Innocency and Truth Vindicated, Reply
A brief friendly Reply to Mr. Blindmans friendy Anſwer about Infants Baptiſm, in his Eſſay tending to iſſue that Contraverſie.
SIR
AS to your Eſſay which came to my hands when I was buſily engaged with Mr. Wills, I have at laſt got ſo much time to ſay theſe few things to it, Viz.
Firſt, As to the Stile and Language, I muſt needs acknowledge (if compared with M. Wills) to be Sober and Chriſtian, though not without your ſevere Reflections.
Secondly, As to the Subſtance of what you write, I make this brief Reply.
1. So far as you have concerned your ſelf in the Hiſtorical and Ritual parts, this to Mr. W. may be a ſufficient Anſwer.
2. What you or Mr. W. ſay to the Doctrinal part, Mr. Tombes hath for the preſent ſaved me the labour by the return he makes to you both therein: though if God ſpare me Life, I intend to ſay ſomething to you alſo hereafter. But,
3. To the main deſign of your Book, viz. The parity you make betwixt Infants Baptiſm, and Womens Receiving the Lords Supper, wherein you ſuppoſe you have gain'd ſo much advantage as to put an end to the Contraverſie, I return as followeth:
'Tis confeſt I ſaid indeed ſhew but as good Example and Command for Infant Baptiſm, as we do for Womens Receiving the Lords Supper, and it ſhall ſuffice; Which, notwithſtanding your great confidence, I ſee not in the leaſt made good, but the contrary altogether; and, which I doubt not, is hereby manifest to you and all men.
Firſt therefore, as to the Example urged by me, from Act. 1.14. & 2.42, 44. viz. That Mary the Mother of Jeſus, and the Women, were of the number of the 120 Diſciples, and who did break bread with the 3000 that were added to them.
To which you give the following Exceptions.
Firſt, That is it not expreſly ſaid, that the Women were Believers.
Neither in this place is Peter, and the reſt of the Apoſtles expreſly ſo called, but they are called Diſciples, and ſo are the Women, being of the number of the 120, verſ. 15. And if any doubt, Whether Mary the Mother of Jeſus, Was a Believer, It will by as good Evidence appear as that the Twelve were ſo; For, ſo teſtifyeth the Angel, Luk. 1.18. Elizabeth, v. 45. and her own triumphant Faith, v. 46 to 56. And that the Women, her Companions, were ſo alſo, there is little ground to doubt, when it is conſidered who they were, viz. Mary Magdal. Mary the Wife of Cleophas, Joanna and Salom, &c. Who came with Chriſt out of Galilee, and eminently adminiſtred to him, followed him to his Croſs, to the Sepulchre, annointed his Body, witneſſed to his Reſurrection, and to whom he gave Direction, with the reſt of his Diſciples at his Aſcention, to wait at Jeruſalem for the promiſed Spirit, Mat. 27.55, &c. Mar. 16.19. Luk. 23.55, to the 11 of the 24, chap. John 19.25.
Another Exception is, That There is no mention that theſe women were in the great Aſſembly in the ſecond of the Acts: For, How do you know but they might be dead, or ſick, or abſent, as Thomas was before, Joh. 20.24. as nothing expreſt to the contrary, ſo nothing expreſly affirmed that they were preſent, pag. 3.
This is very ſtrange; For is it not expreſly ſaid, (as one continued diſcourſe) by Luke, chap 2.1. That they were all upon the day of Penticoſt, with one accord in one place: And who could theſe All be that were thus aſſembled, but the 120 Diſciples before mentioned, who had been waiting together by Chriſts appointment for the promiſed Spirit, the ſpace of ten dayes ſince the Aſcention; and who were now to Receive an Anſwer, none therefore being to be abſent. And that the Women were preſent among them upon the pouring out of the Spirit is manifeſt, becauſe Peter thereupon affirms, That the Propheſie of Joel was then fulfilled, that foretold the powring out of the Spirit, upon the Daughters and Hand-maids, as well as the Sons, Act. 2.16, 17.
Another Exception is this. The words, you ſay, upon which you lay the ſtreſs of Womens receiving the Lords Supper here, are in expreſs tearms againſt you, though you take them expreſly for you, &c. It being expreſly ſaid, [That all that believed were together.] Let us now fairly exam…ne the Greek phraſe, and we ſhall find it expreſly of Men and not of Women, Viz. foreign, the Article of being maſculine, doth expreſly limit it to Men and not to Women. As if he had ſaid, All the Men that Believed were together, and continued in the Apoſtels Doctrine, breaking of Bread, &c. And to confirme the ſame, you'l find the reſt of the Chapter ſpeakes expreſly of, and to Men, viz. foreign, every Man, v. 6, 8. foreign, &c. Ye Men of Jeruſalem, verſ. 22. &c.
To which I ſay, That this Exception, in my …udgement, ſeemes to be as defective in Grammer as in Divinity; For, as to the Grammatical part, you cannot but remember, Sir, That our Lillys Grammer, tells us of the Figure Sylepſis, or Conceptio, That comprehends the leſs worthy under the more worthy. Indignioris, ſub Digniore; as for example. Quid tu & ſoror facitis. Ego & Mater, miſeri perimus. Tu & Uxor, qui adfuiſtis, teſtes eſtote. Therefore why ſhould you ſo forget your ſelf, as to think it ſtrange that the beliving Women ſhould be comprehended under the believing Men. And as to the defect in Divinity, What is more frequent in Scripture? Do not you know it is told us, Gen. 5.2. Male and Female created he them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. But to ſome of your Inſtances, which I wonder to find urged by a Perſon of Gravity and Learning. First, as to the Article foreign, which ſurely you cannot but know is ſo common to both ſexes, (and not limited to the Maſculine Gender, as always to underſtand thereby the Man only, as you ſay) For, it is not ſaid, Mark 16.16. foreign, He that believeth, and is baptized, is not the She fully comprehended therein alſo? And, 1 Cor. 7.30.31. foreign, They that weep; foreign, They that rejoyce; foreign, They that buy; foreign, They that uſe this World; Doth the Article in all theſe (and a 100 places more of the like nature that might be produced) ſo limit it to the Maſculine Gender, that only men and not women are to be underſtood, I hope you will not ſay ſo. And is it not ſaid 1 Cor. 6.16. foreign, They two ſhall be one fleſh; the Article doth equally reſpect both. But ſo much for the Article foreign.
Secondly, The Word foreign, it comprehends both ſexes, and not the Maſculine only, as 1 Cor. 7.20. Let every Man, [foreign] abide in the ſame calling wherein he is called. And Jam. 1.14. Every Man, [foreign,] is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own luſt and enticed, ſurely muſt comprehend every Woman to, or elſe it would be ſtrange Divinity.
Thirdly, The Word foreign, the very ſame, as Jam. 2.2. For if there come into your Aſſembly a Man, [foreign,] having a gold Ring, &c. Is not a Woman to be underſtood alſo thereby? And Jam. 1.8. A double minded Man, [foreign,] is unſtable in all his wayes: And is not a double minded Woman ſo alſo? We might trouble the Reader with the reſt of your Inſtances of this kind, but let theſe ſatisfie.
So that Sir, you ſee your Exceptions to my Examples, are utterly inſignificant, for here were Women Diſciples and Believers, in Praying together for the Spirit, and afterwards receiving the ſame together, alſo continuing together in the Apoſtles Doctrine, Fellowſhip, and Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; neither can your pretended limitation of Maſculine Words and Articles, you ſee, relieve you, or invalidate our Authority. And in confirmation thereof we may add, Act. 20.7. That the Diſciples came together to break bread, Women being as much Diſciples as Men. Act. 9.36. And it is alſo ſaid, 1 Cor. 11.18, 20. That the Church came together to break bread, Women being Church-members as well as Men, Act. 8.12. though debarred ſome Priviledges as 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.11, 12, 13. For there is neither male nor female, but all one in Chriſt, Gal. 3.28. And, being many, are one Bread and one Body; Believing Women being as much of the Body of Chriſt as believing men, 1 Cor. 10.17. And who are enjoyned to keep Chriſts Precepts and Commandments, left in charge for all Diſciples as well as the Men, Mat. 28.20. This of Breaking of Bread after Baptiſm, being none of the leaſt of them; And who muſt give account for diſobedience and neglect of duty as well as the Men.
And as your own Conſcience ſeals to the truth hereof, ſo you are force alſo to declare it, telling us, How unpleaſing it is to you, to raiſe Arguments againſt a known Truth, being, as you ſay, as much for Believing womens receiving the Lords Supper as the men
Thus have you my Proofs for Womens receiving the Lords Supper, and the Verity thereof confirmed by your ſelf: Therefore in the next place we ſhall try whether you have, as clear, or, as you ſay, more full proof for the Example of Infants Baptiſm, and as to which, you give the following Inſtances. Viz.
Firſt, That Lydia was Baptized and her Houſhold, Acts 16.15. It is not ſaid that any of her Houſe were Converted beſides her ſelf.
Secondly, The Houſhold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. it being apparent, that Houſe in Scripture, doth comprehend Children, 1 Sam. 20.15. 2 Sam. 9.1. Exod. 1.21. &c. Therefore you ſay, Let impartial perſons judge, whether this doth not carry as much, if not mo…e probability and evidence in it, than what hath been brought for Womens receiving the Lords Supper, and not lyable to ſuch Exceptions from the Context, nor from any other Scripture. Wherein I joyne iſſue with you in the Appeal; beſeeching you and all men to conſider.
Firſt, Whether there be one Infant ſo much as named to be in either of thoſe Houſholds, much leſs that any were Baptized in them.
But we have Women expreſly mentioned to be of the Number of the 120 Diſciples, upon whom alſo the Spirit was poured in the day of Penticoſt, to whom the 3000 were joyned, and who together broke Bread alſo.
Secondly, Are Children as expreſly owned to have right to Baptiſme, and enjoyned thereto, and capable to deſcern the ſpiritual Myſteries thereof, and to act Faith therein, being Believers, part of the Church, and Members of the Body of Chriſt, as Women are expreſly owned to have right to the Ordinance of the Supper? and enjoyned thereto, and capable to deſcern the ſpiritual Myſteries thereof, and to act Faith therein, as being Believers, part of the Church, and Members of the Body of Chriſt?
Thirdly, Is Infants Baptiſm acknowledged by us to be a known Truth, and that it is unpleaſant to us to raiſe Arguments againſt it, as you have in expreſs tearms done for Womens receiving the Lords Supper?
So that here is not the leaſt paritie, or compariſon, to be made betwixt the one or the other, there being not the leaſt conſiderable pretence to imagine that any Infants were Baptized, becauſe tis ſaid that Houſholds were.
Firſt, Becauſe, though it is true that Infants may belong to the Houſhold, ſo may the heathen Idolaters Wife, and Servants, and that Children are ſaid to be in ſome Houſholds, yet there are many Houſholds wherein there are no Children, and it is not proved that there was one Infant belonging to either of theſe two Houſholds.
Secondly, In the four Houſholds mentioned to be Baptized in Scripture, they are ſaid, at leaſt in three of them, if not in the fourth alſo, to comprehend only ſuch as were taught Believers; in thoſe Families or Houſholds.
As, 1ſt. Concerning the Jaylor, Act. 16.32, 33, 34. It is ſaid, They ſpake the Word to all that were in his Houſe, and that He, viz. the Jaylor, Believed in God, with all his Houſe.
2ly, Criſpus, Act. 18.8. And Criſpus believed on the Lord, and all his Houſe.
3ly, Stephanus Houſe, that was Baptized, 1 Cor. 1.16. are called, the firſt-fruits or Achaia, that addicted themſelves to the Miniſtery of the Saints, which no Infant was capable to do.
And the 4th, is the Houſhold of Lydia, where we have good ground to conclude, there were none Baptized in it but Believers. Firſt becauſe there was n… Precept to Baptize any other. Secondly, No Example for any other. And thirdly, From what is ſaid of them, Act. 16.40. They were only Adult perſons, capable of Inſtruction and Conſolation, for t… ſaid, Paul and Sylas, after they came out of Priſon entered into the Houſe of Lydia, and comforted the Brethren there, viz thoſe in that Family that had been troubled for the hard uſuage and Impriſonment of th… Apoſtles.
Beſides, tis very probable Lydia was a ſingle Perſon no Huſband being mentioned, but ſhe in chief all along But ſurely, it is on their part, that ſay ſhe had Children, and baptized Children too, to prove it; For … yet it doth not appear, but the contrary. So that here i… neither Child expreſly, nor by any conſequence to b… found in any of theſe Baptized Houſholds.
In ſo much that Dr. Hamond, the laſt great Writ… for Infants Baptiſm confeſſeth, in his ſixth Quaery, pag. 471, That to conclude Infants were Baptized, becauſe Houſholds are ſo mentioned to be, is unconvi…cing and without Demonſtration, it being ſo un…rtain whether there was any Children in thoſe Fa…lies. As though, If the Maſter of the Family Be…ved, all the Houſe, whether ignorant, unconverted. …ophane, and Athieſtical, were to be Baptized alſo.
In the next place we come to examine the parity …twixt the Command we urge for Womens receive…g the Lords Supper, and that which is pretended by … for Infants Baptiſm.
The Command we bring for Womens receiving …e Lords Supper, is 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man Ex…mine himſelf, and ſo let him eat, &c. V…z. Man or Woman, for ſo the Word foreign, in the Greek, and …dam, in the Hebrew ſignifie. There being one Me…iator betwixt God and Man, and Woman; the Man Chriſt Jeſus, 1 Tim. 2.45. Being both but one … Chriſt, Gal. 3.28.
To which you thus Reply, You gather it from the Greek Word foreign, which is of the Maſculine …nd Femenine Gender, and ſo ſignifies Male and …emale, which I deny not: But I muſt crave leave …o inform you, That when it is limited with words …f the Maſculine Gender, it hath reference expreſly …o Men and not to Women; and that it is ſo here, …ou ſay, you ſhall abundantly prove, becauſe it is …imited; (where you bring foreign again, and ſome …thers of like import mentioned in the Chapter.
Secondly, From the Text it ſelf, where the Re…ative, foreign, is joyned to foreign, and ſo it is expreſly limited to the Maſculine, and therefore to a Man only, and not to a Woman. Therefore the Text muſt be read, Let a Man Examine himſelf (expreſly, not a Woman) and ſo let him eat, &c.
But I appeal to the ſober and juditious Reader, whether this is not a meer trifling in the things of God, and a playing with Words, to pervert the Truth?
As for the Word foreign, and others of like nature, we need ſay no more, and to the Relative foreign, as little; Mr. Blindman knowing, I verily believe there is little but deceit in it. For, what more frequent in Scripture, than to find this Relative to reſpect both ſexes? For Inſtance, Jam. 1.23, 24. If any be a hearer of the Word, and not a doer, he is like unto a Man beholding his natural Face in a Glaſs. For he beholdeth himſelf, and goeth his way, &c. which, I preſume, takes in the Woman as well as the Man. Rom. 13.9. Love thy Neighbour as thy ſelf, the ſame. So Matth. 28.19, 20. Baptizing them, and Teaching them, the ſame alſo. So that by Mr. Blindmans rule, we have as little expreſs Command for their Baptiſm as their Communion, and that Men are only concerned in both: So that your Exceptions to our Command, are as inſignificant as thoſe to our Example.
Then you come, Sir, to produce your Command for Infants Baptiſm, which you would make us believe is as clear, if not clearer that what hath been given for Womens receiving the Lords Supper, viz. Mat. 28.9. Go teach, or Diſcipulize, all Nations, baptizing them, and that Children are Diſciples, is clear you ſay, from Act. 15.10. Why tempt you God, to put a Yoak upon the neck of the Diſciples?
But for your better Information in Chriſts Commiſſion, I muſt refer you to the account Mr. Baxter gives of it, who tells us the right Order thereof, and Leſſons therein, Viz. That the firſt task is to make Diſciples, which, he tells us, by Mark are called Believers. The ſecond is Baptize them. And the third to Teach them all other things which are afterwards to be learned in Chriſts Schoole; Which is a right and true definition of the Text: The Word, foreign, to Diſcipulize or make Diſciples, is nothing elſe but to beget them to the Faith, by preaching the Goſpel to them, the true means thereof, and then being inſtructed in the Faith, they are to be Baptized therein. And therefore again, Mr. Baxter truly tells us, That it is the conſtant Order, that Baptiſm follow Faith, and no better than an Impious prophanation of the Sacrament if it go without Faith; And that if Faith be not the Pre-requiſite to Baptiſm Philip deluded and not decided the Queſtion, when he told the Eunuch, If he Believed with all his heart, he might. So that when you can make it appear your Infant, as a taught Diſciple, believes in Chriſt, you may find a Command here to Baptize him: Otherwiſe, as Mr. Baxter tells us, Philips anſwer carries a Negative in it, viz. If thou doſt not believe, thou mayeſt not be baptized.
And as for Infants Diſcipleſhip, from Act. 15.10. It is an utter miſtake, the Diſciples there being thoſe Gentile Believers that had newly received the Faith, who were neither to be yoked with Circumciſion, nor any other Jewiſh Rite, only they were Injoyned to abſtain from Idolathits, Blood, things Strangled and Fornication; there being no Infant in the Caſe, nor concerned herein, neither are they any where called Believers or Diſciples.
Therefore, Sir, upon the whole, Let the Juditious Reader Judge betwixt us, whether you have given as good Ground, by as full Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants, as I have done from Gods Word for Womens Receiving the Lords Supper? Not doubting but this ſearch into this your Eſſay, will put a comfortable End to this part of the Controverſie betwixt us.
In the next place you muſt give me leave to return you an Anſwer to three or four ſmart Reflections I meet with in your Book.
Firſt, Sir, I conceive you have given me juſt occaſion of Offence, ſo unduly to mention my not taking notice of Mr. Baxters Errata, without any the leaſt regard to what I have ſo largely ſpoke for his Satisfaction, and my own Vindication, (having received the like meaſure from Mr. Wills therein alſo.) And whether the r…proving that my Omiſſion with ſuch ſeverity, and wholly paſſing over thoſe Horrible things Remarkt by me (without Controle, as yet) out of Mr. Bs. Directory, ſavours not of too much Partiality, is recommended to your better conſideration.
Secondly, No leſs infurious are you, and Mr. W. alſo, from the conſideration of thoſe Waldenſian Confeſſions of Faith, where they aſſert Infants Baptiſm, to infer my mistaking of them in the whole, and to ſoyl all my other Testimonies in the Book, without taking the leaſt notice how I cited the late Confeſſions word for word, proving, they were not till their Defection in the ſixteenth Century, and that then other Confeſſions, cit… by me, were in the twelveth Cent. 400 years before; nor regarding what I Anſwer to every one of them, to which I muſt refer you, and to what I ſay to Mr. Wills for the like Diſingenuity.
Thirdly, Sir, I have to blame you for a piece of unfairneſs, not to ſay unfaithfulneſs, reſpecting the Ritual part, where, to avoid the force of the Word Tabal, which the Septuagint renders by the Greek Word foreign, and all our Tranſlators by the word Dip. You produce a Text, pag. 190, wherein (as you deal with it) you would neceſſitate another Interpretation to be put upon it, viz. Levit. 14.6. As for the living Bird, he ſhall take it and the Cedar-wood, and the Scarlet, and the Hyſop, and ſhall Dip them and the living in the blood of the Bird that was kill'd [there you ſtop, and leave out] over the running Water, nor taking any notice of what follows verſ. 51. And Dip them in the Blood of the ſlain Bird, and the running Water; But go on with your Inference, as though the running Water was not to be concerned in the Caſe, and ſay, Is it credible that the Bird that was killed did yeild ſo much blood that all thoſe things could be Dipped under it, and Covered with it? Certainly (ſay you) you muſt, at leaſt, run a Synechdoche here, or elſe you will make nothing of it. And if you do, and ſay a part of them only was Dipt, Why will you not at leaſt allow the ſame in Baptiſm?
But whether ſuch dealing with Gods Word comes not under a handling the Law partially, and dealling unfairly, not to ſay, deceitfully with it, is left to your own Conſcience to determine.
Fourthly, I muſt endeavour to vindicate myſelf in another unhanſom Reflection, reſpecting an abſurdity you charge upon me, and which I conceive will return upon your ſelf, and Partner too, with diſadvantage, which is this. You are pleaſed Sir, in pag. 117. to tell me, in Anſwer to the beginning of my ſixth Chapter, That you muſt crave leave to tell me, that I miſs it in my Logick, in affirming the Right Subject of Baptiſm (viz. a profeſſed Believer) to belong to the Matter and Eſſence of Baptiſm; and which Mr. Wills (in conjunction with you) carryes a little further, and tells me, in his uſual Stile, pag. 90. part 2. chap. 6. It is obſerveable, that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatiſe of Baptiſm, (Mark well, ſaith he) ſhould miſtake both the Matter and Form of it; for certainly he is out in both (and to be ſure Mr. W. will loſe nothing for want of Confidence, if that will carry it.) For the Matter, ſaith he, all Divines agree to be Water, and the Form, the Words of Chriſt. For which he quotes Zanchy and Buchan.
To which I ſay, as to the point of Logick (wherein I own little skill) in affirming, The Subject belongs to the Matter and Eſſence of Baptiſm, and that the true Form was Dipping, I conceive I am juſtified by the Learned. And as to the firſt, If Burgerdicius underſtood Logick, he tells us, That the Subject doth belong to the Matter, and is of the Eſſence thereof; Who divides the Matter into the Materia ex qua, in qua; & circa quam; of which, in which and about which; and that the two latter comprehend the Subject or Object.
And agreeable hereto, we have the Learned Tilenus giving us the Logical Definition of Baptiſm, both as to Matter and Form, in his Syntag. Theol. Diſp. de Baptiſ. pag. 376. in theſe words. Firſt, That the Matter of Baptiſm is two fold, viz. the Conſtituens and Recipiens; the Conſtituens of two parts, viz. External and Elementary, viz. the Water. And Internal, the Spiritual thing ſignified. And the Recipiens, foreign, or Subject, is the fit Perſon that is to receive it. Secondly, That the Eſſential Form of Baptiſm is nothing elſe but the Analogical Reaſon of the Signes to the Things ſignified. For as the property of Water in waſhing away the filth of the Fleſh, declares the force of Chriſts Blood in the waſhing away of Sin, So Diping in Water is a ſuitable Analogy of the Death of the Old Man; and coming up out of the Water, the Life of the New.
And in full agreement with him, the Learned Sir Norton Knatchbull in his Animad. pag. 317. tells us from Alexander Halyes, in theſe words, A io cum Alex. de Halys, Tinctio eſt formalis Cauſa Baptiſmi, & ſi Tinctio, non Lotio, vel lavatio, vel ablutio; I ſay with Alexander de Halys, That Dipping is the formal Cauſe of Baptiſm; and if Diping, then not waſhing or pouring.
So that if theſe Learned Men are Right, you, my Reprovers, are Wrong, and deſerve blame and ſhame for your Raſhneſs.
And further, that the right Subject, viz. a profeſt Believer is of the Eſſence of Baptiſm is manifeſt becauſe, if you may alter and change that, you may Baptize a Wall, or a Bell, a Sword, or a Standard, or what you will, and call it the Ordinance of Baptiſm. So that I am hereby the more confirmed, that if you miſs it in the Right Subject, or Matter of Baptiſm, viz. a Profeſt Believer, and erre alſo in the due Form or Ceremony, viz. Dipping, you have neither the Matter nor the Form of Baptiſm; and ſo, though you may call it Baptiſm, yet it is a meer Nullity, and no ſuch thing; concerning which, I refer you t… the Scheam thereof, in the Broad-ſide, for further Information, and ſo ſhall Conclude with your own Words. If theſe Debates may be bleſt to diſcover the Truth to your ſelf, or any other, and add any thing to the making up of the Breach, that the Lord may be one, and his Name one amongſt us, in theſe points wherein we yet differ; I ſhall have what I aimed at, and the God of Truth and Peace, ſhall have all the Glory. And that the Spirit of Light and Truth may lead into all Truth, and diſpel all the Antichriſtian Foggs of Ignorance and Darkneſs, is the Sincere Deſire of
Your Unknown Friend and Servant. H. D. The 30th. of the 8th. MonethMonth, 1674.
The Reader is deſired to Correct theſe Eſcapes in this Brief Reply. Viz. Page 178. line 7. r. it is not f. is it not. p. 180. l. 20. r. is it not, f. it is not. p. 183. l. 29. r. Idolatrous f. Idolaters. p. 184. l. 13. r. of f. or.
FINIS.
End of the text · Henry Danvers, Innocency and Truth Vindicated (1675)