Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 6
SECT. VI.
Mr. Blakes exception against the Major, that such institution or example as I require for infant-baptism is unnecessary, is refelled.
AGainst these arguments (chiefly the two first) brought to prove that infants are not to be baptized, according to the institution Matth. 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles (besides what is alleged and refuted already) many things are alleged. Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 411. construes the objection, that infant-baptism wants an institution, as if the meaning were that it wants an institution with limit to infant age, and then talks thus at randum, This Objection, if it have force in it, followed home, will overthrow all baptism at any age, and every other new Testament ordinance whatsoever: For according to this rule a person must bring a precept for one of his age to be baptized. But this is M. Blakes mistake of the objection; For in it an institution is not required with limit to infant age, but such an institution as comprehends by any description ordinarily infant age. But then, saith he, upon the same account church-members in covenant of any age ought to be baptized, and so the institution is not in question (about that there is an agreement) but whether infants be in covenant, whether they be any church-members, is to be disputed, which already is satisfied.
Answ. It is false which he faith that there is an agreement about the institution, I deny that the institution is, Baptize persons in covenant, except he mean persons in covenant by their own profession and promise, or that it is all one to baptize disciples and to baptize persons to whom God hath promised, or covenanted Christ: For then the Jews yet uncalled should be baptized, to whom Gods covenant is, Romans 11. 27. It is false also that upon the same account upon which the institution of baptism with limit to infancy is waved, church-members in covenant of any age (in Mr. Blakes sense) ought to be baptized, and that the question is only whether infants be in covenant, whether they be any members. He knows well that I yield that infants are in the covenant of grace, in respect of Gods promise to as many of them as are elect, whether believers children or not, and that I grant that many of them are members of the invisible Church; yea he himself in his 43. chap. of Vindic. foederis sect. 3. had disputed against my tenet, denying a connexion between the covenant and initial seal, and therefore this speech of his shews either his oscitancy, or his willingness to mislead.
He then repeats his arguments in his Birth privilege in the same words he then used to prove the institution to comprize infants, which were answered in my Examen sect. 13. and my answer there vindicated in my Postscript sect. 14, 15, 18. in answer to the 11 chapter of Mr. Blakes answer to my Letter. I will not here repeat what I then answered, but reply to what he excepts in his Vindic. Foederis pag. 413. where he doth not shew insufficiency in what I say Apol. page 147. to answer his allegation of Isaiah 49. 22. But saies he doubts not I abuse my memory. Concerning which I yield it not unlikely my memory did fail me in that thing, of his alleging Isaiah 49. 22. as an argument by it self. I hope this may satisfy Mr. Blake, and the Reader, if he read the places in my writings here mentioned, may be satisfyed that it proves not any thing for Mr. Blakes purpose. Likewise for what I answered in my Postscript sect: 18. to his allegation of Mat. 18. 5. & 10. 42. Mark 9. 41. Luke 9. 47, 48. he refers to Mr. Baxters book page 22. I shall refer the Reader to my answer to Mr. B. here.
M. Blake only adds, that the denyal that infants are within the verge of the Commission, Mat. 28. 19. involves the Apostles and all that are imployed in their work in succession, in a contradiction. The nations are to be discipled: Infants bear a part of the nation: and yet infants are in an incapacity wholly of it. See Mr. Cooks answer to the Challenges of the Anabaptists of Stafford, pag. 14.
I reply, Mr. Blakes words are so obscure (as many of his speeches are) that I understand not his meaning when he saith, The denyal that infants are within the verge of that commission Matthew 28. 19. involves the Apostles, and all that are imployed in their work in succession, in a contradiction, whether he mean thus, my denial involves the Apostles in a contiadiction to their own sayings, or to Christs words: either way understood, I discern not any truth or shew of truth in Mr. Blakes words. Christs words are a command, and not an enunciation, and therefore there can be according to exact expression no contradiction to them; and for any sayings of the Apostles which should be involved in a contradiction by my denial, it is beyond any art of divination of mine to ghesse which and where they should be. And for his syllogism it is false, consisting of four terms, 1. The nations, 2. to be disciples, 3. infants, 4. bear a part of the Nation. If it were good I might from the parallel place Mark 16. 15. argue in the same manner, Every creature is to have the Gospel preached to it; Infants bear a part of every creature, therefore to infants the Apostles were to preach the Gospel. Nor is there any contradiction in these two Propositions, The nations are to be discipled, and yet infants are in an incapacity of it, no more than in these, God hath granted repentance to the Nations, Acts 11. 18. yet not to infants, All nations and all people are exhorted to praise God, Rom. 15. 11. in him shall the nations trust, verse 12. yet not an infant meant. The speeches are so plain Acts 15. 3. declaring the conversion of the nations, verse 7. God made choice among us, that the nations by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe, verse 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Nations to take out of them a people for his name, verse 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Nations upon whom my name is called, verse 19. Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Nations are turned to God. Acts 20. 25. As touching the Nations (for the word translated Gentiles and Nations is the same in all these places) which believe, we have writen, and yet in no one of these places are infants meant under the term [Nations] And when our Lord Christ expresseth what he said Matthew 28. 19. Disciple all nations, by the words preach the Gospel to every creature, Mark. 16. 15. as the comparing the texts shews, and interpreters confess; I know not how to conceive with what Spirit Mr. Blake is moved, who doth so often seek to impose his stale all egations so often and so plainly refuted. Will any man conceive that Christ bid them preach to infants, and yet his bidding them to disciple all nations is as much as to bid them go preach to all nations? If men do swallow down such fancies, I can hardly judge but that they are willing to be deceived. In Mr. Cookes book in the place to which he refers me, I find no more then in Mr. Blakes, and therefore need give no other answer than what is given to him.
But Mr. Blake addes. For that part of the objection, that there is no example in the New Testament scripture of infant-baptism, I answer, First, for an example of baptism with limit to any one precise number of years or daies, we have but one that I know (if that) in Scripture, and that is of Christ, who was (as is computed) about the age of thirty when he was baptized, if this be prest and followed all must at that alone be for baptism, and no other of any age may be baptized. Mr. T. had many years above thirty over his head, when I heard him say, that he was satisfyed, that though an infant ought not to be baptized, yet being baptized in infancy, when in years he did make profession of the Gospel this was valid, which he spake in justification of his own baptism; though now (as errour is creeping) of an Antipaedobaptist he is grown up to an Anabaptist, and is rebaptized, and in his Praecursor glories in his shame of rebaptizing others.
Answ. The Objection as by me framed doth not intimate a pleading the necessity of an example with limit to any one precise number of years or daies, as a rule to be followed in baptism, but rests in the institution and examples in the new Testament as sufficient to direct whom to baptize, to wit disciples, repenting believers in Christ by profession, whatever be their age, nor did Mr. Bl. ever hear me press Christs age as the exact rule for the time in which Christians should be baptized; and therefore did not Mr. Bl. take occasion to vent his jerks and quips (in which he is frequent) he had forborn to recite my speech in that manner he doth. Concerning which I do not think I did then expresse my self, to wit in the year 1643. (for sure it was in that year that I spake with M. Blake now above nine years since) in the very words he sets down; I do rather conceive by the words in my Exercit. pag. 22. composed about that time, that I spake more cautelously. But had I said it, it only shews I received light by degrees, as in all reformations it hath been. Neither am I an Anabaptist, nor do I rebaptize, and though I glory not in any thing of mine, yet count it not my shame, but my honour, that God hath used me as an instrument to reform the superstitious opinion and prophane practice of infant-baptism, or rather (as now it is used) sprinkling or perfusion, and do bless God with rejoicing, that amidst so many temptations, reproaches and other sufferings, my heart hath been obedient to Christs command of being baptized, and baptizing, though to his own shame, he makes it my shame that I have done my duty in this particular.
Mr. Blake adds. There are many things of which we make no question, and yet we have no example of them. I instanced in the tryal of the suspected wife by the water of jealousie, there is no example for it in all the old Testament Scripture; and for womens receiving the Lords Supper, there is not a particular institution, or any particular precedent for it in the New Testament: See further instances in Mr. Cooks Treatise before mentioned, page 21. They cannot give us any instance of any one trayned up by believing parents for baptism, and assoon as he could give an account baptized, not one child of a believer brought up for covenant and not in covenant.
Answ. I may say also there are many things of which we make no question, and yet we have no example of them: It is enough if either precept or example approved could be brought of infantbaptism. Of the tryal by the water of jealousie there was no need of example to direct, when the rule was so plain. Mr. Cooks instances are to no more purpose than Mr. Blakes, being brought against them who deny proof by consequence, which I do not. Their need be no example brought according to my principles of a believers child catechized first and baptized after, it is enough to us that such a one is comprehended in the institution being a disciple, Christ never requiring us to enquire whose children they are, but what is their faith and profession, and to baptize disciples and believers in him. If Mr. Blake mean [by being brought up for covenant] to be taught the knowledge of the true God, Ishmael the child of a believer was brought up for covenant and not in covenant. Of womens, who are Christian believers or disciples, receiving the Lords Supper, my speech Examen pag. 112. was right, there is institution and example of it in the New Testament, and this is justified in my Postscript s. 11. But Mr. Blake hath a fling at my instances, though his fellow Paedobaptists count them very plain, he is minded it seems to be ad oppositum to me in all I say in this argument. The particular command for womens receiving the Lords Supper I said was foreign 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let Mr. Fox in the Acts and Monuments of the Church relates how in the disputation at Oxf. 1554. with Mr. Latimer Dr. Weston objected this thing, and Mr. Latimer answered, he found a womans receiving the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11. 28.a man examine himself, and so let him eate, this saies Mr. Coleman is as cleer for women as men; But then, saith Mr. Blake John 7. 22. is Moses his command, the Jewes practice with Christs approbation, in the same comprehensive latitude in regard of both sexes, as in Saint Paul for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I answered, true, if the subject matter did not limit the word foreign to the male John 7. 22. it being a relation of the Jews practice, which was only to circumcise the male, which it doth not 1 Cor. 11. 28. But then saith Mr. Blake, my express formal command is lost, they are not expressed but included only, and by consequence, which will not be denied either to Mr. Coleman, or Mr. Blake. Answ. This is enough for me which he grants, that women are included in that precept 1 Cor. 11. 28. though by consequence only, for then there is institution in the New Testament for their receiving the Lords Supper, and therefore this objection of Mr. Blake and others against my requiring either precept or example of infant-baptism in the New Testament in express terms or by good consequence, by requiring me to shew a like precept or example for womens receiving the Lords Supper, is answered by his own grant, that there is such a precept for womens receiving the Lords Supper, as I deny to be for infant-baptism. Yet I still say it is more than by consequence, even an express precept in formal terms for womensMr. Will. Cook Font. uncov. pag. 16. The word foreign notes the species or kind of man distinct from other creatures, without difference of age or sex. receiving the Lords Supper, which is 1 Cor. 11. 28. For I take that to be an express command in formal terms, which is in the imperative mood, and in a word that according to Grammar construction comprehends both men and women, there being no circumstance restraining it to the male. And in this sense Mr. M. saith truly in his Sermon pag. 35. Express command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptize them, though Jews are only comprized under the general term [all nations.]
Mr. Blake goes on. He further saith, that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an express example in formal terms of womens receiving the Lords Supper; we being many are one bread and one body, for we are partakers of one bread. I demand of Mr. T. whether the Apostle speaks in the person of Christians or in the person of women? not of women sure, for he takes in himself, and he was a man, and then the formality of an express example falls. When it is said that the whole house of Israel is circumcised in the flesh, Mr. T: will not yield that there is a proof, not by any consequence, that women, though of the house of Israel were virtually circumcised: but all partaking of one bread, there is a proof formal and express that they were at the Lords Supper.
Answ. An expresse formal example is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 17. of womens receiving the Lords Supper, there being relation of partaking the bread in the indicative mood, and the term [we all] according to Grammar construction the matter not excluding them comprehending women as well as men. For the Apostle under [all we] expresly comprehends all the many that were one bread and one body, who are all Christians both Jewes and Gentiles, 1 1 Cor. 12. 13. Mr. Blakes demand makes a disjunction of members coincident, which is illogical; However to it as it is I say the Apostle speaks in his own person, not in anothers, yet he speaks of the persons of all Christians both men and women, and he takes in as expresly the women as the men, and the formality of the example is of one as well as the other. As for the other passage alleged by Mr. Blake the Predicate [circumcised in the flesh] being necessarily understood of actual circumcision, there is a necessity to understand the Subject [the whole house of Israel] synecdochically, else the speech would not be true. But tropes are not to be made but where there is a necessity to make good the speech, or to make it agree with the scope, circumstances and other expressions: of which there is no necessity 1 Cor. 10. 17. to verify the speech of the Apostle, but that it is true of women as well as men, and must be so understood without a trope, and therefore there the speech is to be expounded according to the plain Grammatical meaning as expressed formally without the like trope.
Mr. Blake saith of me. He brings Acts 20. 7. that the disciples on the first day of the week came together to break bread. Here is an example as express and formal. Mr. T. cannot infallibly prove by help of consequence much less expressly that there was a woman there. At that night meeting there might be none but men, as at the first institution. It can never be an express example till it be made appear that none are disciples but women.
Answ. I had thought when it is said, it is appointed unto men once to dy, Heb. 9. 27. death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned, Rom. 5. 12. it had been express and formal for womens and infants dying though there be other men than women and infants, and yet in both places [men] in Greek is in the masculine gender, [Disciples] in the Acts note all Christians Acts 11. 26. Tabitha is named a disciple Acts 9. 36. and therefore there being no reason to make a trope Acts 20. 7. in the word [Disciples] Christian women as well as men are comprehended. And by breaking bread, say the Assembly at Westminster Answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren page 67. Sacramental breaking of bread is understood generally by all, Acts 20. 7. The like is said by Chamier Panst. Cathol. tom. 4. l. 7. c. 6. s. 13. And it is confirmed, 1. from the text, the words importing that the breaking of bread is there meant which was the end of their customary meeting on the Lords day; But this was Sacramental, Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. where the Lords Supper is called breaking bread as the usual known term among Christians. This seems to me infallible proof, that women were there, or which is to my purpose, that usually they did meet with other disciples to break break. As for what Mr. Bl. addes, That if I had the texts in hand of a whole houshold baptized, they would be sufficiently formal for infant-baptism, I tell him no: for I could not have withstood the clear light to the contrary, from the words Acts 16. & 18. and elsewhere, which limit the whole house to persons that did hear the word, believe, receive, fear God, &c. Ampsing. dialog. contra Anabap. page 206. Idem quo que vobis responsum volumus ad loca illa, Act. 16. 34. 1 Cor. 16. 15. Tit. 1. 11. ubi quaedam de totis familiis enunciantur, quae non nisi de adultis accipi possunt. It is false that the Commission Matthew 28. 19. is to baptize Nations, but disciples in or out of nations, as is proved above. Providence hath not ordered that nations including infants have been brought into the Church as Christ appointed, to wit by preaching the Gospel: but the national Churches are gathered (otherwise than Christ appointed) by human laws and infant-baptism. I value as much the Churches practice as ever, but it is false that in no controverted thing the Church is found so unanimous as in this of infant-baptism. It is more unanimous about Episcopacy Prelatical, use of the sign of the cross, and many other things, as may be seen in Mr. Sprint of Conformity pag. 85. &c. I shall in convenient time I hope shew the mistakes of Paedobaptists plea for infant-baptism from antiquity.
The other speech of Mr. Blake, That which will speak for infants to receive them into Heaven, will speak also to receive them into the Church by baptism, is not true. For Election, the Covenant of Grace, a secret work of an initial, habitual, seminal or actual holiness or faith, being supposed, may speak to receive them into Heaven, yet not to baptism, Nor doth it follow that if want of faith exclude them from baptism, then by the text Mark 16. 16. the same want of faith excludes from salvation. For (as I answer in my Praecursor s. 6.) a want of faith dogmatical excludes from baptism, and yet excludes not infants from salvation.