Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 2
SECT. II.
That no good argument can be drawn from the positive Rites of the old Testament, to prove a divine appointment in positive Rites of the new; nor is it true as Mr B. saith, that Infants admission into the Church is fully determined in the old Testament.
MAster B. begins the dispute, pag. 1. with a preface tending to move affections, otherwise than pleaders before the Aropagites were to do, and was desired of Mr. B. that Logick might be used, and Rhetorick for born; but however the preface is framed, and takes with many, yet so many mistakes in it are shewed in my Praecursor, as might deterre readers from blinding their eyes by the dust raised in it. He then tells us he must needs lay down several positions that must necessarily be well understood before they could understand the point in hand, and these are no fewer than ten, which if they had been all omitted, I see not but that the point might have been as well understood as now it is. I do not remember where master B. makes any use of them for clearing the point, and therefore I judge them, with his three propositions, chap. 2. to serve onelyonly to forestall mens minds, if they be not used to dull the Readers attention ere he come to the point, as the Turks use their Asapi to blunt the Christians swords by killing them afore their Janizaries fall on. But what ever the intent was, there are sundry passages that require animadversions; His first position is, That the holy Ghost speaks of somethings in scripture more fully, and of others more sparingly, which I grant to be true; but I like not his instance when he saith, that the scripture speaks little concerning the heathen that never heard the Gospell, whether any of them be saved? or upon what terms he dealeth with them for life or death? Far is it [saith he,] from my reach, to discover the Holy Ghosts mind in this: whereas me thinks the Scripture speaketh much of this, Ephes. 2. 1, 2, 3, 12. Rom. 1. & 2. & 3. & 11. Chapters. And to be doubtfull, whether they that never heard the Gospel were saved, and upon what terms God dealt with them for life or death, is in my apprehension to be unresolved whether there be not another way of salvation than by Christ; whether a man living and dying a professed Idolater without repentance, may not be saved by his moral dem…anour; and whether Pelagianism be not true, that by nature without grace men may be saved. Vedelius in his book de deo synagogae charged Barlet the Arminian with a dangerous position in writing in verses before a book of Manasseh Ben Israel the Jew, that the God of Iews and Christians was one, and intimating that Iews remaining in denial of Christ might have God for their God, contrary to Iohn 8. 24. and 14. …6. Act. 4 12. 1 Iohn 2. 23. and 5. 12. 2. Iohn 9. How much more dangerous a conceit must this be, much lessening the grace of God in Christ, tending to Pelagianism, and to make Idolatrie a venial sin, to imagine that men that never had the Gospel nor the Prophets, but were such, even the best of them, as are described Rom. 1. 21. &c. that they should be saved, when the Scripture so plainly tels us, Revel. 21. 8. 27. & 22. 15. that all Idolaters shall be without? But I leave master B. to Doctor Prideaux his lecture de salute Ethnicorum to resolve him in this point.
And whereas he saith the Scripture speaketh sparingly of Infants, it seems then some at least of his texts he brings for Infants discipleship and visible Church-membership are impertinent, sith they are so many; and whereas he instanceth in the case of Insant-Baptism among such things as are not plainly determined in Scripture, he doth thereby gainsay the title of his book, which he cals plain Scripture proof of Infants baptism; nor is he relieved by what he replies in his praefestinant is morator, where nothing is brought out of his words, before or after, wch shews I have not rightly alleged his words in my Praecursor, Sect. 2. And his words pag. 9. [the grounds of it are very easie and plain, though to many it be difficult to discern how it is from those grounds inferred] do confirm my observation, that he contradicted his title, sith the inference which is the proof, is in them confessed to be difficult. But what he saith in the words following, pag. 3, 4. is more exactly to be scanned, as touching the main Basis of Paedo-Baptism. The new Testament (saith Mr. B.) speaks more sparingly of that which is more fully discovered in the old, what need the same thing be so done twice, except men had questioned the authority of the old? the whole Scripture is the perfect word and law of God; & if he should reveal all his mind in one part, what use should we make of the other? How silent is the N. T. concerning 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 before in the old; This also is the very case in the question in hand. The main question is not, by what sign members are to be admitted into the Church? or whether by a sign or without? But at what age they are to be admitted members? now this is as fully determined in the old Testament, as most things in the Bible, and therefore what need any more?
Answ. Mr. B. here asserts in the question about Infant baptism, that it is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible, at what age persons should be admitted members into the Church, and therefore what need any more? which if true, Mr. B. had done well to have spared the allegation of Mat. 28. 19. Acts 15. 10. Luk. 9. 42. 48. Mat. 18. 5. Mark 9. 41. Rom. 11. 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26. Mat. 23. 37, 38, 39. Rom. 4. 11. 1. Cor. 7. 14, Mark 9. 36, 37. and 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. and others the allegation of Act. 2. 38 39. and 16. 15. 1. Cor. 10 1, 2. for Infant-baptism, not troubling the Reader with more, when, if he speak true, the proof might have been made by fewer texts; Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora. And indeed when Paedo-baptists speak not like wranglers, but ingenuously confesse the naked truth, they acknowledge there is no expresse precept or example for Infantbaptism in the new Testament, but they must flye to the old, Master Marshal in his sermon of baptizing Infants, pag. 34. Doctor Young in the passage cited in my Praecursor, Sect. 22. Eaton and Taylor, defence, pag. 57. Do not you conclude Infants must be baptized, not because the new Testament expresly saith so, but because you find it in the old; the Jews children were circumcised, therefore Christians children must be baptized. The assembly at Westminster answer to the dissenting Brethren touching Ordination, pag. 186. If par ratio will not serve turn to prove an ordinance of Christ, or at least to warrant a practice, how will our brethren prove baptizing of infants? Which confessions me thinks should deterre Paedobaptists fom alleging precept and practice of it out of the new Testament; or at least readers and hearers should learn more wit than to be cheated thereby, when their own confessions do shew that they are brought onelyonly to fill up books, and to deceive the poor simple readers. But let us view Mr. B. words better.
He saith, the main question is not by what sign members are to be admitted into the Church, or whether by a sign or without, but at what age they are to be admitted members? now this is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible. Mr. M. in his defence, pag. 195. saith thus; First, for the point of will worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion, That all things belonging to Christian worship, even in the circumstances of it, even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applyed, must expresly be set down in the new Testament; if you prove not this, you say nothing to the purpose, for this is our very case, pag. 205. This about Infantbaptism touches but a circumstance of age.
Answ. Tis true, the main question is, whether infants are to be baptized? But they that deny it, do so, not meerly because of their age, but becauseCollings vindic. minist. Evan. pag. 67. It is a rotten distinction to distinguish of substantial and circumstantial acts in businesses relating to Gods worship, in which we must have an eye to every tittle of institution. Cawdrey Sab. Rediv. part. 2. ch. they appear not ordinarily to be disciples of Christ, or believers, or capable of these in act. Their admission by baptism is questioned because of their nondiscipleship, not precisely by reason of their age. Mr. B. in his Appendix to his plain scripture proof &c. pag. 302. And that in so material a thing as Infantbaptism, and so about the proper subject of so great an ordinance; and if you judge Infantbaptism a meer circumstance, you 7▪ pag. 277. The subject or material thing is the substance of a command.are much mistaken. If the question about Infantbaptism touch but a circumstance of age, then the question about Infant-communion toucheth but a circumstance of age, and if men may without precept or example in the new Testament of Infant baptism be acquitted from willworship, because it toucheth but a circumstance of age, by the same reason they may be acquitted from willworship, who give Infants the Communion, because it toucheth but a circumstance of age. Our Lord Christ and his Apostles having determined who are to be baptized, it is manifest willworship or humane Invention to baptize others than he and they have appointed; and it is so much the worse, because it is not onelyonly about the proper subject of so great an ordinance, but also the main end and use of baptism, by altering of which the ordinance is quite changed into another thing, and the Church of God exceedingly corrupted. But letting that passe, admission of Infants into the Church (Mr. B. saith) is fully determined in the old Testament; if he mean not the Christian visible Church, he speaks ambiguously, and if his words be meant of the Christion visible Churah (of which onelyonly is the question) then it is as fully determined in the old Testament, that Infants should be admitted into the visible Church Christian as most things in the Bible, as that God made heaven and earth, idols are vanities, fornication a sin, &c. But surely none will believe Mr. B. in this, but he that is so simple as to believe every word. Me thinks he should not have said such a word at Bewdly, where he saith in his History, were many antient stayd Christians, that would not as children be t…st up and down, and carried too and fro with every wind of doctrine, except he presumed they would take what he said, as true, without trial. Formerly this was the received doctrine, that Baptism was the sacrament of admission into the Christian Church, that Baptism and the Lords supper were the sacraments of the new Testament, instituted by Christ himself, that Circumcision. and the Passeover, and the whole Jewish Church policy are abrogated, which if true, it is very bold to say, that Infants are to be admitted into the visible Church Christian, is as fully determined in the old Testament, as most things in the Bible, when there is not a word in all the old Testament about the age, or way of admission into the visible Church Christian. But where doth Mr. B. find this admission so fully determined in the old Testament? In the dispute at Bewdly he denied the precept of Circumcision to be the ordinance of visible church-membership, And in my Praecursor, Sect. 6 I say, as yet I can fi…d no such law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-mem-bership save what is injoyned concerning Circumcision. To wth he replies in his Praefestinantis morator, What not yet? And yet dare you boast so confidently of your prepared confutation? yet can you find no law that made women Church-members? nor the uncircumcised males in the wilderness? O the power of prejudice! Whereto I say, though I boast not of my prepared confutation, but speak of it modestly, yet I find no cause to be lesse confident of my prepared confutation, because of these frivolous interogations of Mr. B. It is not the power of prejudice which is the reason why I find not a law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership, but because I do not see or read of law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership besides that of Circumcision, either upon my own search, or Mr. Bs. or others shewing; I asked once a Preacher at Bewdley where it was? he told me it was Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. I told him I find a relation of a fact, of a thing that was done, but not a word of any law, ordinance precept or command, determining thus it shall be, this shall be done▪ &c. or any other form of speech that imports a law, ordinance, precept, statute or command to make female infants visible Churchmembers; much lesse do I find an appointment, law, ordinance, that some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church (which Mr. B. should have proved to be unrepealed, according to his assertion, cap. 5. 26.) except the law of Circumcising infants. And therefore my confutation of Mr. Bs. argument, cap. 5. might be sufficient, if I only denied such an ordinance or appointment, till it be shewed. I do confess my weakness in my answering at Bewdley, in that I permitted Mr. B. to run on in the proof of an ordinance unrepealed, afore he had shewed me where that ordinance is, but I perceived therein what I feared still, that I should not in a verball dispute observe what was necessary to be heeded. But I may say with truth Mr. B. either understands not what is meant by a law, ordinance, appointment liable to repeal, or still binding, or loves to pervert words from the genuine sense, as he did the word [accuse;] or else he is unwilling to speak plainly, who being provoked to shew in what text of Scripture that pretended law, ordinance, appointment is, doth not yet shew it. And for his assertion here, it exceeds all faith, that infant admission into the Church (meaning the visible Church Christian) should be as fully determined in the old Testament, at most things in the Bible.,
But wherever, Mr. B. imagines it is fully determined in the old Testament, the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith, chap. 25. Art. 4. allege but one text out of the old Testament, viz. Gen. 17. 7. 9. for admission of Infants by Baptism into the visible Church, and if Mr. M. their Champion in this Point expresse their minds, they deduce Infant-baptism from this principle, All Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them. Which how false it is, how contrary to the Tenet of Divines former and later, is shewed in my Examen, part▪ 3. Sect. 12. to which I may add the Assemblies confession of faith, chap. 19. Art. 3. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. And if all of them be abrogated, how can it be true that the law about circumcising Infants still binds? But Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 195. conceives his argument from the analogy of the Ceremonial law of Circumcision, which he calls his Analogical argument, pag. 201. good; on the contrary I deny any argument from analogy of the Ceremonial law good in meer positive ceremonies to prove thus it was in the old Testament, therefore it must be so in the new. And thus I argue,
1. Arguments from Analogy in meer positive Rites of the old Testament to make rules for observing meer positive Ceremonies of the new wthout institution gathered by precept or apostolical example or other declaration in the new Testament, do suppose that without Institution there may be par ratio, a like reason of the use of the one Ceremony as the other. But this is not true; For in positive Rites there is no reason for the use of this & not another thing in this manner to this end,Cawdrey Sab▪ Rediv. Part. 2. Chap. 6. pag. 226. A …teer positive law which is special to some person or nation is of no force under the Gospel, unlesse it be ratified by the Gospel. Baxter plain scripture proofs pag. 341. Nature telleth us nothing of meer positives by, or to persons, but the will of the appointer. For there is not any thing natural or moral in them, they have no general equity, they are supposed to be meerly not mixtly positive. Therefore where there is not the like Institution, there is not a like reason; and therefore this opinion of Analogy in positive Rites from a parity of reason without Institution in the new Testament is a meer fancy, and no good ground for an argument. To apply it to theMr. Collings caveat for Proph. pag. 77. The equity of the ceremomonial law is a dark notion to me, Christ is she equity of it. The Apostle cals it a shadow; the equity thē of it is the substance of a shadow, and what that is I cannot divine besides Christ whose shadow it was. I alwaies understood by the ceremonial laws those laws that concerned the worship of God in that time, which were wholly ceremonial and abolished being fulfilled in Christ. case in hand, Circumcision and Baptism are meerly positive ordinances; Mr. B. cals them, p. 9. Positives about worship. Generally Sacraments by Divines are reckoned among meer positives; Chamier. Panstr. Cath. Tom. 4. l. 2. c. 12. Sect. 20. nulla vera ratio Sacramentorum potest consistere absque institutione. l. 7. c. 10. Sect. 1. nullum Sacramentum est à natura sua, itaque prorsus ab institutione. The places are innumerable in Protestant writers and others to prove this; were it not that I find my Antagonists often forget what is elsewhere yielded by them, I should not say so much, the thing being so plain, that there is nothing natural or moral in them, because till they were appointed (which was thousands of years after the creation) they were not used, nor taken for signs of that which they signified. The reason▪ then of Baptism and Circumcision is meerly Institution; if then there be not the like Institution, there is not the like reason. This argument is confirmed by Mr. M•. grant, Defence, pag. 92. 182. the formal reason of the Iews being circumcised was the Command of God▪ therefore there is not the like reason of Infant-baptism as of Infant-circumcision without the like command of God. But there is no expresse command for Infant-baptism as Mr. M. confesseth, therefore there is not par ratio, like reason of the one as the other.
2. I thus argue, If all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments, positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews, be now abrogated, then no argument upon supposed analogy or parity of reason from the institution of those abrogated Rites can prove a binding rule to us about a meer positive Rite of the new Testament. For how can that make a binding rule to us about another meer positive Rite without any other Institution, which it self is abrogated? that which binds not at all, binds not about another thing, v. g. Baptism. But all the Laws and Commands about the Sacraments, positive Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews, are now abrogated, as is proved in my Examen, part. 3. sect. 12. and confessed by the Assembly Conf. of faith, chap. 19. art. 3. ergo none of them bind, This argument is confirmed by the words of Mr Cawdrey Sabbat. Rediv. part. 2. chap. 7. sect. 7. pag. 263. No ceremonial commandement can infer a moral commandement. The reason of our assertion is this, because partial commandments given to some Nation or persons (as the Ceremonial precepts were) cannot infer a general to oblige others, even all the world. Again, Sect. 10. pag. 276. First it is so in all other like special and ceremonial Commandements concerning dayes, whensoever the particular day was abrogated, the whole Commandement concerning that day was utterly abolished, the Law of Circumcision and of the Passeover is expired as well as the sacramental and ceremonial actions commanded by that law.
This Mr. M. conceived he had prevented by supposing that in some commands about the Sacraments of the Iews, are some things that belong to the substance of the Covenant, and limiting his assertion to those. And when in my Examen pag. 115. I argued, that in no good sense it can be true that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews contained things belonging to the substance of the Covenant, he tels us pag. 198, 199. of his Defence, that our Sacraments have the same substance with theirs, the same general nature, end, and use; which he makes in these things, theirs were seals of the Covenant, so ours, &c. But none of all these are to the purpose, his allegations tending onelyonly to prove that our Sacraments and the Jews have the same general nature, which he calls substance, but not a word to shew that any command about them belonged to the substance of the Covenant, but as if he were angry, or did disdain a man should question his dictates, onelyonly recites his meaning, and a passage or two of Protestant Authors, and never answers a word to my objection, Exam. pag. 115. that in no good sense could it be true that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant. Yea when I animadverted on that saying in his Sermon, the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types, shadows and sacrifices, &c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision, that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant: I reply, saith he, in his Defence, pag. 99. this is a very small quarrell, I added, &c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things. Which words in the plain construction of them do note, that Circumcision is comprehended in his &c. as belonging to the manner of administration, not to the substance of the Covenant. And yet pag. 187. he hath these words, I have already proved (that is no where, no not so much as in attempt) that Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance (meaning of the Covenant of grace) belong to it, I say, not as a part of it, but as a means of applying it. So uncertain and enterferring one another are his speeches about this thing. And yet this salve he adds is not true in any sense in which the word [substance] may be taken. For if he mean by [applying the Covenant] the signifying Christ to come, or the spiritual part promised, so Circumcision was a Type or shadow, and therefore according to his doctrine belonging to the administration that then was, not to the substance of the Covenant; if he mean by [applying the Conant] sealing or assuring the righteousnesse of faith to mens consciences, neither doth this make it of the substance of the Covenant, the Covenant being made before, and though Circumcision had never thus applyed it, the substance of the Covenant had been the same, yea the Covenant was the same in substance, according to his own doctrine, 2000. years before Circumcision did apply it to any; now I do not conceive any thing is to be said of the substance of a thing, when the thing may be entire without it; so that in this point I deprehend in Mr. M. speeches nothing but dictates; and those very uncertain and confused.
Secondly, saith he, pag. 198. When I say that Gods Commands about their Sacraments bind us, my meaning never was to assert, that the ritual part of their Sacraments do remain in the leas… particle, or that we are tyed to practise any of those things, but onelyonly that there is a general and analogical nature, wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament do agree, which he thus a little before expresseth, my meaning being plainly this, that all Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews as touching their general nature of being Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant, and as touching their use and end, do bind us in our Sacraments, because they are the same; whereto I reply, that Mr. M. supposeth the Commands of God are about the general nature of being Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant: which is a most vain conceit, there being no such Command or Institution, there's no such Command that Sacraments should have the general nature of Sacraments, or be Seals of the Covenant, or that they should signifie Christ and seal spiritual grace: these things they have from their nature, as he saith, which is the same without any Institution. The natures, essences and quiddities of things are eternal, invariable, and so come not under Command, which reacheth onelyonly to things contingent, that may be done, or not be done. Did ever any wise man command to men that man should be a reasonable living body, or whitenesse a visible quality, or fatherhood a relation? And to say that God commands Sacraments to seal the Covenant, what is this but to say that God commands himself? For he alone by the Sacraments seals to us the Covenant or Promise of Christ, or grace by him. All Commands of God are concerning what the persons commanded should do, and they must needs be of particulars, not of generals, for actio est singularium, action is of singular persons and things. Though God may command man to think or acknowledge Sacraments to be Seals of the Covenant, yet it were a most vain thing for God to command that Sacraments should be Seals of the Covenant, or to have this general end or use, to seal or signifie Christ, and spititual grace, to us, which belongs onelyonly to himself to do by his declaration of his meaning in them. Such Commands as Mr. M. imagines, are a meer Chimaera, or dream of his brain. Secondly, the like is to be sayd concerning his conceit, that such Commands bind us in our Sacraments; For to bind us is to determine what is to be done, or not to be done by us; But such imagined Commands do not determine what is to be done or not to be done by us, and therefore cannot bind at all. Thirdly, when Mr. M. confesseth we are not tyed to the least particle of the ritual part or any practise of those things, he doth thereby acknowledge that all the Commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, which were all about rituals, are quite abrogated. For all Sacraments are Rites or Ceremonies, and to imagine a Command about a Sacrament, and not about a ritual part or Ceremony, is to imagine a Command about a Sacrament, which is not a Sacrament, Chamier. Panstr. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 1. chap. 8. Sect. 9. arguing against Suarez the Jesuit, that dreamed of a Sacrament appointed in the law of nature for remedy of original sin, yet had no determined Ceremony, speaks thus; Sacramentum aliquod institutum à Deo, Ceremonia nulla determinata à Deo, quis capiat? Sacramentum institui et Ceremoniam non determinari? Aequè dixerit loquutum esse deum, et tamen vocem nullam protulisse, nam aequè Sacramenti genus est Ceremonia et Vox loqisutionis. Fourthly, were it supposed that there were some Commands about the general nature of Sacraments, binding us, though every particle and practice of the ritual part be abrogated, yet this would not reach Mr. M. intent, which is to prove the Command of sealing Infants with the initial seal in force, binds. But to seal Infants with the initial seal in force is not of the general nature of Sacraments (for then it should belong to the after seal as well as the initiating) but after his own dictates of the special nature of the initial seal, and so Mr. M. principle serves not for his purpose.
Thirdly, I argued thus, Examen. part. 2. sect. 8. If 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 any Institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example, then a certain rule may be set down from Gods word how far a man may go in his conceived parity of reason equity or analogy, and where he must stay; For to use the words of the Author, whose book is intituled Grall…, if Christians must measure their worship according to the Institution and Ceremonies of the Jews, it is needfull that either they imitate them in all things, or else that some O Edipus resolve this riddle hitherto not resolved, to wit, what is moral and imitable in those Ceremonies, and what not. But out of Gods word no rule can be framed to resolve us how far we must or may not go in this conceived parity of reason, equity, or analogy, Ergo. The major is evinced from the perfection of Gods word, and the providence of God to have the consciences of his people rightly guided. The minor is proved by provoking those analogists that determine from the Commands about the Mosaical Rites and usages what must be done or may not be done about the meer positive worship and Church-order of the New Testament, to set down this rule out of Gods word. This argument is confirmed by experience in the controversie between Presbyterians and Independents, jarring about the extent of Infant-baptism, the Elders in new England, Mr. Hooker, (besides Mr. …irmin) Mr. Bartlet, &c. restraining it to the Infants of members joined in a Church gathered after the congregational way as it is called. Mr. Cawdrey, Mr. Blake, Mr. Rutherfurd and others extend it farther, master B. Plain scripture proof, &c. chap. 29. part 1. pag. 101. to all whosoever they be, if they be at a believers dispose. And both sides pretend analogy, which being uncertain, Mr. Ball after much debate about this difference, as distrusting analogy, determines thus in his reply to the answer of the new England Elders to the 9. posit. posit. 3. and 4 pag. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ (which is as much as to say, whatsoever their analogy or resemblance be) we must look to the Institution (therefore the Institution of each Sacrament must be our rule in the use of them, not analogy, and analogy is not sufficient to guide us without Institution, and to shew that analogy serves not turn of it self to determine who are to be baptised, he adds) and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it, for he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure, and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administred, how they agree, and wherein they differ, in all which we must assirm nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us. Which how they cut the sinews of the argument from Circumcision to Baptism, without wrong to master Ball, is shewed in my Apology, Sect. 13. pag. 57.
Mr. M. in his Desence, pag. 83. Mr. Blake pag. 74, 75. of his answer to my letter, seem to deny, that Paedobaptists do frame an addition to Gods worship from such analogy, the contrary whereof is manifest from the passages cited before. But Mr. Blake over and above, pag. 75. sets down three cautions, which being observed, then this kind of arguing from analogy and proportion is without any such pretended danger. The insufficieny of which cautions being shewed in my Postscript to the Apology, Sect 17 pag. 143. I conceive it unnecessary to repeat my words, which the Reader may here find, and the vindication of them from what Mr. Blake opposeth in his vindiciae foederis, chap 42. follows in the nex: Section.
4. I argued, that if this way of making rules binding men consciences in meer positive worship from analogy of the ceremonies or rites of the Old Testament, without institution in the New, be valid, then our Christian liberty from the Ceremonial Law is made void. For by this way of determining things as of Gods appointment, by our conceived analogy, al or a great part of the Ceremonial Law may be put on our necks under pretence of analogy, and so the fruit of Christs purchase of Christian liberty lost, and we in vain exhorted to stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free. For as Chillingworth once told Knot the Jesuit, if the Pope be made sole Judge of Centroversies, & infallible Expositor of Scripture, it will be in effect all one, as if he were allowed to make a new Scripture and Articles of faith; and tyranny may be introduced as well by arbitrary expounding, as well as by arbitrary making of laws: so in this case the bondage of Moses his law may be put on our necks, not onelyonly by those that say, it binds in the letter, but also by those that say, Gods commands about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us in the analogy and proportion.
5. This argument hath strength from the sad experience the Church hath formerly and of late had in yielding to these reasonings from analogy, in the many Canons of Popes and Prelates, heavily loading Gods Church with rites and decrees about them, imposed from analogy of the Ceremonial Laws of Moses. The Constitutions of Popes, and Canons of Prelates, and the books of the maintainers of them expounding and defending their rituals, and liturgies, are full of them, to wit, rites about Priests, their Orders, Garments, Dues, Festivals, Sacraments, Votaries, Religious houses, and such like, drawn from Mosaical Laws. It is a common complaint of Protestants and Antiprelatists, that in imitation of the Jews, under pretence of analogy, a new named Iudaism hath been brought into the Christian Church, and the reforming of them like Hercules his labour in clensing Augias his stable Some I have named in my Examen, part. 3. s. 9. more I might. In the Augustan Confession among the Articles of abuses, in the chapter of the Ecclesiastick power, its the general complaint, that Popish writers made a worship in the New Testament, like the Levitical. I may use Mr. Bs words in his Appendix to plain Scripture-proof, &c. pag. 302. And indeed if all that is not contrary to Scripture customs, and that mans vain wit can find reasonable from Scripture, must be admitted, and that upon equal authority with Scripture, if they do but take it for a tradition Apostolical, Then 1. it will set mans wit a work to make God a worship, or judge of the currantness of it, according to his reason; and one man will think it reasonable and another not. 2. And what a multitude of Ceremonies will this admit into the Church, to the burthening of mens consciences, and the polluting of Gods worship? Is not this the door that the body of Popish trash came in at? and the Argument that hardneth them in it, and hindereth their reformation to this day? And if you open this Gap, what a multitude of fopperies will rush in? Certainly by this means the Gospel hath been shadow'd and repressed; no stint either hath been or could be put to the inundation of such impositions, as long as liberty hath been given under pretence of analogy with Jewish rites to add to the worship and discipline of the new Testament: but it hath happened according to Austins Complaint, Epist. 119. to Ianuarius, that the state of the Jewish Church under Divine precepts hath been more tolerable, than the Christian burdened with humane presumptions. Ames Bell. enerv. tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 8. th. 15. Romanenses in suis ceremoniis partim imitati sunt Gentes, partim Iudaeos. th. 17. Ceremoniae hujusmodi tollunt discrimen illud quod Deus voluit esse inter Iudaeos & Christianos, quia paedagogiam Iudaicae similem habent.
6. If such Arguments from Analogy of Jewish rites abrogated may be valid to impose on mens consciences things about the worship of God, then Popes and Prelates are not only unblamable and justifiable in so doing, but also Protestants and Non-conformists will be unjustifiable in no yielding to them, but opposing them.
Mr. Church Divine warrant of Infant-bapt. pag. 49. in answer to these three latter reasons, speaks thus. Arguing from the Jewish types for the Substance of those shadowes, tends neither to an introducement of Judaism, nor yet to a justification of the Quisquilian toyes of the Papists: for it is neither arguing for the Ceremonies of the Jewish Church, nor for the fooleries of the Popish Synagogue, but for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ, of which those ceremoni's were prenunciative, and are ceased, not because they were evil, but because we have the substance and truth of them, which is much better, non quia damnata, sed quia in melius mutata, August.
Answ. The objection was, Arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants, is the way to introduce Judaism, and to subject the Church again to the whole burthen of Jewish Ceremonies: Mr. Churches answer is, Arguing from the Iewish types for the substance of those shadowes, &c. Which answer is either meerly impertinent, or else he conceives arguing from Circumcision for Baptism of infants to be arguing from the Jewish type for the substance of the shadow. Which if he stand to, then he must make Circumcision the type, and Baptism of infants the substance of Circumcision, which sure is not according to Scripture, which makes Christ the body, of which the ceremonies, and among them Circumcision, was a shadow, Col. 2. 17. Nor doth Mr. Church prove any thing that he saith, but vainly dictate, when he makes arguing for infant Baptism from Circumcision to be arguing for privileges which the faithful may expect by Christ, and makes Circumcision a ceremony prenunciative of infant Baptism; against which, and the whole way of arguing from the use of Jewish rites to Christian from analogy without other institution, I further reason.
7. Protestant Divines do frequently deny the Jewish Sacraments to be types or figures of ours, Ames. Bellarm. ener. tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 3. th. 11. Sacramenta externa sunt figurae: figuras figurarum non instituit Deus, that they figured or represented Christ and his grace, not other Sacraments▪ Cap. 4. th. 13. Absque ulla ratione asseritur circumcisionem fuisse figuram baptismi: sacramentum non est signum visibilis sacramenti, sed invisibilis gratiae. Therefore no right arguing by analogy from a Jewish rite to a Christian, which must suppose one to be a sign of the other, which is denyed by them. Mr. Church his speech is vain, That the Apostle argues from the Sacrifices in the Iewish Church, Rom. 12. 2. Heb. 13. 15. the offering of our selves, and the sacrificing of praises, which he calls the calves of the lips, &c. For 1. the Apostle doth not argue at all, but only allusively calls the presenting of our bodies, and giving thanks, a sacrifice, and the calves of our lips, by reason of some resemblance: which if it be arguing In the use of every Metaphor there is arguing. 2. Were it arguing, yet it is not to the purpose, sith it is not any arguing from the use of one rite to another by analogy, but from a rite to a moral duty, to wit, devotion and thanksgiving. And when he adds, And from sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime, may the sealing of the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation be rightly argued; sealing the promise, being the substance of Circumcision and benefit intended by it: and such arguing hath no colour of setting up Iudaism, for arguing for the thing signified tends not to the introducement of antiquated Ceremonies, he doth but write at random. For if the reason of his assertion be pettinent, then he must hold, that sealing the promise by the initial Sacrament to infants of Christians in this Dispensation is the substance of circumcision and benefit intended by it. But it is either unintelligible to me in what sense the sealing of the promise by baptism to infants of Christians can be the substance of circumcision, and the benefit intended by it, or else it is very absurd.
For then it will plainly follow, 1. That till infantbaptism of Christians, Circumcision was without its substance, and the benefit intended by it. 2. He makes infant baptism the thing signified by circumcision, and the substance of circumcision, and so one ceremony signifies, and is the substance of another. But however we judge of his unintelligible or absurd arguing, it appears not by his answer but that the way of arguing by analogy from circumcision to baptism, that is from the regulating our practice in a rite of the New Testament by a rite of the Old, as obliging our consciences, may and doth introduce Judaism, and other evils, as was objected.
Mr. Blake answer to my Letter, pag. 97. seems to put by this arguing of mine, by advising me to read over Bellermine, and tell him then whether his arguments to lay the Sacraments of the Iews as low as types, and to extol the Sacraments of Christians as their antitypes, be not the self same that I and my party make use of to make so large a difference between circumcision and baptism. Protestants deny them indeed to be types, because they assirm they are in substance the same, our doctrine keeps us at a distance from Bellarmine, when you are in this reconciled to him, making the same differences as he doth between Circumcision and Baptism.
Answ. Had M. Blake directed me to the place in Bellarmine, he would have me seriously read over, I should have done it. But now not well knowing what place in Bellarmine he would have me read, and the reading him all over, and that seriously, being a very tedious task, I do not gratifie M. Blake in his request: But to what he saith, I reply, I put sundry differences between Circumcision and Baptism in my Examen, part 3. sect. 9. which Mr. M. his Defence doth not shew to be false. If they, or any other I make, be the same with Bellarmines, and yet true, Mr. Blake doth causelesly except against me for agreeing with Bellarmine; sure it is no matter of blame to agree with the Devil himself in the truth, it is no evill to believe there is one God, because the Devils do so, James 2. 19. But how this should reconcile me to Bellarmine in that which I except against him, that he makes the Jews Sacraments Types of ours, is to me unintelligible. 2. Dr. Ames his words shew, that therefore he denied that Circumcision was the figure or type of Baptism, because a Sacrament is not a sign of a visible Sacrament, but of invisible grace, and that God hath not appointed figures of figures, or types of types, but types of some body or substance. The reason M. Blake gives why they are not types, because they are in substance the same, I know not what Protestants do give, whoever they be that do say so, in my apprehension, either they speak non-sense, or false. Sacraments being nothing but actions used to some ends, according to appointment, what substance they should have, but the actions and the use, I understand not. Now that the actions are not the same, it is manifest, cutting off a little skin, killing, roasting▪ eating a lamb, being not the same with washing the body with water, and breaking and eating bread, and drinking wine; and for their end and use it is certain, however they may agree in some things, yet those being generals, and accompanied with more differences in their end and use both general and particular, it may be with greater reason denied, that they are the same in substance, than averred that they are: And arguments drawn from the one to the other concerning their use, are from things unlike, as much as like, yea denied by the users to be types, figures or signs, the one of the other, and therefore cannot infer a parity in the thing questioned, without institution.
8. The ceremonies of the Jews are now not only mortal, but dead, buried, and deadly, according to the received Doctrine; yea, some condemn not only the use of them formally, but also materally; Rutherford Divine right of Church-Government, Introd. sect. 1. pag. 8. saith, It is a false ground of the Prelates, that Circumcision, a Passeover Lamb, and all the Jewish ceremonies, though with another endand intention than to shadow forth Christ to come in the flesh, are indifferent. Riv. on Exod, 20. Walaeus are cited by Mr. Cawdrey, Sab. Red. part. 4. c. 1. pag. 527. to the same purpose; therefore not to be revived, no not in Effigie by following any rule about them, as by Analogie, or proportion between them and ours, without like institution binding us.
9. Arguments from Analogie in positive rites, without institution in the New Testament, except God declare either by general rule, or particular example he allowes such Arguments, are but humane inventions, as not being from the Spirit of God, (for that speaks only in the word about Doctrines, but from mans reason: But such are the Arguments drawn from a positive rite of the Old Testament now abrogated, to regulate our practice in the Sacraments of the New, as obliging our consciences. Therefore they are against the second Commandment in the Decalogue, our Saviours words Mat. 15. 9. In vaiu do they worship me, teaching for Doctrines mens Precepts; it is tyranny and usurpation in them that impose them, and violation of their liberty, forbidden by the Apostle, Col. 2. 20. in them that submit to them. Davenant exhort. to brotherly commuunion, ch. 1. tells us, that Luther wisely admonisheth us, that in matters surmounting the capacity of humane reason, we beware of Etymologies, Analogies, Consequences and Examples.
10. Arguments from conceived Analogy, are but Arguments from that which is like, not the same: But such are but weak things. Proportions are weak probations, said M. Rutherford, Due right of Presbyt. ch. 2. sect. 2. pag. 37. Chamier Panstr. Cath. tom. 1. lib. 9. c. 10. s. 47. Deinde sunt hujus generis conclusiones magis verisimiles quam necessariae nisi nitantur Diser to Dei verbo. Oxford Convocat. reasons against the Covenant, pag. 27. The Arguments à minore and à majore are subject to many fallacies, and inless there be a parity of reason in every requisite respect between he things compared, will not hold good: They do illustrate rather than prove; and therefore they that assert that Poedobaptism si fully determined in the old Testament, where they have nothing but analogy from Circumcision, and the Jewish Church state, what ever their confidence be, do but shew their weakness. I shall now examine what Master Blake saith in answer to my Arguments, and then what Mr. B. brings for his speech above recited.