me thinks the Doctor should know them better than to assert it He sure is not ignorant that in multitudes of things later writers do finde their many mistakes about the sacred Dialect and how few of them had any skil in Hebrew or Greek the Doctor is not ignorant I presume 2. In this very thing if those Fathers certainly knew the sacred Dialect and from their use Paul must be interpreted then the word sanctified not the word holy for the Doctor doth not shew they used the word holy for baptized but the word sanctified must be 1 Cor. 7. 14. as much as baptized and then the sense is The unbelieving husband is baptized by the wife and the unbelieving wife is baptized by the husband of the absurdity of which interpretation I need say no more The Doctor proceeds sect 37. thus This passage than being thus interpreted is a clear proof of the point in hand And were not this the importance of it there were no privilege imaginable no sanctity which could be attributed to the infants of Christians which would not belong to the infants of heathens also which yet is here distinctly affirmed of the one and denied of the other by the Apostle Answ. How absurd the Doctors interpretation is hath been shewed before yet were it granted him it would not be a clear proof for infant-baptism unless your children were all one with your infants which will not be cleared till it be shewed that the Corinthian Christians had then no children but infants or that he meant no other under that term then the infants Which sure is not according to the Jewish pattern in which they baptized Proselytes children if females under twelve if males under thirteen not according to their will but of the Father or court to which they were subject I add if the Apostle should by holy understand a privilege where upon they were baptized he should conceive otherwise than the Jews did who conceived all unclean whom they baptized till by baptism they cleansed them and made them holy And for what he sayth that no privilege imaginable c. I answer 1. By denying that the Apostle there attributes a privilege or sanctity belonging to the infants of Christians which would not belong to the infants of heathens I have I conceive in the first part of this Review demonstrated the contrary against Mr. M Mr. B. c. 2. If there were a privilege attributed yet it might not be baptism For. 1 That belonged according to the Fathers opinion and practise to unbelievers children also if they were brought as I shew examen part 1. sect 7. 8 2. There are other imagined privileges or sanctities belonging to them as by some real actual inward holiness by others federal external holiness by others holiness in hope and expectation He goes on And as this evidently concludes such a custom known and acknowledged among Christians at that time so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptizing Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed And so though that Judaical practise taken alone were not deemed any demonstrative evidence that Christ thus instituted his baptism for the Gentiles yet being taken in conjunction with this Testimony of the Apostolical practise and the primitive usage it brings all the weight with it which a Divine Testimony imexpreted by practise can afford which is as great as any such matter can be capable of Answ. 1. It
21. Tit. 3. 4 5. Eph. 4. 4 5. 5. That infant-baptism is not the performance of the duty of being baptized according to Christs appointment 6. That in a regular and orderly way persons notwithstanding their pretended infant-baptism are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized upon profession of their faith in Christ Acts 2. 41 42 1 Cor. 10. 2 3 4. 12. 13. These things I may hereafter have opportunity to debate more fully As for that which Mr. B. saith pag. 10 11. It doth no whit overthrow this necessity which I assert but rather confirm it For Gods freeing us from the great burden of Jewishrites makes it the rather necessary for us to obey Christs appointment in those few Sacraments he hath ordained which Mr. B. truly saith As they are duties they are great and so in themselves considered and not onely in respect of the consequences of them And he saith truly pag. 11. All Christs commands must be obeyed both great and small so far as we know them Yea Mr. B. Scripture proof pag. 342. saith Baptism with Water is Heb. 6. 2. reckoned among the foundations or principles which are of standing use and therefore it is so it self Nor is his interpretation right that the things ascribed to Baptism are ascribed to it without the external washing In all these places Rom. 6. 3 4. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 5. 26 27. 1 Peter 3. 21. the outward use of Water is expressed though the things ascribed to it do presuppose something more as he himself allegeth them pag. 342. which is the meaning of that speech 1 Pet 3. 21. Not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh that is not it onely but the answer of a good conscience towards God joyned with it And whereas Mr. B. tell us that we shall never be able to justifie it if we lay out the hundredth part or perhaps the thousand part of our time study talk or zeal upon this question I confess this may be true at some times in some persons but if other tenets be clear and other duties not neglected and this becomes a doubt of conscience and fals into frequent practice so as that it concerns them much for themselves people and little ones to be resolved in it else they shall sin either by omitting a duty or by doing a thing with gain-saying or doubting conscience it is justifiable though they bestow more than a hundredth part of their time and study upon it And especially if the person be a Minister called to be a Guide to the People and by special providence and solemn covenant led forth to vindicate the truth in such a time when otherwise it is likely to be suppressed and the Assertors of it oppressed In these and such like cases it may be unjustifiable if a person do not spend more than the hundredth part of his time about this question else neither the Hussites will be justified in spending so much time in opposing the half-Communion nor the Protestants in opposing Transubstantiation nor the Non-Conformists in opposing the Ceremonies of Bishops Mr. Tho. Goodwin preface to Mr. Cottons Dialogue for infant baptism saith truly The due application of baptism to all those persons Christ would have it administred unto cannot but be apprehended by all that have any insight into the Controversies of these times to be of very high importance Not that I like their Carriage that neglect other necessary things and spend all their time study talk and zeal about this such hypocrisy I should declaim against with him remembring what our Saviour said in a like case Matth. 23. 23. These things ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone As for M. Bs. third Proposition concerning the grounds on which the point of infant baptism stands that they are of great moment because what he saith rests on the heap of consequences he infers from the denial of infant baptism of which there is scarse any one true and the shewing them to be but vain surmises depends on the dispute it self I shall therefore respite the vindicating the truth from them till I come to examine in this Review the arguments from Scripture urged on both sides after which shall come in those from humane testimony and reason unto which I now apply my self SECT V. The first argument from the institution Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. and the practice in the New Testament against Infant baptism is urged MR. B. saith pag. 8. he will prove 1. That it is the will of God that some infants should be baptized 2. that it is the will of God that all infants of believers ordinarily should be baptized This latter doth better state the question which is about the practice of those reformed Churches that baptize infants whose doctrine is that it is the privilege of a believers child Yet Mr. B. and M. Baillee for some advantage chuse to undertake the proof of the former whereas the true state of it is as in my Examen s. 2. and Mr. Ms. Sermon Whether the infants of believers are to be baptized with Christs baptism of Water by the lawful Minister according to ordinary rule I hold the Negative Mr. Marshall Dr. Homes Mr. Geree Mr. Blake Mr. Baillee Mr. Cobbet Mr. Baxter c. hold the Affirmative My dispute is to this purpose The ordinary rule for baptizing is Christs institution John the Baptists and the Apostles appointment and practice But neither according Christs institution nor according to John Baptists or the Apostles command or practice or any other approved example in Scripture is the baptizing of infants of believers Therefore the baptizing of infants of believers by a lawfull Minister is not according to ordinary rule The Major is confessed by all sorts specially Protestants and Anti-Prelatists Mr. Bs. words are cited by me in my Praecursor s. 16. and the force of his reason is shewed here before s. 4. to contain this Proposition What in baptism we have no warrant for by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of baptism Mat. 28. we are not to do and much more to like purpose may be gathered from other passages of his page 302 303. and Mr. M. in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. is very punctuall for Gods command to be observed in his worship The 28 Article of the Church of England against reservation of the Bread c. hath these words The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or worshipped whereby it is apparent that reservation of the bread is condemned because it is not by Christs Ordinance though Mr. Perkins in his right way of dying well confess it to be antient Bellarmine himself tom 3. cont de sacr bapt l. 1. c. 8. Sacramentum non pendet nisi à Divina institutione Chamier tom 4. panstr cath lib. 5. cap. 14. sect 55.
of newness of life and hope of resurrection Becman Exer. Theol. 17. pag. 257. Baptizari in mortem Christi dicimur quatenus stipulamur nos credere in Christum pro nobis mortuum ipsius exemplo veluti enâ—care peccatum ne nobis dominetur But this could not infants do therfore no insants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 1. Cor. 12. 13. For even by or in one Spirit have we been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and have been all made drink into one Spirit or as some copies have it have been all made to drink or drench into one drink into one Spirit That here baptism with water and the drinking the cup in the Lords Supper are meant is manifest the Apostle arguing from the end of those two rites for the union and communication between all Christians as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. he had done in the Lords Supper and Eph. 4. 4 5. he doth from baptism And without that allusion the phrase is not intelligible And the exception of the Antibaptists is vain that it is Spirit-baptism not water-baptism For it is indeed both Spirit-baptism from the Spirit as the cause and water-baptism together as the outward element Now hence three Arguments arise against infant baptism 1. All that were baptized into the body were baptized by one Spirit as the Concurrent cause as Mr. B. saith rightly in his plain Scripture proof c. page 342. that is together with the word as Ephes. 5. 26 is declared by preaching of which the Spirit was given Gal. 3 2. and this was presumed of all as 1 Thes. 1. 2. 4. and elsewhere And Mr. B. truly saith in the same place That it was all that were thus baptized into the body But I subsume infants were not thus baptized Ergo no infants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 2. All that were thus baptized were also made to drink or did drink themselves or were drencht by their own act in the receiving the cup in the Lords Supper unto one Spirit in communion and testification of one Spirit as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. But infants did not thus drink Ergo infants were not then baptized 3. All that were counted members of the body of Christ or the Church were thus baptized and made to drink But infants were not thus baptized and made to drink for if so they received the Lords Supper therefore were not then visible Church members and consequently ought not to be so counted now Gal. 3. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Where the Apostle proving that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ because they had put on Christ must needs intimate that it was by faith in Christ Jesus that they had put on Christ and then the Apostles speech is this As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have by faith in Christ Jesus put on Christ and consequently so many as were baptized were believers and therefore no infants were baptized for want of faith Ephes. 4. 4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one faith one baptism Whence I argue 1. They that have one baptism have also one faith But infants had not one faith Ergo they had not one baptism and consequently are not to have it now 2. One faith is placed before one baptism therefore faith went before baptism in the Apostles daies and consequently infants were not baptized 3. They that were counted of one body had one faith But infants had not one faith therefore they were not counted of one body that is Church-members Mr. Bs. words p. 342. confirm this Ephes. 4. 5. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so hath it one common baptism Eph. 5. 26. That he might sanctify it cleansing it with the washing of water by the word whence Mr. B Plain Script proof p. 342. inferres the whole Church of Christ must in duty be washed with water Now I argue 1. They who were washed with water were cleansed with the washing of water by the word which word is the word preached as where mention is made of baptism there mention is made of preaching of the word going before it and the word doth no where signifie the covenant or promise of God taken precisely or abstractively from the narration of Christs comming and invitation to repentance but altogether as it was preached as may be seen in Peters speech Acts 10. 36 37 38 c. But infants were not cleansed by the word therefore they were not cleansed by the washing of water 2. The whole Church was cleansed with the washing of water by the word But so were not infants therefore they were not parts of the Church and consequently are not now Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism wherein ye have also been raised together through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead Whence I argue They who were buried with Christ in baptism were also therein raised together through faith and consequently were believers But infants were not in baptism raised together through faith therefore they were not buried with Christ in baptism that is they were not baptized and by consequence ought not to be Tit. 3. 5. is usually expounded of baptism as by Mr. B. pag. 342 so by many others But if the washing there be meant of baptism it is such as was with regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost therfore not of infants whose regeneration and receiving was unknown Heb. 6. 1 2. Where the foundation is mentioned this order is observed first repentance then faith then baptism then laying on of hands then resurrection of the dead and lastly eternal judgement now if the Apostle kept a right order here used in teaching and according to the event of things as he seems to have done then repentance and faith went before baptism and so no infants baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. The baptism that saves is accompanyed with the answer of a good conscience towards God This saith Beza in his annot on that text alludes to the Custome of stipulating or promising at baptism by the baptised which if right as is probable then it is manifest that the baptized did answer at baptism which infants could not and therefore were not baptized SECT VI. Mr. Blakes exception against the Major that such institution or example as I require for infant-baptism is unnecessary is refelled AGainst these arguments chiefly the two first brought to prove that infants are not to be baptized according to the institution Matth. 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles besides what is alleged and refuted already many things are alleged Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 411. construes the objection
circumcision Gen. 17. is so wild a conceit that I cannot impuâ—e it to any thing but meer dotage in the assertor there being no one word in the Commission or the executing of it throughout the Acts of the Apostles that doth shew that Christ had reference to it or the Apostles so understood him Yea if that of Circumcision Gent. 17. be an institution of baptism by like reason that of the Passeover Exod. 12. must be an institution of the Lords Supper and then the Lords Supper should be instituted afore the night in which Christ was betrayed and the Lords Supper should be from Moses and regulated by the Ordinances of the ceremoniâ—l Law c. If Mr. M. mean by the foregoing institutution the manner of the Jewish Doctors in baptizing proselytes children with the parents it shall be shewed hereafter especially in answer to Dr. Hammond that there is nothing therein for infant-baptism now it being done to no Jewes or their infants many ages before Christs incarnation and therefore not out of respect to the Covenant Gen. 17. nor as a privilege from thence but meerly as a rite to purge them from the uncleanness of Gentilism nor ever done to the infant posterity of the proselytes of righteousness after the first time of being made proselytes nor ever used to proselytes of the gate And yet had the use been such as that infants of Proselytes after their first enâ—rance on the Jewish profession had been baptized yet there is no commission in Scripture for it though Rabbins would fetch it some from Gen. 35. 2. some from Exod. 19. 10. some from the flood nor is there any thing in the institution of Christ or Acts and sayings of the Apostles that shews that Christian baptism was conformed to the Jewish baptism in this and therefore I conclude that there is no other institution besides Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15 16. together with the Apostles John Baptists and others forenamed sayings and practice that is a rule to us about baptizing and if infant-baptism be not here appointed it is besides the institution and so irregular But Mr. M. allegeth further that it is not said that only disciples are to be baptized To which I replyed Examen page 132. it is not said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him only eat that can examine himself nor here only preachers in office are to baptize nor only two to be one flesh nor let only wine be drunk in the Euchurist or water used in baptism yet Divines make these speeches exclusive M. Ball of the Covenant par 2. c. 2. p. 252. when difference or distinction is contained in some term the proposition is for sense exclusive no less than if it were expressly noted Against this Mr. M. excepts Defence pag. 215. That the practice and example of Christ and John is sufficient to make a positive rule affirmative but not exclusive and the reason is plain they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasions as though no proselyte of the gate were baptized till Acts 10. nor any till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warrant to baptize any yet Peter upon the very pouring out of those gifts without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance baptized Cornelius and all his Company Ref. 1. M. Ms. confessions are to be noted that none till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance were baptized till Acts 10. nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warant to baptize any which do grant that till then there was neither rule nor practice of baptising any without actual confession of their faith and repentance which is in effect a grant of the Minor in my argument denying any institution or practice in the New Testament of infant-baptism for there is no other rule or practice of infant-baptism after Acts 10. otherwise than that before 2. It is to be observed that Mr. M. deals not rightly with me in that he makes me to have framed the exclusive rule from practice whereas I joined institution with practice and shewed neither to be for infant-baptism 3. If the non-including of persons or things in the institution or practise of baptism be not exclusive then the institution is not our rule then there is no will-worship or it is no sin to swerve from it we may add to Gods worship infant-communion and innumerable other things rejected may be lawful then do preachers especially Mr. M. unjustly urge the Parliament and others to reform invented ceremonies and Protestants contend against Popish rites in baptism mass c. 4. However Mr. M. conceive yet men abler than Mr. M. do frequently assert negative arguments from institution I will name one who hath few fellowes Chamier Panst. cath in the words lately by me here recited and tom 4. l. 5. c. 9. s. 24. Haec testimonia sunt institutionis quae etsi non prohibent toridem verbis alios liquores tamen eo ipso quod non ponat excludit L. 7. c. 10. s. 38. quamquam in hoc genere rerum quae nihil sunt nisi ex institutione validissimam esse aportet argumentationem negativam si inde sumatur But Mr. M. saith John the Baptist and the Apostles might not meet with all persons and occasions Answ. T is true they baptized no Emperours or Kings because none were converted yet they had a rule to baptize them if disciples But this could not be the reason of their not baptizing infants sith innumerable believers had infants in the times of the Gospel story and Acts of the Apostles and yet no mention of baptizingany Do not Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists plead that the little children brought to Christ were infants of believers and yet there 's not a word of their being baptized As for Mr. Ms. instance to prove no necessity of practice to warrant infant-baptism though I grant if there were institution without practice it were enough yet is it not rightly brought It supposeth Peter baptized Cornelius and his houshold upon the very powring out of extraordinary gifts without actual faith and repentance required And I grant he required them not but yet withal it is manifest he did not baptize meerly upon the powring out of extraordinary gifts without them For the text Acts 10. 46 47. expresly saith they magnified God ere he spake of their baptizing and Acts 11. 17. that they had the like gift as themselves who believed on the Lord Jesus and they gathered thence that the Gentiles had repentance unto life granted by God But it is objected by Mr. Cobbet Just Vindic. part 2. cha 3. sect 2. that Mark 16. 16. none but true believers are meant then if the term be exclusive none but such are to be baptized 2. that
those believers had signs following them verse 17. Answ. The rule is disciples by profession are to be baptized to which is equipollent believers by profession I say not that believers only who are such as those Mark 16. 16. are to be baptized by us But yet comparing Mark 16. 15 16. with Mat. 28. 19. I gather that a disciple and believer are terms equipollent and so it helps me to understand the term disciple as answerable to the term believer And though by reason of the matter predicated Mark 16. 16. the believer there is only a true believer yet the term often is given to believers only by profession and we find such warrantably baptized and that is enough for our direction though we are to require more yet we are not to forbear baptism till we know there is more We acknowledge only true believers have right before God to baptism but in the face of the Church believers by profession have right to baptism and are to be taken by us for true believers upon their profession till they be discovered to be otherwise As for verse 17. it doth not say these or some of these signs shall follow every of them that believe but they are true if they followed some of them that believe sith the terms being indefinite in matter contingent the Proposition is true if onely particular Indefinita propositio in materia contingenti aequipollet particulari say Logicians But there is an objection ad hominem against my self that I have said that if I knew an infant were actually sanctified c. I would baptize him if so then an infant is not excluded out of the institution Answ. I grant that an infant barely as an infant is not excluded out of the institution but as ordinarily not known to be a disciple or believer If an infant were known to be a disciple or believer I would baptize him as I would one who having his tongue cut out who is known to be a believer otherwaies But then I have added that this would be upon extraordinary manifestation onely and so not according to ordinary rule and therefore justifies onely that extraordinary fact not the ordinary practice of infant-baptism which hath no rule ordinary or extraordinary But then saith Mr. M. page 215. shew us your extraordinary â—ule Answ. When I do thus or challenge this I shall in the mean time it is enough that my concession doth not infringe my argument against baptizing infants ordinarily without ordinary rule Mr. M. hath yet another exception in his Sermon page 44. That no other are mentioned to be baptized but disciples or believers because a new Church was to be constituted and then all were to be baptized upon profession of faith after the children came in by their right by vertue of the Covenant Ref. 1. when I come to examine Mr. Ms. Conclusions I shall shew that there is no such Covenant as to give right to believers infants to be baptized yea that title to the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision and therefore this is a vain pretence 2. He assigns that for a reason why no other were baptized which was not a reason For in the Jewish Church which was already constituted and which Christ did join himself to and to whose children they say did belong the Covenant yet while other were baptized all the time of John and Christs Ministery on earth no one infant was appointed to be baptized no not those infants Mark 10. which Christ blessed and which were if Paedobaptists say true believers infants in Covenant 3. It is a vain pretence that there is no mention of baptized infants because they had no right till their parents were converted For neither when they were converted is there any mention of the infants baptism 4. The institution Mat. 28. 19. expounded by the practice of John Baptist c. is the standing rule for Churches at first planting and after increasings nor can any other rule be produced distinct from this and therefore neither at first conversion nor after settlement of Churches are any to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they be disciples of Christ or believers by profession SECT VIII The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake c. against the order of teaching afore baptizing of Mr. M. Mr. Hussey that baptizing is discipling are refelled AGainst the argument from the order of teaching first and then baptizing it was excepted that it is said Mark 1. 4. John did baptize and preach which objection in my Examen was removed by the words of Beza par 4. s. 1. To which I add that the reason is manifest from the text why the one was put after the other not because he did baptize any afore he had preached but because Mark having expressed his baptism it was needfulhe should shew the difference between Johns baptism and the Jewish or Phasaical baptism To this Mr. M. returns thus much Christs order is say you teaching should go before baptizing is not that the same with this That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptized To which I only say 1. That the arguments are not the same as I made them the first being taken from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the other from the order of teaching afore baptizing 2. However I take that which Mr. M. grants that it is the same to teach and to make disciples by preaching before baptizing But Mr. Cobbet just vindic part 2. ch 3. sect 2 allegeth something against this argument He grants some things in this order of Christ are perpetual but he will not have all to be presidentiall to all Churches and times because it is said Mar. 16. 17. in the same speech that miraculous signs should follow them that believe But if this were good then the rule should only hold while such gifts remain which no churches now have and so he must fall into the opinion that makes water-baptism a temporary ordinance and those things which he grants perpetual as viz. preaching the Gospel before baptism is to be administred by such as preach discipled inchurched persons are to be baptized that in founding churches the first members are to be visible professors of the faith in reference to church estate that baptism is with water applyed to the persons baptized and that into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost must be temporary as well as teaching before baptizing If the one be perpetual notwithstanding this reason so is the other and presidential to all churches and times But saith Mr. Cobbet there is a distinction to be made in baptizing at the gathering of Churches and when they are gathered the order must be observed at the former not the later Answ. 1. If it was to be so at first gathering of churches why did not those in New England observe it then when they first gathered their churches surely they were not rightly gathered for want of baptism if this be the
not note a bare entring into Christs School without teaching or hearing of Christ much less such an initiating as they give to infants without any act of their own and John 9. 27. Mr. M. himself paraphaseth thus will ye be his disciples will ye profess him which is an act of their own of which infants are not ordinarily capable and it supposeth some teaching and learning at least this that Jesus is the Christ. 2. I argued from Mark 16. 15. to which our Translators refer in the margin at Matthew 28. 19. as cleering the meaning of it and generally interpreters shew thence how they were appointed to make disciples to wit by preaching the Gospel and so Mr. M. Sermon page 35. Express command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jews and make them disciples and then baptize them and Defence page 210. Their commission was to preach and baptize and hereupon from Matth. 28. 19. is gathered that none are to baptize but preachers Whence I argue If the making disciples were to be by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples then by making disciples is not meant baptizing nor baptizing to be rendered discipling For baptizing and preaching the Gospel are not all one But the making disciples is appointed to be and was by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples Ergo discipling is not by baptizing 3. I argued from John 4. 1. in which it is confessed by the New Annot. edit 1. on Mat. 28. 19. made disciples and baptized answer to make disciples baptizing them Mat. 28. 19. now John 4. 1. making disciples is one thing and baptizing is another thing though coupled with it therefore the making disciples is not baptizing but a distinct thing 4. The Commission of Christ is to be understood according to the Apostles practice unless we will say that either they understood not or followed not Christs appointment But their practice was to make disciples first by preaching and then to baptize and no other mentioned as Mr. M. grants in his Sermon page 44. Ergo. I truly said nor need Mr. M. wonder at it or call it a wild consequence as he doth Defence page 214. that if the Apostles had understood Christs Commission as Mr. M. doth baptize according to the rule of circumcising they might have saved a great deal of labour in preaching to the baptized afore they baptized them and in baptizing females sith the rule of circumcising did not require either And though I grant it to be true that male and female are all one yet in the rule of circumcising a difference is made and if that be the rule of baptizing infants then in baptizing them male infants should be baptized and not female 5. If making disciples be by baptizing without preaching before to the baptized then non-preaching ministers may and do baptize rightly though they preach not the Gospel But this I suppose will be denyed by Mr. M. Ergo. 6. If making disciples be by baptizing without preaching to them then the Spaniards in America who drove the Indians into the water to be baptized without teaching them or preaching the Gospel to them did rightly For they followed Christs rule thus expounded But that is absurd Ergo. 7. Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists say that the commission Mat. 28. 19. was the commission for first constituting the Churches of the Gentiles If then the Cōmission be to be understood make ye disciples by baptizing them without first preaching to them then he had appointed them to constitute or plant the first Churches without preaching and then the Apostles gifts of tongues c. were unnecessary they might have constituted Churches by hands baptizing them only without the use of those gifts but these things are absurd besides other absurd consequences which follow on the exposition that discipling is baptizing or baptizing discipling Mat. 28. 19. Lastly many of their own grants and expositions before recited do so cross this conceit that as I said before I thought none that had any wit would embrace it so now I wonder that such men as have taken it up did not better make use of their wit to decline so witlesse a shift Onely I perceive any thing will erve turn to keep up the credit of Infant sprinkling SECT IX The exception of Mr. M. Mr. Blake Mr. Cobbet nations are appointed to be baptized Matthew 28. 19. and so infants is refelled BUt there is yet another exception against my argument from Matthew 28. 19. followed by many that Christ bids them make nations disciples and baptize nations consequently infants at least the species Against this I opposed that all nations simply are not appointed to be baptized but disciples of all nations So Beza annot on Matthew 28. 19. Make to me disciples out of all nations The New Annotations on the Bible on Matth. 28. 19. first edition teach Gr. make disciples of as John 4. 1. all Nations not Jews alone but Gentiles also Acts 10. 34 35 47. Mr. Baxter plain scripture proof c. pag. 327. when Christ saith make me disciples of all nations baptizing them he means sincere disciples Georg. Pasor Lexic ad verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matthew 28. verse 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 docete omnes gentes h. ◠colligite mihi discipulos ex omnibus gentibus Mr. Blake himself saith Answer to my letter ch 11. sect 1. he is ready to subscribe to this interpretation as I lay it down in words by preaching the Gospel to all nations make them disciples and baptize those that do become disciples of all nations As for his exceptions that the verb is transitive that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations is in the accusative case that it is boldness to put it into the Genitive that then the whole of the nation should not be appointed to be baptized and so not infants I have answered them in my Postscript sect 14. And I further prove that the nation entirely is not appointed to be baptized 1. For then the infidels of the nation should be to be baptized for they are a part of the nation 2. Then the Apostles were not to baptize regularly till they baptized a whole nation yea all nations together for so it is construed by them who make nations entirely the subject of baptism according to Christs institution 3. The Apostles practice is an infallible comment on our Lord Christs words As they practised so Christ meant But they baptized not any entire Nation Countrey City or Tribe but believers or disciples out of them therefore no other were appointed to be baptized 4. If the baptizing of all the parts of a nation or a nation entirely were appointed by Christ then there might be some rule to know when a nation is discipled chosen so as that it ought to be entirely baptized But there is no such rule Ergo. To none of these do I find any thing replyed by Mr. M. but by telling me I fall to
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
baptized afore they are believers or repenting persons which is absurd and contrary to the Scripture Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38. c. and contrary to the order of Christ that persons should be made Disciples afore they were baptized Matth. 28 19. 3. Because it is altogether inexplicable how the use of water can be a cause either principal or instrumental to work a new birth or inward change on the soul If it be sayd that it is by virtue of Gods promise it is meet that promise should be shewed that at by or upon the use of baptism God hath promised to regenerate persons That it is a sign of regeneration will not be I suppose denyed for it is made the sign of repentance which is all one with regeneration and therefore called the baptism of repentance Acts 19. 4. because as Beza on v. 3. baptism was symbolum resipiscentiae the token of repentance And so in like manner it was the sign of faith and therefore the Apostle Gal. 3. 27. saith That as many as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ that is had by the sign of baptism testified their putting on Christ by faith And in this sense it is termed the washing of regeneration if baptism be meant by it Tit. 3. 5. because by that washing the person baptized testifies his regeneration And Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by baptism into death that is we by being under water testifie our dying to sin conformably to Christs death and burial And in this sense Paul is bid Acts 22. 16. to wash away his sins that is by baptism to testifie his purging from his sins And so Christ is said to sanctifie and cleanse his Church with washing of water Ephes. 5. 26. that is as Beza Annot in locum as representing what he entirely doth effect within Mr. Iames Cranford in his Epistle to Mr. Thomas Bedford printed at the end of the Friendly Accommodation between Mr. Bedford and Mr. Baxter saith that he conceives the ground of Anabaptism to have been the erroneous Doctrine de nudis signis in which he is more confirmed by what I answered once to an Argument drawn by him from Ephes. 5. from the efficacy of baptism to inforce the baptizing of infants that if that Tenent could be clearly proved I would no longer oppose that practice Concerning which I say I remember not all that passed from me in the Dispute he mentions I did think that which I put down in my Exerciâ— sect 11. had been his Argument But this I still say that could it be clearly proved that Christ ever appointed baptism of water taken severedly from the preaching of the Word to be the cause of Regeneration or that God had assured that by outward baptism with water he would confer regenerating grace to an infant I should not oppose the practice of Paedobaptism What Mr. Bedford hath produced for the efficacy of baptism hath been answered by Mr. Baxter in his Appendix to his Plain Scripture c. Nor doth it appear to me that Mr. B. is of his minde notwithstanding what Letters have past between them now printed and the syncretism yielded to in the printing of the Friendly Accommodation and leaving out the Appendix Dr. Burges his Treatise of Baptismal Regeneration hath been freely censured by many Dr. Ieremiah Taylour in his Discourse of baptism hath like an Orator rather than a Disputant pleaded for infant-baptism from the efficacy of baptism more from speeches of the Fathers than from the Scripture Sure I am baptism was appointed by Christ and used in the examples of the Scripture as a testimony of Repentance of faith in Christ no cause of either And therefore I deny baptism to be the remedy of original sin or the cause of Regeneration or that Christ intended to assign the use to baptism to heal original sin or to testifie the freedom from it without actual These things have been delivered by Augustine and taught by the Romanists and Lutherans but by many other Protestants disclaimed and refuted and therefore Mr. Stephens Mr. Cranford Mr. Bedford c. in using this Argument do but symbolize with the Papists and revive what many Protestants of best note have exploded SECT XVII The 31. Chapter of Mr. Bs. Plain Scripture Proof c. is answered and Mark 10. 13 14 15 16. is shewed to make nothing for infants visible Church-membership and baptism and his description of visible Church-membership is considered and his Argument from Deut. 29. shewed to be insufficient THere are yet some other Texts which are brought by Paedobaptists out of the New Testament for an institution and practice of infant-baptism Mr. B. Plain Scripture Proof of infant-baptism part 1. cap. 31. brings Mark 9. 36 37. to prove that Christ hath expresly assured us that he hath not repealed the privilege of infants visible Church-membership and upon it fals to his Rhetorick and tels us of his boldness in adventuring on this rule All which I judg frivolous nor needs it any further answer there being no new Argument and what he before spake of that Scripture is answered before Sect. 15. where it is shewed that Mark 9. 37. by little childe is not meant one that is so in respect of age but in respect of quality and that the receiving is not meant of baptism but entertainment in receiving the Doctrine brought and shewing kindness to their persons But he adds And it is not once but oft that he hath thus manifested his will in the very next Chapter he doth it more fully yet Mark 10. 14 15 16. And they brought young children to him that he should touch them and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased and said to them Suffer ye little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdom of God Verily I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe he shall not enter therein and he took them up in his arms put his hands on them and blessed them And is not here enough to satisfie us yet that he doth not cast all infants in the world out of his visible Kingdom or Church but that it is his will they should be admitted Will any say that it was not infants in the former Text and this that Christ speaks of Did he take any but infants into his arms Was it not plainly them that he did bid them receive in the former Chapter and was it not them that he would not have to be kept from him And was it not them that he bid should be suffered to come that is to be brought and was it not them that he blessed Answ. Mr. M. in his Sermon had alleged this Tex to prove that the infants of believers even while they are infants do receive the inward grace as well as grown men I answered 1. It is doubtfull whether those little children Mark 10. 14.
power and Gods coâ—senting thereunto when permitting him by vertue thereof to destroy all Jobs children concerning which passage I say 1. If all his Acts 16. 33. must be expounded as Job 1. 12. all that is his then must the Jaylours sheep and oxen be baptized as well as his children for they were comprehended under all that he had 2. Though Jobs children were comprehended under all that he had yet there was never an one an infant but such as did feast and might curse God in their hearts As for Dr. Homes his question Is any Anabaptist sure there were no infants in these families I say 1. It belongs to him to prove who brings it for infant-baptism that there were and that they were baptized 2. Yet we are sure from the words none were meant but persons capable of hearing and believers under the term house Acts 16. 32 34. Yea but sayth Mr. Sidenham Those in his house are a larger term but when he spâ—aks of the baptized he sayth all his or of him But how doth it appear that all in his house is larger than all his or what can he gather from it but this that he spake to more than he baptized but will Mr. Sidenham say he baptized any to whom he spake not Yea that a man may see with what raw conceits these Scriblers abuse people who reade such indâ—gested Pamphlets with examination His own observation excludes infants For if all that were in his house â—e the largest term then It comprehends all his v. 33. But it notes no infant For he spake not the word to any infant Therefore by his own observation infants are excluded But enough of the janglings of these wrangling Baby-sprinklers about this Text. SECT XXI That 1 Cor. 10. 2. proves not the practice of infant-baptism against Mr. Bailee Mr. Cobbet c. THere is another Text which is by Mr. Cobbet Mr. Bailee Dr. Homes Mr. Philips and others produced for the practice of infant-baptism and it is 1 Cor. 10. 2. Mr. Bailee in his Anabaptism pag. 149. argues thus Infants were baptized as well as their Parents by Moses baptism Ergo Infants as well as their Parents ought to be baptized by Christs baptism The Antecedent is the Apostles 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 The Fathers baptized in the Cloud and in the Sea were the whole People as well young as old for no doubt the infants went as well through the Cloud and the Sea as their Parents Answ. 1. The Antecedent may be denied because it is sayd our Fathers not infants But sayth Mr. Cobbet This is spoken of the Church Fathers to Paul and the Gentile Church-members and the young ones were in after ages instruments to convey Church-truths and blessings Refut 1. It is not sayd our Fathers as we are a Church none but Abraham that I know is termed a Father to the Church of Christ he being onely named the Father of the faithfull and they his seed but either our Fathers notes simply the Ancestors that went before as it is usual to call those our forefathers who were before us in former generations though they begat us not or else if it note their fathers in respect of natural generation it notes as Grotius in his Annot in locum the Fathers of us to wit Hebrews But it may be sayd that cannot be â—ith Paul onely was an Hebrew and then it should be my Fathers Refut 1. It is not unusual to speak of persons in the second person by figure of Communication or Enallage of persons when the thing is not true of them but our selves and when the thing is not true of us but others as when we say we have preached it is meant of one person that speaks and 1 Thess. 4. 17. it is sayd we which are alive and remain and yet none of those that wrote were such and so our Fathers is no more than the Fathers 2. But there 's no need of a figure For the Epistle was written by Paul and Sosthenes 1 Cor. 1. 1. And for Paul there 's no question he was an Hebrew and Sosthenes being a Ruler of the Synagogue Acts 18. 17. And in like manner Crispus v. 8. and Apollo v. 24. whom he mentions 1 Cor. 1. 14. 4. 6. were Hebrews and therefore he saying our Fathers might well mean our Fathers as Hebrews 2. It doth appear the infants were not meant in that they are onely meant who were in a state of pleasing or displeasing God as appears by v. 5. but so were not infants 3. They onely are sayd to be baptized to whom the same thing was signified by the cloud that is signified by our baptism but to the infants nothing was signified by the cloud and sea and passing through or under them for they were not subjects of instruction capable to know a resemblance Ergo infants were not baptized But sayth Mr. Bailee They went through the Sea Ergo they were baptized Answ. So did the beasts also and yet are not sayd to have been baptized but those that did or might understand the signification of it 4. They that are sayd to be baptized v. 2. are all sayd to eat and drink Manna and Water and that it was or might have been to them spiritual meat or drink v. 3 4. But this is not to be said of their infants For as Dr. Homes and Mr. Cobbet grant the infants did not eat Manna cakes nor is it likely they did drink water having breast milk much less is it true that they were spiritual meat or drink to them or might have been Ergo they are not meant by the Fathers baptized Nor is Mr. Bailees consequence good For if the infants might be sayd to be baptized with Moses baptism yet it follows not they are to be baptized with Christs sith Moses his baptism was not formal baptism but similitudinary after a sort they were baptized that is as Grotius Annot in locum quasi baptizâ—ti as if they had been baptized but a Rule holds not from similitudinary to formal baptism But Mr. Bailee would prove the consequence thus The Reasons which may be brought for the exclusion of infants from being baptized with their Parents by Christs baptism militate as much against their being baptized with their Parents by Moses baptism Therefore if nowithstanding they were admitted to the one baptism they may as well be admitted to the other Answ. The antecedent of this proof is false for in that of Moses the baptism is onely similitudinary in respect of a fact or event which was no duty but formal baptism of Christ is a duty of the person baptized Mark 16. 16. Acts 2 38. 22. 16. which cannot agree to an infant though the other should Nor is such kinde of shadowy typical analogical similitudinary baptism any more a rule about Christian baptism than Noahs Ark which had the like resemblance 1 Pet. 3. 21. And this Reason is confirmed from the Text. For if by Fathers are meant infants v. 2.
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
is false that Christ founded his institution in the Jewish practise of baptizing proselytes and their children If he had done so he would have bid the Apostles baptize Disciples and their children as the Jews did There is not any thing that is brought by the Doctor that proves it yea if it were the minde of Chrst to baptize Disciples and their children as the Jews did Proselytes it would utterly overthrow all use of baptism of water after the first conversion of Progenitors to be Christs Disciples none but they and the children then born should be baptized all Disciples and their infants which descended from the first baptized should not be baptized with water being clean or holy without baptism For they baptized because they were unclean till baptized not because holy before Nor did they baptize any of the posterity of the first baptized though born but a few moneths after their first baptism So that this conceit of the Doctor would help much for the Socinian conceit as if water-baptism belonged onely to the age of the Apostles 2. It is false that there is any evidence in the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7. 14. of such a custom of baptizing Christians and their children as was among the Jews of baptizing the Preselytes and their infant's Nor do I think ever any of the Fathers did interpret the Apostles words as this Doctor doth Tertullians words in his Book de anima cap. 39. are not as the Doctor saith an exact parallel to the Apostles speech 1 Cor. 7 14. as the Doctor renders and interprets it The terms candidati sanctitatis or designati sanctitatis or candidati sideâ— in Hieromes Epist. 153. to Paulinus do note not that they were baptized as the Doctor interprets Holy 1 Cor 7. 14. buâ— that they were in expectation as they that were seekers for Offices in Rome while they stood for the Offices were candidati in Whâ—e so the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptized Quod veluti ambiunt expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Ep. 153. to Paulinus or designed that is intended â—o be holy by the parents that is to â—e bred up to profess the Faith and so to be baptized Both which senses do indeed oppose the Doctors assertion and shew that they were not baptized in infancy And for that which the Doctor talks of Tertullian as saying they were holy that is baptized ex sâ—minis praerogativa from the praerogative of their birth it is a manifest mistake as the very reading the words shew For. 1. The holiness he ascribes to believers children was not onely by praerogative of birth but also ex institutions disciplina by the discipline of their instruction which is afore baptism 2. The praerogative of birth the very words of Tertullian shew to be no more but this that believers children were born without those idolatrous superstitions which were used in the birth of infidels children which he there particularly recites There is no one of the Fathers interprets Paul as the Dr. Ambrose and Hierom interpret the words of legitimation in birth Augustin what way soever he go â—aith expresly the words belong not to baptism 3. I is false that the Jewish practise in baptizing Proselytes and their children layd the foundation of infant-baptism neither the Scripture gives any hint thereof noâ— any of the Ancient Christian writers no not any of those the Doctor cites ever derives it from the Jewish practise But the speeches of Tertullian de bapt cap. 8. of Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 40. de baptismo disswading from it except in case of necessity by reason of apparent danger of death the very decree of the Council in Cyprians 59. Epistle the speeches of Augustin Hierom against the Pelagians the words of the counterfeit Authors of the Book of Questions and answers to the Orthodox imposed on Justin Martyr qu. 56. The questions ad Antiochum imposed on Athanasius qu 114. the words of the Author of the Ecclesiastick Hierarchy imposed on Dionysius Areopagita the story of the baptism of Gregory Nazianzen the intended baptism of Augustin when in daâ—ger of death tom 1. confess lib. 1. cap. â—1 and other evidences dâ— shew that the Fathers took the baptism of infants not to have foundation in the Jews practise but in the conceit they had that baptism did regenerate give grace and save and that it was necessary for them to enter into the Kingdom and that they were in danger of perishing if they were not baptized and therfore they practised baptizing of infants in that caâ—e Which thing the Papists avouch at this day and in order thereto womens baptizing The Protestant reformers who composed the Common Prayer Book do appear to have had the like conceit in that in the preface before publique baptism they use the old reason from John 3. 5. Rom. 5. 12. for infant-baptism affirming infants to be regenerate and undoubtedly saved dying baptized allowing Midwives to baptize till the words lawfull Minister were added in the Rubrick after the conference at Hampton Court where had not King James over-ruled them the Bishops had not yelded to that reformation yet still they kept private baptism with that ridiculous use of propounding the questions of repentance and faith to the infant to which the sureties must answer in the childes behalf with profession of the childes desire to be baptized into the faith recited though the childe were then crying when the words were spoken and for the sureties they had no desire to be baptized and the Bishops and Presbyters requiring it would have censured them as Anabaptists had they indeed minded baptism according to Christs minde which thing was a meer mockery as Chamier calls it Yet in the Rubrick it self in the Common prayer Book in the title of Publique baptism it is confessed that the Ancient custom was of baptizing onely at Easter and Whitsuntide baptizing is acknowledged to have been by dipping sprinkling or pouring water on the face I do conjecture by reports and such writings as I have seen was most after the conference at Hampton Court Dr. Hammond himself in his Practic Catech. lib. 1. sect 3. pag. 23. saith All men were instructed anciently in the foundamentals of faith before they were permitted to be baptized And therefore for the present I shall put by the answering of the stale and rotten allegations out of the Fathers for infant-baptism brought by the Doctor because having sayd so much in my Examen part 1. and my Apology sect 16. I presume those that are not willing to be deceived will not be swayed with Dr. Hammonds Mr. Bs. Mr. Ms. friends or any other citations from them some being of meer counterfeit Authors as Justin Martyr Pope Hyginus Dionysius Areopagita Athanasius some suspected as Origens words some misinterpreted as Irenaeus and Tertullian some the very Authors shew that they maintained infant-baptism but in the case of danger of death as Tertullian and Nazianzen