Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 13
SECT. XIII.
The Arguments are vindicated, which are brought to prove infants not meant by Disciples, Acts 15. 10.
BUt Mr. B. proceeds, Well, but Mr. T. hath one argument for his conceit, and but one that I have heard, and that is like the conceit it self. If (saith he) putting on the yoke be onelyonly by teaching, then the yoke it self is onelyonly the Doctrine, and consequently it was to be put on none but those that could be taught. Answ. 1. I deny both the Consequences, and he will never prove them. For, 1. by [putting] he confesseth is meant [an endeavour to put] therefore it must be more than bare Doctrine. And if by Doctrine they perswade the People of the necessity of practice in so doing, they put on them both the mis-belief and the practice.
Answ. Mr. B. it seems either did not reade, or not heed, or forgot what was in Examen. pag. 135. when he saith, he had heard but of one Argument for my conceit, though it be his meer ignorance that makes him call it my conceit, as if it were my peculiar conceit; whereas his own conceit is scarce any thing older than himself, and mine agreeable to the Exposition of the best and elder Interpreters. And however when Mr. B. wrote this he might know of no more Arguments against his conceit, yet there are more i… my Antidote, sect. 6. to which with this here I shall review his Answers. My Argument in form is this, They onelyonly are meant by Disciples, Acts 15 10. who were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted, that is of that which they would have done to them. But no infants were to be the subjects passive or recipient of the act of the false Teachers whether effected or attempted, that is of that which they would have done to them. Ergo. The major is plain to common understanding, according to all Rules of Logick and Grammar. So we argue, they must be meant by all men, John 12. 32. when Christ saith, I will draw all men to me, who were the subjects recipient of the act of drawing. Every particular man is not the subject of Christs drawing, therefore [all men] doth not note every particular man. Innumerable such Arguments are among Writers Ecclesiastical and Civil, nor is there any thing more plain to common understanding The minor is proved thus: the onelyonly act of the false Teachers by which the yoke was to be put on Disciples was teaching, or that which they would have done to them was onelyonly teaching. But of this act no infant was the passive subject. Ergo. The former is confessed by himself in calling it perswading, and if it were not, the Text proves it, v. 1. 5▪ 24▪ The minor is manifest, they were neither capable of it, nor were the false Teachers so sensless as to endeavour it. But let's view Mr. Bs. Answer. He denies this consequence, if the putting on the yoke be onelyonly by teaching, then the yoke it self is onelyonly the Doctrine. But this is not my consequence, but this, if their act of putting on the yoke were onelyonly Teaching then the terminus, at least immediate, must be Doctrine in respect of the agent, and in respect of the patient learning, as if the act of the Sun be Teaching, the immediate terminus is heat, although other effects follow, as dryness or the like; so if the false Teachers did put the yoke on the Disciples by Teaching, they did put Doctrine on them, and if they received it they learned that Doctrine, although other effects followed, as disquietnes of minde, &c. which may be comprehended under the metaphor of a yoke. By Teaching parents, an infant is not cut or cicumcised, no not though the parents receive the Doctrine, he may have no childe to circumcise, or no strength, or the like: no though it come to pass that the childe be circumcised, yet this is not done by the false Teacher, but by the parent. If then their act was onelyonly teaching, then the product result or terminus must be Doctrine, though there were other consequents to follow. But Mr. B. denies also this consequence, that if the yoke were onelyonly doctrine, it was put on none but those that could be taught. Whereto I reply, he may as well deny the Snow to be white, as deny it: Can any put Doctrine but on Persons that can be taught? What is this but to hold that a Person may have Doctrine put on him, that cannot be taught, which is a meer contradiction, all one as to say, He may be taught that cannot be taught. But he will forsooth give us some Reason of his denial as wise as the rest. For, 1. by [putting] he confesseth is meant [an endeavour to put] therefore it must be more than the bare doctrine. Answ. 1. I confess not by [putting] is meant [an endeavour to put] though I confess that Peter accu…eth them onelyonly of their endeavour to put the yoke. 2. If I had confessed it, yet Mr. Bs. Reason is foolish, for it would rather follow, that it is less than bare Doctrine, the endeavour to put being less than putting. Yet it is not true that I said, The yoke notes bare Doctrine, without any other effect, but that the yoke notes doctrine, command, opinion of obligation, and necessity, and perhaps disquietness, trouble, care, fear consequent. However they that put the yoke by teaching did put doctrine on whom they put the yoke, the putting the yoke being nothing but teaching. That which follows, And if by doctrine they prevail to perswade the people of the necessity of practice in so doing, they put on them the both the mis-belief and mis-practice, is as little to purpose. For, 1. to put on them the misbelief is to put on them the doctrine, for doctrine is put on by being learned or believed.
2. They that do prevail do put on the mispractice it may be in the event, but not barely by their putting on their doctrine, for it may be they may both teach, and that effectually, so as that the person do learn or mis-believe, and yet not mis-practice through many intervenient impediments, yea though he do mis-practice, yet the mis-practice is not the terminus of his teaching, nor is he the mis-practicer, it is not his act logically or physically, though it be his morally, that is, the fault of it be imputed to him, as arising from the Doctrine be taught. However if it be by perswading and by producing mis-belief and mis-practice, they onelyonly are the subjects of it who mis-believe and mis practice, which being not verified of infants, they are not meant by Disciples, on whom the yoke is put.
But Mr. B. gives a Reason of his denial of the latter consequence, and it is this, 2. The latter consequence is as false; For he that perswadeth a parent to circumcise himself, and his childe, doth as properly put that burden of Circumcision on the childe as on the parent. Though he teach onelyonly the parent, yet by teaching the parent he puts the burden on both.
Answ. 1. If the putting the yoke be Teaching or perswading, sure he onelyonly is the subject of his putting the yoke, who is the subject of his Teaching, (as if we say the killing there was wounding by the sword, it folows he was not there said to be killed who was not wounded by the sword) though it may be true also that another agent by another act may put the burden on one not taught. 2. But were Mr. Bs. speech true, yet it is nothing to his wi…less denial of the later consequence, for the consequence is thus, if the yoke were onelyonly Doctrine it was put on none but those that could be taught, which may be undeniable, though it be granted, that he that Teacheth onelyonly tho parents, yet puts the burden both on parent and child. 3. Yea Mr. B. doth grant it by supposing that he Teacheth onelyonly the parent, that Doctrine is put onelyonly on the parent. For what is it to put Doctrine on any but to Teach him? And therefore if the yoke were onelyonly Doctrine, sure it was put on none but such as could be taught, unless we imagine that Doctrine can be put on those that cannot be taught, which is all one in my apprehension as to say they may be taught who cannot be taught. And therefore if there be any silly wranglings in the dispute between us, sure Mr. B. doth wrangle here either as a silly man or as a most perverse man in denying this consequence, and in his whole arguings about this Text, when confessing the yoke to be not onelyonly the Doctrine but the judgment and practise also of Circumcision, and that the false Teachers would put it onelyonly by Teaching, yet doth imagine he can perswade his reader to be so silly as to conceive that they did any thing to infants or that infants are any of those Disciples mentioned Acts 15. 10.
And here I shall inforce the arguments of my Antidote sect. 6. The first is ad hominem. He counts it a heinous offence that I take the word [holy 1 Cor. 7. 14.] in a different sense than it is used six hundred times in the Scripture, and yet …e takes the word [Disciple] used three hundred times in the New Testament, and of those about one hundred in Lukes writings for one that is a Disciple by owning a Teacher and his Doctrine, in another sense o… rather nonsense acception for one that is a Disciple in title, incompleat, without actual learning for present, that is for a meer relative without a foundation, and brings no place in any Author for this sense but this, and therefore I may more justly use his conju…ing speech p. 83. requiring men that are not of desper … resolutions and prostituted consciences to consider faithfully how they can answer the Lord Christ for perverting so solemn an institution as that is Matth. 28. 19. by their baby sprinkling, when the very words of Christ, practise of the Apostles, constant use of the word [Disciples] throughout the New Testament, common consent of Interpreters shews Christ appointed Disciples onelyonly to be baptized ordmarily, who were made such by preaching the Gospel, upon pretence that infants are called [Disciples Acts 15. 10] in a sense different from what Luke useth it elsewhere even in the precedent and following chapters, and that sense or rather nonsense selfcontradicting acception devised of late by Mr. B. without any ancient Author I know, or any reason from the Text. That which Mr. B. replies is as frivolous. 1. He saith infants are called Disciples Acts. 11. 26. They are there part of Christians and Disciples; but this is false theres not a word in the Text that soundes to this sense, that infants are any part of the Christians or Disciples there mentioned, yea there is that which is plainly to the contrary v. 29. Then the Disciples, every manaccording to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren. If every one of the Disciples determined to send, and no infants determined to send relief, then no infants are part of the Disciples. 2 Saith he, the case is not alike, In 1. Cor. 7. 14. I argued about the meaning of the word [holy] here we are agreed about the sense, that it signifieth one so related to Christ as their …aster, the difference is about the application of this term. But this is false that I agree with him about the signification and sense of the word [Disciple of Christ] as it notes a relation to Christ as Teacher, yea I utterly deny it notes such a relation as Mr. B. fancies in title without actual learning or owning Christ as Teacher, in which sense it is no where taken in Scripture or any Ancient Author I know. 3. Saith he, However I am certain, if we have not the name elsewhere, yet we have the description and names of the same signification, they are Church members, Gods people, his servants, and therefore Disciples. Answ. 1. This doth not at all avoyd his owne charge of prostituted consciences, &c. in another case, he charged these things on me for using the word [holy] in a different sense from what elsewhere it is used, though I brought a term of the same signification Mal. 2. 15▪ and cogent reason out of the Text for my interpretation, and therefore by his own Law to me, he is to be charged as he chargeth me for doing the same, though it were true he had the description and names of the same signification. 2. It is not proved, no nor can be proved, the terms [Churchmembers, Gods people, Gods servants] to be of the same signification with [Disciples of Christ] 3. There is no: so much as one Text in the New Testament, which alone is written in Greek by the Holy Pen-men, and therefore the fittest if not the onelyonly way to shew the meaning of a New Testament term, brought to prove infants under the New Testament to be caled Churchmembers, Gods people, Gods servants.
4. The consequence shall be examined in that which follows.
Besides I argued from the Text, the putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples is the same with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren, and v. 5. they said it was needfull to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, and v. 24. certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law. Now is any man so sensless as to think they did these things to infants? Again the Text. v. 1. 23. calls the Disciples v. 10. brethren, saith v. 9. their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word, which none but those that are resolved to outface a plain truth would aver to be meant of infants, therefore neither the term Disciples, v. 10 fi…h what is said of the brethren is meant of the Disciples v. 10. To this all the reply I finde in Mr. B. is this pag 252. And your bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not, no more than several passages in Deut. 29. applicable onelyonly to the aged, will prove little ones were not taken in to be Gods people.
Answ. It is true, the bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not: if I had made such an Argument I would give him leave to use his Rhetorick of silly insipid arguings. But my arguing is this, The same thing which is expressed, v. 10. by putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples, is expressed v. 1. by teaching the brethren, v. 5. by saying to them it was needfull to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses, v 24. by troubling with words, subverting their souls, saying, ye must be circumcised and keep the Law, and the same persons which are expressed by Disciples, v. 10. are termed v. 1. Brethren, are said v. 9. to have their hearts purified by faith, v. 19. those of the Gentiles that were turned to God, v. 23. Brethren of the Gentiles; But these things were not done to infants, nor infants comprehended under these persons, in these places, which express the same thing, and the same person, which is apparent by the narration, Peter reprehends the same thing in the same persons, v. 10. which is related v. 1, 5, 23, 24. the occasion of his speech was the same fact, the drift of his speech is to condemn the same fact, the determination of the Council is against the same practice, the same persons are in all these places spoken of, and this is proved by Mr. Bs. first Argument, who brings v. 1, 5, 24. to prove Circumcision to be the yoke, v. 10. which Argument supposeth the same persons and things meant, v. 10. which are meant, v. 1, 5, 24. But not one of the things said there is applicable to infants. How then can any man imagine that the same act being meant in all the places, it should be meant of the act of Circumcision, v. 10. and not v. 1, 5, 24. and the same persons meant, they should be infants meant, v. 10. and not v. 1, 5, 24? Is not this to make the same act and the same persons not the same, which is a contradiction? I know not how men conceive of my intellectuals: But I am still possessed of this to be so good proof, that I should as soon doubt of other common notions as of this, and as soon believe that the Moon is made of green Cheese, as believe Mr. B. affirming that Peter meant infants by Disciples, Acts 15. 10.
I added further, if the putting on the yoke had been Circumcision, it had been to be done not on their necks but elsewhere, the yoke was put not on their flesh, but on their consciences, their souls are said to be subverted, their mindes troubled, v. 24. not their flesh pained by the putting on the yoke, it was done by words, v. 24. not by a knife or such like instrument. Again, the yoke v. 10. was such as neither the present Jews nor their fathers were able to bear: but Circumcision put on infants was tolerable. I argued also that Christs doctrine is called his yoke, Matth. 11. 29. I alleged the testimonies of Pisc. sch. on Acts 15. 10. Grot. Annot. in Acts 15. 10. calling it the Law and Doctrine, that the yoke of bondage, Gal. 5. 1. is the Doctrine or Covenant of the Law, which genders to bondage, Gal. 4. 21, 24. That Circumcision is not the yoke without subjection of minde or opinion to it, which are not verified of infants. These things he saith are answered already, but where I know not: if he mean in his Argument before, he may see his Cannon turned against himself.
I said, all the colour Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants disciples, is by conceiving the yoke to note barely and precisely the cutting off a little skin. To this he answers, I must say it is but one of your fictions. Did you over hear me talk of such a thing? Cutting that skin is not Circumcision, as the word is used for a Sacrament. The end, signification, and engagement go into the definition of Circumcision. And if from hence you would infer, that it is onelyonly the aged that are capable of signification and engagement, you may strait conclude that no infant was ever circumcised.
I reply, it is no fiction of mine, but a truth, whether Mr. B. talked or thought of it or no, that all the colour, that is shew of reason Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants Disciples, is in taking the yoke for the cutting off a little skin. For his proof is from what was done or endeavored to be done to infants; but that was onelyonly the cutting the little skin. Mr. B. would have the yoke to be actual Circumcision, or Circumcision as acted, and that was nothing but the cutting off the litle skin. It is true, Circumcision in the users is more than the cutting off the little skin, there is the end, signification, and intended engagement, but as infants receive it, as it is acted on infants, the yoke can be no more than the loss of the skin and the soreness following, they neither are taught, nor discern the end, signification or engagement, and Circumcision as it includes these is as I say in my Antidote Circumcision not as acted on infants, but taught persons of years; nor was it my objection that Circumcision as a Sacrament was onelyonly the cutting off a little skin, but as it was acted on infants, and the imagined …oke endeavored to be put on infants Acts 15. 10. which sure Peter never blamed them for, and therefore it is not the yoke there meant. Mr. Bs. talk of Circumcision as a Sacrament, and what is the definition of it as a Sacrament, as it leades to a dispute about the notion of a word not found in Scripture, so being besides the present business, I shall let it pass.
Lastly I added, that if it were granted that the term [Disciples Acts 15. 10] noted infants, then onelyonly male infants, for they onelyonly were to be circumcised, therefore female infants should not be thence proved Disciples, nor to be baptized. To this he answers, That is as much as I needed, when my position was that some infants are Disciples and to be baptized. I reply, It is not as much as he needed, unless he understood his position onelyonly of some male infants. 2. Saith he, I should hence prove, that if males are Disciples, then certainly females, both being Church-members till Christ, though but one circumcised. I reply, 1. It is more than he can prove that those who were Church-members in the Jewish Church are Disciples of Christ in the New Testament to be baptized. 2. If he could prove it, yet not from Acts 15. 10. it being certain no more can be proved thence to be Disciples, than are there called Disciples, which Mr. B. himself will not say of female infants. I conclude still, that in this arguing of Mr. B. I finde nothing but froward, and, I had almost said, impudent wrangling against a plain truth, that the Disciples Acts 15. 10. were onelyonly the brethren converted, and the yoke the Doctrine the false Teachers would have put upon them, and the reader, of whosoever education or tu…age, if he be not otherwise blinded, may perceive with his own eys the slightiness of Mr. Bs. arguings, and how superficially he hath handled this business. I go on to review the next, which is no better.