Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 3
SECT. III.
Mr. Blakes plea for arguments from analogy in meer positive rites of the old Testament, and Mr. Bs. speech about infantadmission as determined in it, are refelled.
MAster Blake Vindic. Foederis ch. 42. sect. 2. speaking of me saith. And to this end he sets himself, First to dispute down all Arguments à pari, all whatsoever that are grounded on parity of reason, or analogy and proportion. This he speaks to in his Examen pag. 28. And I may here fitly refer the Reader to that which I have written chap. 10. sect. 4. of my answer to M. T. only in a few words viudicate it from his exceptions against it in his Apology, page 140.
And page 308. he saith, The Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all Arguments à pari.
Answ. It is not true, That I set my self to dispute down all arguments à pari, all whatsoever that are grounded on parity of reason, or analogy and proportion. For 1 in the place cited Examen pag. 28, 29. I do expresly level my arguing against arguments from analogy onelyonly in positive instituted worship consisting in outward rites, such as Circumcision, Baptism, and the Lords Supper are, which have nothing moral or natural in them, but are in whole and part cetemonial. 2. I do dispute against all such arguments, not as brought to illustrate or confirm a thing otherwise proved from institution, but when they are brought to infer Divine institutions and commands obligatory of mens consciences. I had said Exam. part. 2. s. 8. pag. 29. To me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue, to wit, that in meer positive things (such as Circumcision and Baptism are) we may frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances, whereof one is quite taken away, without institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example. Mr. Blake answer to my letter pag. 74 asks who those be? I told him that he did Birth-privilege pag. 15. (I should have said 14) and I mean those words, upon this ground (the Covenant) Infants under the Law were Circumcised, and upon the same ground Infants are now to be Baptized: by the grounds of both Circumcision and Baptism we inforce the Baptism of Infants: what is objected against one concludes against both: Circumcision and Baptism are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken; there being the same principal and main end of both. But he saith now Vindic. foederis pag. 373. In my whole discourse I did studiously avoid arguments drawn barely from analogy, so that we may see how willing Mr. T. is to quarrel, and how loath to speak truth.
Answ. There was nothing but truth and fair arguing in my Apology pag. 142. For though Mr. B. denies his argument to be barely from the analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, by which he hid inforce the Baptism of Infants, yet his arguing from the grounds of both, without institution gathered by precept, or Apostolical example, is barely from analogy. Analogy or proportion I neither did imagine nor conceive Mr. B. made in the likeness, resemblance, or evenness in the ritual part of Circumcision and Baptism, that is the cutting off the skin, or the washing the body, as if he did argue, Infants had a skin cut off, therefore Infants are to be washed with water: But the analogy I conceive made by him between them, is in the supposed parity of reason, taken from (as he calls them) the grounds of both, secluding institution, as my words shew, Examen pag. 29. and postscript pag. 142. now this Mr. B. doth in the words cited, arguing from the Covenant, the same principal and main end of both, and thence dictating what is objected against one concludes against both, and asserting (though falsely) that Circumcision and Baptism are therefore by the Apostle promiscuously taken, and mentions not the distinct institution of Infant-baptism from Infantcircumcision, but as if he counted them the same, yea as if he meant them all one, imposeth on the Apostle as if he took Baptism and Circumcision promiscuously: wherein he argues from bare analogy (if not identity) between them without institution. And therefore I do still charge him with arguing according to that principle, which he saith, is as dangerous to him as to me. But he hath yet another shift.
In case, saith he, I had by analogy with Circumcision made proof of Infants title to Baptism, it would not have freed him from calumny, seeing it is no addition to worship, Baptism is worship as Circumcision was, this is but a demonstration of the latitude and extent of it.
Answ. There is no calumny in it. For he adds to Gods worship who doth make something worship of God, which he hath not appointed, as Non-Conformists did argue in their Negative argument against the Bishops Ceremonies from Deut. 4. 2. and though the Conformists did allow some addition to Gods worship in indifferent ceremonies, yet they agreed that to make any such addition as necessary binding the conscience, or part of Gods worship, specially when it is in things determined by institution, was unlawful. Now God hath appointed expresly disciples or believers in Christ to be baptized, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. and no other, and this is his instituted worship; he then who baptizeth Infants who are not disciples or believers, and doth this as Gods worship, doth add to the worship having no institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example: nor doth he demonstrate, but devise a latitude and extent of the worship of his own head, or worships God after the precepts of men. As for the words, it is no addition to worship, Baptism i… worship as Circumcision was, they seems to intimate, if there be any reason in them, than Infantbaptism is no addition to worship, because Baptism is worship as Circmcision was, which imports, that there could be no addition to worship in adding to Baptism, because it is worship as Circumcision was, whereas the reason is better to the contrary, that it being not commanded Infant baptism is addition to worship, because Baptism is worship as circumcision was.
Mr. Blake goes on. It runs in Mr. T. his head that we go about to find not a Baptism-institution, but an Infant-baptisminstitution, and that barely by analogy from Circumcision. This I confess were a wild undertaking.
Answ. Tis true, I did think Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 44. when he said, Baptism was instituted long before (that command Mat. 28. 19.) to be the seal of the Covenant, had sought its institution from Gen. 17: and in his Defence I find not that which might take me off from that conceit. And it still runs in my head that Mr. Blake must either find not onelyonly a Baptism-institution, but also an Infant-baptism-institution, or else we must yield Infant-baptism a corruption of that ordinance, whether it be called will-worship, or profaning it, or what other sin that corruption be termed. As he that will acquit prayer to Saints, or for the dead, from corruption, must find not onelyonly an institution of prayer, but also of prayer to Saints and for the dead; he that will acquit Infant-communion, Bell-baptism, &c. from corruption, must find not onelyonly an institution of the Communion and Baptism, but also of Infant-communion and Bell-baptism. I agree, that it were a wild undertaking to go about to find an institution of Infantbaptism, especially Gen. 17. because it is not to be found there, or in any other part of holy Scripture, and yet I think Paedobaptists do go about to find an institution of Infant-baptism, and that barely by analogy from Circumcision, as I shew before, and therefore by Mr. Blakes own censure their attempt is a wild undertaking.
He addes. Neither I nor Mr. T. to help me, can find an Infant-circumcision-institution. If he instances Gen. 17. 12. He that is eight dayes old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; I say that is no institution of Circumcision, but a subsequent directory for the particular day (according to the Paedagogy of those times) when the person was to be circumcised. The institution we find not with restriction to infancy, but in that latitude as to comprize males of any age, v. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy s…d after thee, every man-child among you shall be circumcised. Mr. T. knows very well, that by man-child onelyonly the s…x and not the growth is distinguished, omnis mas, as Junius and Tremellius, every male, as Anisworth reads it; If that after directory had not followed, they might have circumcised (as we baptize) infants upon any day at our best conveniences. This is plain in the text, and may be further cleared; if the institution it self be with that limit of time to the eighth day, then it had been their sin (according to Mr. Tombs, the sin of will-worship) in case that time through negligence had slipt, to have circumcised them another day, as it was for a man unclean, or in a journey on the 14th day of the first monethmonth (the time appointed for the passeover) to observe it any other day, till God appointed the 14th day of the second monethmonth for such occasions, Num. 9. 6, 7, 8. But that they had their liberty by vertue of the institution to circumcise any other day, when that was over, is clear in the text, and may be farther made plain, that Abraham so understood it by his circumcising of Ishmael at 13 years, which had been without warrant, had there been an institution only for children of eight dayes; when God was displeased at Moses his neglect of the Circumcision of his Son, Exod. 4. 24. yet he was pleased that he was after circumcised v. 26. So that as there was an institution in Old-Testament-times, for all males in Covenant without difference of age; so there is in New-Testament times an institution of Baptism for all in Covenant without difference of age or sex.
Answ. Mr. Blake saith, neither he nor I to help him can find an Infant-circumcision-institution, and yet he himself finds, Gen. 17. 10. an institution in that latitude, as to comprize males of any age: if there be an institution to circumcise males of any age, then there is an institution to circumcise male infants, who are of some age. And therefore it seems to me a wild speech of Mr. B. to deny the finding of an institution of Infant-circumcision, when he himself sets down the institution of it within a few lines of those words. But he conceives it no institution of circumcision Gen. 12. 10. To which I say, Be it subsequent directory, or what ever else he will call it, Mr. Blake might easily perceive by my words, Examen pag. 28, 29. and elsewhere, I take the word institution for any appointment by precept, command or example approved, either express, or gathered by good consequence; if any of these wayes an institution of Infant-baptism can be shewed out of the New Testament without the analogy of Circumcision, I should not make any doubt of it, and therefore it is but unnecessary wrangling which he useth about the word [institution]. Let him shew any subsequent directory for Infant-baptism, as is for Infant-circumcision without the analogy of Circumcision▪ and I am satisfied. Yet to shew the vanity of his speeches and arguings I shall a little scanne them, He denies an institution of Infantcircumcision, Gent. 17. 10. he saith, it is but asubsequent directory for the particular day.
Answ. Ausonius Popma de differ. verborum l. 3. Institutines sunt praecepia, quibus docentur homines atque instituuntur. In this general acception a directory is an institution. But were it taken strictly for a command establishing that …ite, surely v. 12. not onelyonly the particular day was appointed, but the person also, to wit, the Infant of eight dayes old among Abrahams people, and all the verses 10 11, 12, 13, 14. together are termed sanctio circumcisionis, by Pareus in his Commentary. But we find not the institution with restriction to Infancy, saith Mr. Blake. Ans. True, nor did I ever say the institution was restrained to Infancy, or that there was an institution only for children of eight dayes, nor do I deny that the precept Gen. 17. 10. was more general than that it should be restrained to the eighth day: yet v. 12. the circumcising of infants was limited to the eighth day. Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediv. part. 1. pag. 135. For some particular occasions of worship, God was pleased of old to determine some time exclusively, as the eighth day from the birth of a child for Circumcision, and the eighth day for the sacrificing of the firstling males of cattel, neither sooner nor later. Nor do there want those among Protestant Divines, who make it unlawful to do it before or after but will-worship, except in cases of necessity, as in the wilderness, &c. in which case the rule holds, God will have mercy and not sacrifice, and the thing might be done afterwards, as in the circumcision of those who were born in time of their travel in the wilderness. But to have altered the time of a mans own motion, without such necessity, had been will-worship, as it was charged on Jeroboam 1 Kings 12. 33. that he sacrificed in the monethmonth he had devised of his own heart. What Mr. Blake saith, there is in the New-Testament-times an institution of baptism for all in Covenant, without difference of age or sex, is false, except by being in Covenant he understand, not being in Covenant by Gods promise onelyonly, or others faith, or undertaking for them, but by their own act of Covenanting, that is engaging themselves in their own persons by their, own act to be Christs Disciples or believers in him, there being no institution in the New Testament times of baptizing any other than Disciples or Believers in Christ. Mr. Blake adds. I instanced in the Apostles argument from analogy for Ministers maintenance, 1 Cor. 9. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 18. Mr. Tombs answers, The Apostle doth not by bare analogy conclude Ministers maintenance, but from the Lords ordinance; He does conlude it then (by his confession) from analogy, though not barely from analogy. Neither have any one of Mr. Ts Antagonists concluded Infant baptism barely from analogy of Circumcision. There are other arguments which wait for his answer, so that this instance stands.
Answ. My Confession was not, that the Apostle argued from any such analogy as Paedobaptists conclude Infants-baptism from, to wit, theTo Mr. Fisher, urging 1 Cor. 9. 10. for an equity of the Geremonial Law to prove Christmas, Mr. Collings Caveat p. 77. saith. The Apostle indeed 1 Cor. 9. 10. urgeth the equity of that piece of the Law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe, &c▪ but I never took that for a piece of the Ceremonial, but for a piece of the Judicial Law. rule of Circumcision, thus, Circumcision was appointed to Infants in Covenant, therefore Baptism is appointed to Infants in Covenant, they having the same main and principle end to seal the Covenant of grace (which is Mr. Blakes own arguing) which is from a ceremonial rite of the Old Testament to a ceremonial rite of the New, without precept or example of Christ or his Apostles. For 1. The Apostles argument 1 Cor. 9. 9. seems not to me to be from analogy, but a testimony explained. So Mr. Dicson in his Com. Arg. 3. a testimonto legis de pabulo bovi trituranti dando: quod ostendit dictum esse in gratiam omnium laborantium in aliorum usum, potissimum in ministerio. Diodati, The end of Gods Law is not to shew how cattel should be fed, but to command equity to be used in just rewarding of those who labour for us. Mr. Blake himself vindic▪ foederis pag. 406. Thirdly he argues from the command of the Law: 2. If it be from any analogy, it is in things that have a parity of equity, and so it is in moral things, which are perpetual, not in meer positive rites. 3. It is an analogy which the Apostle delivered to us, not analogy made by men not guided by an infallible spirit, as is the inference of Paedobaptism from Circumcision, and therefore is not of force to oblige mens consciences▪ I have shewed before that the Paedobaptists main argument is barely from such analogy, and for other arguments waiting for mine answer, either they are answered before sufficiently, o… God assisting, will have answer in this Review. Mr. Blakes arguments vindic. foede. ch. 43. sect. 1. require no longer answer. The first is the same with Mr. Bs. second. And the Major is to be denied, if by [unless order be given to the contrary] be meant of order given to the contrary in formal positive terms, such as this, Thou shalt nor baptize Infants. If it be meant of order given to the contrary, either in express formal prohibitive terms, or equipollent, the Minor is to be denied.
In the second the Major is to be denyed, and in like manner the third, distinguishing the term [holy] In the fourth both the Major and the Minor, and so likewise the fifth, explaining the term [church privileges▪ ] In the sixth the Major is to be denyed if understood of the invisible Kingdom of God only, if of the visible, the Minor is to be denyed: In the other two additionals, the Major if universal is to be denyed, and the Minor is true of infants of unbelievers as well as believers.
And for the last Argument the matter is as easily answered as the form. For the Major, Those that are to be saved are to be added to the Church by baptism, Act▪ 2. 47. is to be limited by the text v. 41. thus [when they willingly receive the word] If no larger answer be given Mr. B. to these arguments, yet this will be enough to shew they are without much difficulty answerable. Mr. Bs. proofs likewise, God assisting, shall have fuller answer than they deserve, though were it not for his own and others conceits of his writings for infant-baptism, I should think it lost time to bestow it in an exact examination of his inconsiderable dictates.
As for the present instance of M. B. of the Apostles arguing from analogy, he may see it now fallen, and so likewise the next, of which he speaks thus.
I instanced in the Apostles arguing 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. he makes it good that partaking together of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, we are made one Ecclesiastical body, by way of Analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews, yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles; to which Mr. T. saies, this argument is to prove, that they which profess Christ may not partake of the things of Idols. From this general truth, that they which join in the service of any God, they hold Communion with that God, and are one with those that worship that God; this the Apostle proves by instances in the Christian and Jewish services. So that this argument is from a genoral truth proved by induction of instances. Mr. T. mistakes, the Apostle takes no such general truth for granted, but affirms that we are one body at the Lords table, which he first proves by analogy in the instances mentioned, and then concludes thence against communion with Idols; That which the Apostle disputes he l…ies down, but we have not these words in the text.
Answ. There is no mistake in my Analysis of the Apostles words. He had v. 14. warned them of Idolatry, to wit in going with the Infidels to their Idol feasts, and to make them more heedful of what he said he prefaceth, v. 19. And then argues: not thus, they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one Ecclesiastical body by way of analogy with the like in the sacrifices of the Jews, yea in the sacrifices of the Gentiles; For then the conclusion to be proved should be, we are one body Ecclesiastical at the Lords table, and the sacrifices of the Gentiles should be the medium to prove it, which had been ursi for such a proof, nor in any passage of the Apostle is used to that end. For how inept an Argument had this been, the Gentiles in their sacrifices had communion with the Idol, therefore they that partake of the Lords Supper are made one body Ecclesiastical? Nor would the proof be much otherwise if it were thus (as Mr. Blake makes it) we are one body Ecclesiastical who partake of the Lords Supper, therefore in Gentile sacrifices we communicate with Idols. And me thinks there is a circle in this proof, by the Gentiles sacrifices to prove we are one body Ecclesiastical in the Lords Supper, and thence to prove we communicate with Idols in Gentile sacrifices. But the scope of the Apostle appears by the words, v. 14. and v. 19, 20, 21. evidently to be the disswading them from the Idol-feasts on their sacrifices, because they had therein fellowship with the Idol, did partake of its cup and table, and so with Devils v. 20, 21. which had been an argument in concludent, were it not thus made, To have fellowship with the Idol is evil to be avoided by Christians, as being Communion with Devils. But to partake of the thing offered to Idols is to have fellowship with the Idol. Ergo, The Minor, which alone is proved, rests on this general maxim, They have fellowship with a true or supposed Deity, who partake of his service, and this the Apostle proves to be true by the instances of the Christians and the Israelites, v. 16, 17, 18. I know sundry Protestant Expositors make the argument to be thus, Ye may not partake of the Idol banquets, because ye are partakers of the Lords supper. But I conceive this not right: For v. 16, 17. the Apostles medium is not from the matter of fact what they did, or duty what they were to do, but from the tendence of their action in common construction and interpretation of the end and use of such actions, which did shew they had Communion in the body of Christ. Which is clearly proved from v. 18. where the Apostle allegeth the Israelites partaking of their altar to the same purpose to which he had used the former, v. 16, 17. now the Christians neither did nor were to partake then of the Jewish altar, and it is not a reason from their fact or duty▪ but onelyonly from that wherein Christians breaking bread, Jews and Gentiles eating of their sacrifices did agree, that these actions testified their fellowship with that Lord for whom these services were performed. And therefore by Piscator, Dicson, and others, the argument is thus framed, Israelites by eating of the sacrifices testified they were professors and partakers of the Jewish religion, therefore they that eat of Idol sacrifices, they testify that they Communicate with Idolaters in their idolatry: Yea Mr. Blake himself in his answer to my Letter pag. 74. doth plainly acknowledge the Apostles argument to be from a general maxim common to all religious service, when he saith, yea he further makes it good (that which he concluded before) in the words following, even from the Heathen, it is of the nature of religious worship, whether true or false, to make those of one body (as I may say) religious that partake of them. Whence it is apparent that it is not an argument to prove any duty in a Christian rite of the New Testament from the ceremonial law, sith it is by his own confession even from the Gentiles sactifices, which sure by analogy or resemblance being altogether forbidden, cannot make us a rule in Christian meer positive worship, and therefore there is no such argument in the Apostles speech from analogy, as I opp…gn.
Mr. Blake yet adds. I instanced in Christs defence of his disciples from the charge of the Pharisees, Mat. 12. 3, 4. by analogy and proportion of the like in David. Mr. T. answers, that is only an instance to prove that sacrifice must give place to mercy, a ceremonial to a moral duty, not an argument from meer analogy or resemblance of things different. He proves that truth then by analogy, if not by meer analogy, and he tells us of no other thing that is joined to help it out, and make it an argument compleat. To these, abundance more might be added.
Answ. It is enough to shew this instance impertinent, in that it is not from such analogy as is used to prove Infant-baptism by Infant-circumcision; Thus it was in a rite in the old Testament upon this ground, Ergo, it must be so in a rite of the New Testament, because the same pretended ground remains other than Gods command or institution: which I called meer analogy in meer positives without a distinct command about each rite. As for my exposition it was right, that Christ allegeth Davids fact as an instance, that ceremonials give place to morals, and sacrifice to mercy, as appears by v. 7. And hence in giving rules about exposition of the Decalogue usually from this passage a rule is drawn, that ceremonials give place to morals, sacrifice to mercy. Sure I am, neither here, nor any where else in Scripture is there found such an argument as this, Thus it was in a ceremony of Moses Law, therfore thus is must be in a rite or ceremony of the New Testament.
Mr. Blake proceeds thus. VponUpon Mr. T. his desire of rules how farre we may go in this parity of reason, and himself allowing this way of reasoning in morals, which in many cases might be singularly usefull and very helpful in this particular; he is yet silent, we may then keep our way of reasoning without rules, as well as he his; I yet gave in mine, which he epitomizes, and gives in to the Reader by the halves. To whom in the first place I might apply that of the Poet, Carpere vel noli nostra, vel ede tua.
Answ. There was no reason I should set down rules about reasoning from analogy in morals, how usefull soever they might be. For 1. though I said in my Examen pag. 28. for that which is natural or moral in worship an institution or command in the old Testament is allowed as obligatory to Christians, yet I did not say, that in morals a man may reason as Paedobaptists reason in ceremonials, This was a duty or sin in the Old Testament, therefore another thing is a duty or sin in the New Testament (which was not in the old also) by imagined parity of reason, as my words Postscript sect. 17. import. 2 Neither is it necessary to set down any other rules than what either Logicians set down in the Topicks about arguments à comparatis, or Divines give in the expounding the Decalogue. 3. If any more were requisite, yet it would have been to draw me into a dispute on the by, to fall on that point in that place. 4. If it had been fit for me to do it, yet at that time I had no leisure, the Postscript being written when my Apology was almost printed, as I say in the Postscript sect. 1. which is also a reason why I did not set down all his words about his rules in my Postscript sect. 17. which he calls epitomizing of them, and giving in to the Reader by halves, when the rules were as fully delivered by me as himself, and only the applications and amplifications omitted, nor doth he shew wherein I have omitted any thing of the strength of them. But whereas Mr. Blake saith, he may keep up his way of reasoning without rules, as well as I mine, he doth untruly suggest that I keep up any way of reasoning without rules; my way of reasoning is such as the Apostle used 1 Cor. 11. 23. and best Divines court certain, to take that onelyonly as of Gods appointment in meer positive ceremonies of the New Testament, which is gathered by Christ or the Apostles, precept or example, in the New Testament. Pareus Comment▪ in Mat. 26. 26. quicquid igitur Dominus Jesus hic instituit atque praecepit necessariò est observandum, nec omittendum, quicquid non instituit nec praecepit non est quasi necessarium huic sacramento ob…rudendum sed rejiciendum. Hinc videam illi qui fractionem panis à Domino institutam omittunt vel damnans. Which doubtless is as true concerning Baptism, Mat. 28. 19. Jus Divinum Eccl. regiminis by London Ministers, part▪ 2. ch. 10. pag. 99. The power of Church government is not natural but positive. Therefore all such power claimed or exercised without such positive grant is meerly fine ti…ulo, & ipso facto null and void. And for his way of reasoning without rules, to wit, to argue thus, It was so in a meer positive ceremony of the old Testament now abolished upon this conceived reason, Ergo, it must be in like sort in another ceremony of the new Testament, which is conceived to have in part the same use, if he kept it up, it will condemn the reformation of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies, and justifie the retaining of them.
The thing I required in my Examen pag. 29. was this, I desire any learned man to set me down a rule from Gods Word, how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason, equity or analogy (to wit, in meer positive things to frame an addition to Gods worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances, whereof one is taken away, without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example) and where I must stay; when it will be superstition and wil-worship, when not, when my conscience may be satisfied, when not.
Mr. Blake, Vindic. foed. pag. 375. saies of me. Take them as he layes them down Apolog. pag. 142. 1. When parity of reason or analogy doth not institute any piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God, but onelyonly help to a right understanding of the nature, use and extent of that which is instituted. 2. When in our reasoning from analogy for the right understanding of any institution or ordinance, we do not rest solely on the analogy with other commands, but have our further reason for confirmation. 3. When the analogy holds full proportion in that for which it is brought, so that nothing can fairly be brought against the one, but may be also concluded against the other. Against these rules he takes three exceptions, 1. That never a one of these rules is brought out of Gods Word, for there is neither declaration of such rule, nor example to prove it. The first rule I thus illustrated, Ainsw. pag. 76. You find nothing in Scripture for excommunication of women, yet we find in the old Testament Miriam shut out of the Camp, Num. 12. 14. and in all penalties for transgression, in Scriptures we find no regard had of distinction of sex, and by consequence it is not to be denied, that women offending are within this censure. Mr. T. magisterially answers, The proving of excommunicating of women from Miriams shutting out of the Camp, Num. 12. 14. is not a Scripture Collection, but a meer device of men. If there be no such thing as excommunication in the New Testament (as Mr. T. saies pag. 92. and unsaies pag. 93.) then I confess what he saies, but if there be such an institution (which here is not a time to examine, as I am sure there is of Baptism) then it may be evinced from that place that it reacheth to both sexes. Mr. T. would have us to proceed by alterable rules of prudence. This prudence as may be inferred, is to reach to both sexes.
Answ. My answer notwithstanding this reply stands good. For 1. He brings not any declaration or example where the Holy Ghost argues thus, Excommunication extends to women, because Miriam was shut out of the Camp, Num. 12. 14. It is true, the Anti-Erastians, as Rutherfurd Divine right of Church-government, c. 7. q. 3. attempt to prove that separating from the congregregation for leprosie typified Christian excommunication, and thence Mr. Blake would prove Excommunication of women. But neither is any other than an humane device, it cannot be proved, that onelyonly scandalous sin answers to leprosie; original sin or sins of thoughts may as well be conceived to be signified by it, and separating from the congregation may as well typifie exclusion from heaven, as removal from the visible Church, yea more agreeable to the end, sith putting out of the Camp was not for amendment as excommunication was. That excommunication which the Scripture in the New Testament mentions as belonging to Christians, I grant is to be of women as well as men, but we need not run to the Old Testament to prove it, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 2 Thess. 3. 6. 14. 2 Tim 3. 5. prove it. If that Rev. 2. 20, belong to excommunication, a woman is in express terms made liable to it. I agree with Mr. Blake, In all penalties for transgression in Scripture we find no regard had of distinction of sexe, and by consequence it is not to be denied, that women offending are within this censure: so that by his own grant we need not run to analogy from ejecting the L…per, to prove excommunicating of women▪ It is not true, that …d unsay: my words are plain, distinguishing ju…dical Excommunication of superious from social, granting this latter, though demurring about the former. I have shewed my meaning plainly in the Addition of my Apology sect. 17. 19. in my letter to Mr. Robert Baillee of Scotland; what Mr. Blake holds in this point I cannot well tell. Some conference I had with him in London made me doubtful whether he were not somewhat of Erastus his judgement in this point; here he doth not say there is an institution of Excommunication as he is sure there is of Baptism. But I deny if there be an institution of excommunition that it may be evinced from Num. 12. 14. that it reacheth both sexes, much less that any precept may be thence gathered as obliging Christians in the use of excommunication: If there were a rule thence obliging, it would follow that excommunication is to be but seven dayes, and then the excommunicate to be received in again. What I said of ordering things by alterable rules of prudence is expressely meant of things concerning which we have not precise direction from Gods Word, which I suppose Mr. Blake will not deny to be true, though he is pleased to mention it, as if it were mine and not his tenent.
He saith further. I brought an instance not for a proof of it self, but illustration of another proof from Divines arguing against nonresidence from Ezek. 44. 8. This (he saies) is good after other arguments, but of it self is not convincing. Such arguments then are of validity when aright placed and marshalled orderly, I hope this of mine then is of force, it is not in the van but brings up the rear.
Answ. What I acknowledged, that the argument was good after other arguments, I mean to illustrate, not to prove, nor would I deny an argument from Circumcision of infants good to illustrate Baptism of infants, if it were before proved from precept or Apostolical example, manifested in express assertion, or deduced by good consequences. But the most of Paedobaptists make the argument from Circumcision their Achilles, and by their texts, and confession of a Committee of them, it was the main, if not the onelyonly argument in the Assembly. Mr. Bs arguments he puts in the van are no better, as is briefly shewed, Postscript, sect. 2. &c. Yet for the text Ezek. 44. 8. upon better consideration it seems not fit to illustrate a proof against nonresidence, sith the sin there charged was not leaving the Temple themselves, but admitting at the will of the Prince other than of the Tribe of Levi to be in Gods sanctuary, Num. 18. 4. yea even the uncircumcised, and thereby Gods holy things were profaned, and idolatry brought in. And therefore the observation of the New Annot. of the second edition is, that unlawful Ministers, false in doctrine, soul in life, are not to be admitted but ejected. But for Mr. Blakes rule, there is no one text brought out of Gods Word to prove it, that we may argue from analogy, so as to infer a duty from an use in meer positive worship of the Old Testament now abolished in the use of a rite of the New, without any other precept in the New Testament, when we do not institute thence any piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God, but onelyonly make it a help to a right understanding of the nature, use and extent of that which is instituted. Yea this rule seems to me to speak inconsistencies, For he supposeth that analogy may not institute any piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God, yet allows direction from analogy in the nature, extent and use of that which is instituted; whereas the nature, use and extent being the chief part, or the very service it self, and are determined in the institution Mat. 28. 19. if we may take direction from our conceived analogy in them, we may not onelyonly institute a piece of worship, or the least part of the service of God (which Mr. Blake denies) but also the main part, yea the very service itself, which hath no greater parts than the nature, use and extent. So that Mr. Blakes first rule, denying the use of analogy in the least part of Gods service, yet allowing it in the nature, use and extent of that which is instituted, is but a rule destroying in one part, what is built up in the other.
He adds further. The second and third rules he saies are not set down from any declaration or example in the Scripture. I desire him at his leisure to look again, and he may see the second rule confirmed from the Apostles way of thus arguing, 1 Cor. 9. and the Lord Christs Mat. 12. The third is confirmed by that reasoning of Christ with the Pharisees before mentioned, compared with our reasoning with Antipaedobaptists.
Answ. I have looked again, and I say still these are impertinently alleged by Mr. B. as being not one of them from such analogy as Mr. B. maintaines and I deny, as I have before shewed, and for Antipaedobaptists reasonings, they are the fairest that can be, keeping close to the confessed institution of Christ, and practice of the Apostles, and there is this objection which is fairly brought against Infant-baptism, that there is no command or example for it in Scripture, which cannot be brought against Infant circumcision, and for the hypotheses of Paedobaptists from the Covenant, seal, succession to circumcision, &c. there is not one of them true, as God willing shall be shewed in the process of this Review.
Mr. Blake goes on, His second exception is, These are very uncertain. For no reason is given, why they may not make a new worship, who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament. This very well answers Mr. T. his ingenuity, to which 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 pari valet etiam in compari. I think he never read de similibus idem est judicium: quod valet in simili valet etiam in re assimilata. If Mr. T. be agreed we will referre it to the Common Law, whether this way of reasoning will hold or no; if it fail, we shall need no other Levellers to take down that art, it will fall of it self, they have scarce any other way of arguing. But if these onelyonly illustrate (which I think no Logician will say) yet it is here sufficient, There was an institution of Circumcision and there is of Baptism; neither of these needs proof being not in controversie between us and our adversaries. The right subject of Baptism onelyonly is enquired after; the institution hath Infants we say within the verge, and are not excluded from it; For this we have our arguments which from the initiating sacrament of the Iews we onelyonly illustrate.
Answ. It seems Mr. Blake thought he had me here at a lift, and therefore after a message from him by words of mouth some years since, intimating he took my speech to be absurd, that an argument from analogy is but an argument à simili, he bestirs himself in this manner in this his book. But to stop him in his carreer. He tells me he had thought there had been much difference between these two kinds of arguments à pari & simili: which may be true, and yet my speech true also, what is an argument by analogy (I did not say à pari) but an argument à simili? He tells me, paria à similibus omninò differunt▪ saith Scheibler in his Topicks. Answ. It is true, Scheibler Top. c. 23. q. 2. saith so, But withal he tells us, that Titelman comprehends paria sub similibus, & Hunuaeus, similium & parium aut nullum aut pertenue discrimen esse ait, id que proptereà, quia eadem exempla referantur ad similia & paria. Yea even Scheibler himself c. 23. saith, Ad similia etiam pertinent parabolae & analogia; analogia est similitudo composita trium vel quatuor terminorum. Keckerm. syst. log. lib. 3. c. 6. sequitur locus qui est à similitudine composita, quae dicitur analogia seu proportio. Burgersdicius Instit. log. l. 2. c. 18. Intelligitur hoc loco non simplex sed composita similitudo sive analogia. And in the same place hath this passage even of analogy. Argumenta ex locis similium p…tita magis illustrant quàm probant, & ut ait Molinaeus afferunt magis dissentiendi pudorem quàm assentiendi necessitatem. Georg. Dounam. Comment. in Rami Dialecti. lib. 1. c. 21. Comparatio similium foreign dicitur, id est similitudo, dicitur etiam proportio Graecè foreign ut similia proportio nalia Graecè foreign & à mathemacis foreign, inquit Fabius lib. 5. c. 11. quidam à simili separaverunt, nos eam subjectam huic generi putamus. Nam ut unum ad decem, sic decem ad centum, simile certe est, & ut hostis sic malis civis. Ac certe proportio nihil aliud est, quam duarum rationum similit udo. Sic enim Euclides foreign Ratio autem seu foreign est duorum inter se terminorum collatio. Exempli gratia, ut 2. ad. 4. sic 3. ad. 6. proportio sive similitudo est, quia eadem est ratio seu qualitas 4. ad. 2. quae 6. ad. 3. scilicet dupla. Solent quidem hae voces à quibusdam ad quantitatum collectiones adstringi, verùm generalis sunt significationis. Nam & similitudo omnis proportio est, & qualitas omnis ratio est. And for the Dictionary. Pares▪ cum paribus facillime Congregantur in Cicero, is rendred by Cooper, like most readily gather in company with like. Par est, Plaut. it is like or equal. Par Co…at jungat que pari. Horat. Jam sumus Ergo Pares, Martial. These and innumerable instances besides shew that however in the Predicaments par is applied to discrete quantity, and simile to quality, yet they are taken without such exactness in other Authors, and that frequently parity is as much as likeness in quality and other conditions. And it is known that it is a rule in Logick, that qualities are sometimes expressed by words of quantity, as when we say a great Philosopher. And for the Topicks locus à pari is not à pari numero, or simili qualitate onelyonly properly so called, but also from any such argument which makes it probable that the like may be said of the one as of the other: locus à majori & minori is all one with locus à magis & minus probabili. I find in Keckerm. syst. log. l. 3. c. 7. this Canon. De paribus & similibus idem est judicium. I grant good use of arguments à paribus & à similibus in the Common Law, which they call from the same case: nor do I except against it as insufficient for Judges and Lawyers to determine by. Yet as in the Law when there is a Statute Law which determines any case, Judges and Lawyers use not then such arguments: so Christ having made an express Statute concerning Baptizing, and who are to be baptized, it is against the Law of God for Mr. Blake to run to his analogy, and to impose on mens consciences such uncertain conjectures as his analogy from circumcision, which are no better than his own and other Paedobaptists figments. And me thinks his words she… there is no strength in it, when he saith. The institution of Baptism hath infants within the verge, and are not excluded from it; For this we have our arguments, which from the initiating sacrament of the Jews we onelyonly illustrate. If other Paedobaptists would stand to this, we should be less cumbred with the argument from the Covenant and seal, which was Mr. Marshals and the Assemblies main if not onelyonly argument. However the Reader may here take notice that Mr. Blake confesses that he with others do onelyonly illustrate their arguments for Paedobaptism by the argument from the initiating sacrament of the Jews: which may move the considerate Reader to regard little that argument, and to look for other arguments from the institution comprehending infants, which have and will appear frivolous, as his exception here against me hath been.
Mr. Blake yet adds. The third likewise saith he, is uncertain and vain; For how shall we know when the analogy holds full proportion? when nothing can be fairly brought against the one, but may be also concluded on the other? when is the proportion full? if onelyonly when omnia sunt paria. When Mr. T. will destroy our old Logick to set up his own Divinity, it were to be wisht that he would furnish us with a new piece of Logick as he hath done of Divinity, that all learning humane and divine may stoop to his reformation. I have learnt these for maximes. Parium exacta est convenientia. Quod de uno parium affirmatur id affirmatur etiam de altero & e contra. But these with Mr. T. are vain and uncertain, and all arguments that dance not after his pipe, though our Saviors, St. Pauls, or any others.
Answ. There is nothing here but flirts and flams. Neither do I destroy old Logick, nor set up any other than what I have from the Scripture, yea and the best approved writers: nor need I any new Logick to help me in the reformation of Infant baptism, but such as Protestant Divines have used in reformation of Popish and Prelatical ceremonies. I do not say the maximes of Logick Mr. Blake here sets down are vain and uncertain, and all arguments that dance not after my pipe. But this I say, Mr. Blakes rule about arguing from analogy conceived between Circumcision and Baptism, or any other Old and New Testament rites, so as without precept or Apostolical example in the New Testament to frame an obligation on our consciences is vain, and uncertain, nor doth our Savior, or St. Paul, or any other sacred writer argue so, as in my answer above may be seen.
Mr. Blake, This can never happen (saith Mr. T.) in analogies between the rites of Moses and the rites of Christ. How did Paul then reason from a parity in the Jewish altar and the Lords table, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. Yea from manna and the rock to the Lords Table? as Pareus and other interpreters observe, that spiritual meat was eaten in the one and in the other, and a like danger of prophaning the one and the other.
Answ. I said true, it can never happen in analogies between the rites of Moses and the rites of Christ that all things should be even, or that there should be an exact agreement between them, so, as that which is affirmed of the one should be affirmed of the other, or that there should be the same reason in the use of the one as in the other, and thence inferred, what ought to be done in the one ought to be done in the other, they who are to partake of the one are to partake of the other. This is enough to overthrow the supposed parity between Circumcision and Baptism as inferring Infant baptism, that they agree not in this, that the institution of Baptism extendeth it to all those to whom the institution of Circumcision extends it. It is not true that Paul did reason 1 Cor. 10, 16, 17. from such a parity in the Jewish altar and the Lords table, as if what was done at the one, must be done at the other by reason of an answerableness in the one rite to the other. But he argues from that which is common to both, and to all other Religions whether true or false, that they which did partake either of them did thereby profess the same Religion, to prove that they which should eat of the Idol meats had communion with the Idol, and so with the Devil. It is not true that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. argues from manna and the rock to the Lords Table, as if he would prove that spiritual meat was eaten in the one, therefore in the other, or that it was dangerous to profane the one (for what danger was there in profaning the cloud, Sea, manna, or water out of the rock?) therefore there is the like danger of profaning the other, much less what was done in the one was to be done in the other by reason of analogy between them: But the Apostles argument is manifestly this, the Israelites being under the cloud, and passing through the Sea, was to them as Baptism to us, their eating manna and drinking water from the rock noted Christ as well as the Lords supper to us, and yet this could not save them from Gods displeasure when they sinned, therefore our sacraments will not shelter us from Gods wrath if we sin, which v. 6. 11. 12. of 1 Cor. 10. manifestly shew to be the force of the Apostles reasoning.
Mr. Blake adds. If when there is a parity in many things, it will be (saith he) uncertain how many parities will serve turn to make the proportion full. Here is an excellent dexterity to enervate so many Scripture arguments, that the weakness of this argument (in spight of all Logick) might appear; I have told him, and may tell him still, The Corinthians and the Pharisees wanted his head-piece, otherwise Christ and Paul had not gone so away with arguments of this nature. To satisfie him therefore fully, one parity will serve the turn. The exact proportion, say Logicians, is in quantum paria respectu tertii in quo paria comparantur. There are many imparities between the Lords supper and manna, yet they agree in this that both were spiritual meat; so between the Jewish altar and the Lords Table, but they agree, in this, that there is Ecclesiastical communion in both of them, to make the partakers of one body Ecclesiastical: many differences between Circumcision and Baptism, but so farre they agree (by Mr. T. his confession) that both are initiating sacraments; he hath multiplied many differences, but stands not to any as in application to this particular in difference.
Answ. There is in my answer nothing tending to enervate any Scripture argument, though what I say is enough to shew the vanity of Mr. Blakes arguments▪ there being no certain rule to shew how many or what sort of parities, general or special, essential or accidental will serve turn. Neither Paul nor Christ did argue thus, this was appointed in a rite of the Old Testament, therefore thus it is to be observed in a rite of the New. In Logick it is usuall to deny an argument valid à comparatis, though there be some parities, caeteris non paribus. It is true one parity will serve turn to make things compared even in the thing in which they agree. But there must be so many parities, or such a parity in things compared as make them equall in the reason of the thing inferred, otherwise one disparity proper to the matter is enough to enervate the argument. Which is very manifest in the argument about Infant baptism. For the formal reason of Circumcising Infants being the command, there is no parity to infer thence Baptizing of Infants without the parity of command. Which is the difference I have often stood to in application to this particular in difference; which is not whether Baptism and Circumcision be initiating sacraments, but whether an argument can be drawn to bind conscience in the use of the one from a command, in the use of the other without a precept in the New Testament.
Mr. Blake concludes this section thus: The third exception is, It is uncertain whether these rules be sufficient, whether there be no need of any more. It is certain then that Mr. T. cannot make it appear that they are insufficient, in case he could he would not have left them at any uncertainty: I shall judge them sufficient till I hear from Mr. T. the contrary.
Answ. I have made it appear that these rules are not sufficient to make good the proof from analogy disproved by me: nor was it formerly uncertain to me they are not sufficient; yet I might say truly, it is uncertain, whether these rules be sufficient, whether there be no need of any more to satisfie others, who may think them too few as well as otherwise imperfect. I for my part do judge them notwithstanding Mr. Blakes plea to be insufficient, and all arguments inferring duty as of Gods appointment in the use of a rite of the New Testament from some likeness or agreement with a rite of the Old Testament now abolished, without direction in the New, as frivolous and serving onelyonly to make wrangling, fill people with superstitions, and to weary Scholars, as I say in the Addition to my Apology in answer to Mr. Baillee sect. 15. Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. rediv. part. 4. ch. 1. against Dr. Sanderson, saying Divine right or institution is that First which is properly and primarily such; as what is (first) enjoined by express ordinance of God, or (secondly) what may be deduced therefrom by evident illation. Secondly that which is secondarily and consequently such. To which four things (say they) are required, 1. equity, 2. analogy, 3. insinuations in the new Testament, 4. continued practice of the Church, speaks thus. But this proceeding seems not sufficient. 3. There are things now in common use which have all the four conditions, and yet he will not say they are Divine institutions; as the observation of Easter &c: which yet are confessedly but Ecclesiasticall. And will Mr. Cawdrey make a Divine institution of Infant baprism which in the next page he saith we have no express command (nor express example of it) in Scripture, from grounds which at most can make but analogy without equity (for in meer positive rites there is no equity but the appointers will) insinuations in the New Testament or any truly wel proved continued practice of the Church? However Mr. Cawdreys words are sufficient to shew (though they oppose himself) that he counted analogy not sufficient, no not though accompanied with equity, insinuations in the New Testament and continued practice of the Church to make a thing of Divine institutution, but only Ecclesiastical. Which being granted, Mr. Marshals analogical argument (as he calls it) which with him the words of the Assembly intimate to be the chief prop of the Divine institution of Infant baptism, falls to the ground. But lets hear what Mr. B. saith also.
What need (saith Mr B.) the same thing to be done twice, except men had questioned the authority of the old?
Answ. The Holy Ghost hath delivered many things twice in the Old and New Testament, yet sure it was needful, else it is not likely it would have been done. Will Mr. B. charge the Spirit of God with needless committing so many histories, sayings of Christ &c. to writing, because they were written before? And to his question I say, If there were no other need, yet there was this, that the agreement of the Old and New Testament might appear, whereby the authority of both is greatly confirmed.
The whole Scripture saith he, is the perfect Word and Law of God: and if he should reveal all his mind in one part, what use should we make of the other.
Answ. The Gospels of the four Evangelists are the perfect Word and Law of God, they need no unwritten tradition for a supplement, in them those things are written by which we may have life, John 20. 31. yet there is use of Pauls Epistles. Suppose all Gods mind revealed in one part, so as no more doctrine or truth were in the rest than in one, yet there is use to confirm, explain, inforce that which is elsewhere written in that one part. And indeed this reasoning of his would prove that book or part of Scripture to be of no use, as suppose Marks Gospel, which is counted an a bridgement of another, or so much of that Gospel as reveals no more of Gods mind than another doth: which me thinks Mr. B. on better consideration should disclaim.
He goes on. How silent is the New Testament concerning a Christian Magistracy? which made the Anabaptists of old deny it. Where find you a Christian in the New Testament that exercised the place of a king, a Parliament man, or Justice of Peace, or the like? so of an oath before a Magistrate, of war, of the Sabbath, &c. how sparing is the new Testament? and why? but because there was enough said of them in the old? This also is the very case in the question in hand.
Answ. The Anabaptists (as they are called) of former times, or some of them, as it is reported (for their own books I never saw) of them, denied it lawful for Christians to be Magistrates, to war, to swear, not onelyonly because of the silence thereof in the New Testament, but also because they mistook the meaning of the texts, as forbidding them Is. 2. 4. Micah 4. 3. Zach. 9. 10. Iohn 18. 36. Mat. 20. 26. Mat. 5. 34, 35. Luke 22. 25, 26. &c. And so either did or seemed to do some of the Antient Christians, even those who are called the Fathers, of which may be seen Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. sanct. lib. 6. annot. 25, 26. And yet learned men do not think the New Testament silent of a Christian Magistrate, of an oath, or war, but that there are texts for them in the New Testament, of which some are brought by Grot. l. 1. de Iure Belli. ac Pacis c. 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 13. 1. &c. And though there be no example of a Christian King, Parliament man, or Justice of Peace, yet we find a Christian Centurion Act. 10. a Christian Deputy Act. 13. 12. Christian parents, husbands, masters, whose government is allowed, and rules given about the managing of it. Wherefore I conceive Mr. B. doth too much betray Christian Magistracy, souldiery, civil judicature, &c. who suggests to his Reader, as if the New Testament were silent of Christian Magistracy, and sparing about war, or oaths before a Magistrate. I confess the determination of the Old Testament is obligatory, because these things are moral, not peculiar to the Jews: but it doth not follow therefore that an argument is valid from analogy conceived between rites of the old Testament and the new, or the Jewish policy and the Christian to conclude an obligation to us in a rite of the New Testament, the rites of the Old Testament being meerly positive, not from the beginning proper to the Jews, and together with the policy of the Jewish Church now abrogated.
But there seems to be more difficulty about the Sabbath. Mr. Marshall had said in his Sermon, that all that reject the baptizing of Infants do and must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day. In my Examen part. 2. sect. 8. I denied it, there being something moral from the beginning in the Sabbath, not so in Circumcision, and there being something in the new Testament to prove an institution of the Lords day, nothing about infant baptism, To this Mr. M. replies, However the determinate day doth depend wholly upon institution, therefore they who reject that which depends upon positive institution, unless its institution can be expresly found in the New Testament, are as much at a loss for the Lords day as for baptizing of infants. 2. And the advantage is here for infant baptism above the Lords day, because in the proof of infant baptism there is only need to shew the subject to whom baptism is to be applyed, in the Lords day the institution of the day it self.
Answ. 1. That which he saies first confirms my exception; for therein he acknowledgeth there is something natural or moral by institution about a Sabbath, but shews nothing natural or moral in Circumcision.
2. I never rejected infant baptism because its institution cannot be expresly in so many words or syllables without consequence found in the New Testament, but because it is not there either in express words, or by good consequence.
3. If the determinate day require positive institution, there is institution brought out of the New Testament, if not express, yet by good consequence, which I count sufficient.
4. Yet I do not count Mr. Ms. consequence good by analogy in his Defence pag. 208. The Jews keep the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the week, ergo the Christians keep the Sabbath on the first day of the week. Of my judgement herein with other Antipaedo baptists more may be seen in my Praecursor, S. 15. And for the other thing Mr. M. adds, it is nothing to the business in hand, which is not about the greater or lesser necessity of clearing the institution of the Lords day or infant baptism, but about the principle by which infant baptism is rejected, whether it necessitate us to reject the Lords day: which I denyed, because this principle, That use of a meer ceremony or positive rite which hath neither precept nor example in the New Testament is to be rejected, will not reach the Lords day, which is not meerly positive, but in part moral, and hath precept and example for it in the New Testament, neither of which can be said of infant baptism.
That which Mr. B. adds next about the desperate highest sort of Antinomians, who wipe out all the Old Testament with a stroke, and that they may as well do so by the New Testament too if they please, and telling us the question whether infants should be baptized is turned into a higher, whether the Scriptures be the word of God or not? I might well let pass as being nothing to the point in hand, the denying of infant baptism to be in the Old or New Testament, neither being upon the higher or lower sort of Antinomians (if there be such difference of them) principle, they that deny infant baptism, being not necessitated to it, nor so far as I find in their writings (except what I have met with in Mr. Dens Books) denying the obligation of moral precepts of the Old Testament. All that they are necessitated to maintain is, that Ceremonial precepts of the Old Testament and imagined ANALOGIE between Baptism and Circumcision, the Jewish Church state and the Christian, are of no force to conclude a divine appointment concerning any Sacrament or meerly positive worship of the New Testament. And therefore his Pathetick Rhetorick, though elsewhere of use, yet in a dispute as this his writing should have been, hath the face either of malignancy towards his Antagonists, or of an indirect trick to prepossess people with horrour of that opinion, which he would refuse afore he comes to his Arguments, which is the chief part of his skill. And for what he saith further that incestuous marriages are not forbidden in the New Testament, and tells the men of Bewdley, That some of eminency that deny Infant baptism deny either incestuous marriages, or any thing else not forbidden in the New Testament to be sin, It is like the former, sith he might know that Antipaedo baptists are not necessitated to deny the obligation of the moral Law, in which the Laws about incestuous marriages appear to be in that the Canaanites were punished for their incests Levit. 18. 25. And Mr. B. if he had any mind to deal candidly with me, might have told them, that I was none of those men, sith he might (if he did read my books with any heed, of which I much doubt) have told them, that to this objection I answered in my Examen pag 111. 1. That the instance of the Lawes about forbidden marriages brought by Mr. M. is not to the point of the obligation of meer positive ceremonial worship, sith the command about prohibited degrees in marriage is moral 2. That yet there is for one branch of Incest an express censure in the New Testament, proving the unlawfulness of it. To which Mr. M. page 196. of his Defence saith, But how would you laugh at such a consequence in another, a man may not marry his Fathers wife, a thing which by the light of nature was abhorred among the Heathens, ergo all the degrees of forbidden marriages in Moses Laws stand firm? whereto I reply, I made no consequence but this, one branch of Incest is expresly censured in the New Testament, therefore it is unlawful. And this I only brought to shew the impertinency of Mr. M. allegation to prove the matter in question, it being granted by me that a morall precept of Moses is in force, thought not a ceremonial, and yet Mr. M. brings instances only of morals standing in force, none of ceremonials, and instead of cleering the pertinency of his own instances, makes a consequence as mine, which, saith he, I would laugh at in another, which dealing is cavilling not answering. The like to which is that which follows in him. The like say you against Polygamy, there is proof against it, Mat. 19. 5. 9. But is this an express prohibition of it? Must you not be compelled to go by a consequence to bring it in, which is ab I contend for? Whereto I reply. Though Mr. M. page 3. of his Defence charged me unjustly with a Socinian plot in my writings to question all conclusions deduced by consequence from Scripture, yet page 205. he saith of me, That I neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence to be sufficient for practice of some things in the worship of God, which are not expresly laid down in the New Testament, and therefore he might easily have seen, if he would▪ that to prove we may go by a consequence is not all he contends for, it being known to him that I grant it. But this he is to prove, or else he still is besides the business, that a consequence is good from analogy of an abrogated rite of the Old Testament to prove a Divine appointment concerning a meer positive rite of the New Testament, till this be done, his, and Mr. Bs. and Mr. Bls. arguings are quite besides the business in hand and carry an apparent shew of Sophistry, not of just disputing.