Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 8
SECT. VIII.
The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Blake, &c. against the order of teaching afore baptizing, of Mr. M. Mr. Hussey, that baptizing is discipling, are refelled.
AGainst the argument from the order of teaching first and then baptizing, it was excepted that it is said Mark 1. 4. John did baptize and preach, which objection in my Examen was removed by the words of Beza par. 4. s. 1. To which I add, that the reason is manifest from the text why the one was put after the other, not because he did baptize any afore he had preached, but because Mark having expressed his baptism, it was needfulhe should shew the difference between Johns baptism and the Jewish or Phasaical baptism.
To this Mr. M. returns thus much. Christs order is (say you) teaching should go before baptizing; is not that the same with this; That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptized? To which I only say,
1. That the arguments are not the same as I made them, the first being taken from the term [foreign them] the other from the order of teaching afore baptizing.
2. However I take that which Mr. M. grants, that it is the same to teach, and to make disciples by preaching before baptizing. But Mr. Cobbet just vindic. part 2. ch. 3. sect. 2: allegeth something against this argument. He grants some things in this order of Christ are perpetual, but he will not have all to be presidentiall to all Churches and times, because it is said Mar. 16. 17. in the same speech, that miraculous signs should follow them that believe.
But if this were good, then the rule should only hold while such gifts remain, which no churches now have, and so he must fall into the opinion that makes water-baptism a temporary ordinance, and those things which he grants perpetual, as viz. preaching the Gospel before baptism is to be administred by such as preach, discipled inchurched persons are to be baptized, that in founding churches the first members are to be visible professors of the faith in reference to church estate, that baptism is with water applyed to the persons baptized, and that into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, must be temporary as well as teaching before baptizing: If the one be perpetual notwithstanding this reason so is the other, and presidential to all churches and times.
But saith Mr. Cobbet, there is a distinction to be made in baptizing at the gathering of Churches, and when they are gathered: the order must be observed at the former, not the later.
Answ. 1. If it was to be so at first gathering of churches, why did not those in New England observe it then when they first gathered their churches? surely they were not rightly gathered for want of baptism if this be the rule at gathering of churches. Nor can they plead their baptism they had in the National and Parochial churches of England; For by their principles, baptism belongs to the children of believers, not as such, but as in church-covenant, and church-members, and therefore they baptize not any but the children of church-members in covenant, and yet most of them had their baptism in the churches of England, and their parents no church-members and so neither they nor others that gather churches in Old England do keep to their principles in the gathering of their churches.
2. But besides what I said before to this objection, Mat. 28. 19. there is no such distinction made, and we are not to distinguish where the law doth not, yea all the institution, and every thing in it was to be observed in the churches of Christ in gathering and gathered at all times, as is manifest from the promise annexed of being with them alwaies to the end of the world, which shewes that he would have that rule continued to the end of the world, and to encourage them therein he promiseth to be with them. To say with Mr. S…ltmarsh in his Sparkles of glory and some others, it is to be read [to the end of the age] is frivolous, sith Matthew 13. 39▪ 40, 49. Matth. 24. 3. the very words shew it to be meant of the last time at Christs comming to Judgement.
But (saith Mr. Cobbet) the Commission James 5. 14. to an…oint with oil, is not perpetual.
Be it so, that that appointment of the sign of a gift of miraculous cure now ceaseth, yet it doth not follow that the institution Mat. 28. 19. in which a sign of a perpetual duty is institu…ed, is temporary.
But saith Mr. Cobbet, There are variations in the mention of Christs last Commission about the Lords Supper, and therefore another analogy of faith and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures is to regulate us in this point of Sacramental order, and so in the other.
To which I answer, 1. That the variations Mr. Cobbet sets down are none of them about the order of the actions appointed by Christ pertaining to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and therefore not pertinent to the presen: business.
2. If Mr. Cobbet will not have the order in the institution to be moral and perpetual about the Lords Supper, then they do ill in his Judgement that contend against Papists, Prelates and others to have the Lords Supper reduced exactly to the first pattern as a constant rule, there being such variations as disable it from being a rule.
3. I grant that analogy of faith and comparing Scriptures with Scriptures is to regulate us in this point of Sacramental order: But till Mr. Cobbet shew that in any other Scripture or analogy of faith there is a rule that persons should be baptized afore they be taught, his reasoning is, not to the present purpose.
But then saith he, If order must be observed so strictly, baptizing must go before salvation, Mark 16. 16. repentance may be before faith, Mark 1. 5. confession before faith, Romans 10. 9. if the place in Mark must be so closely stuck to without comparing it with the Scriptures of the old Testament, then we must preach the Gospel to Dogs, Cats, &c. since it is expresly said preach the Gospel to every creature.
Answ. 1. That if it follow not that every thing set before is first in order of time or nature, yet what is first appointed to be done in the solemn institution of Sacraments, is to be done first, as taking, blessing, breaking bread, before eating, so teaching the baptized afore baptizing as the Apostles practice shews, who best understood Christs appointment. As believing upon preaching is to go before salvation, so baptizing ordinarily and regularly (for which I now contend) and yet in special cases as persons may be saved without personal actual believing upon preaching, so without baptism. To avoid the inference of preaching to Beasts, we need not go to the old Testament Mat. 28. 19. …ol. 1. 23. &c. yield sufficient light to shew, that by [every creature] is meant all nations of men, or Gentiles, as well as Jews.
But (saith Mr. Cobbet) if it be absurd to say the Gospel is preached to little ones, what shall we say of Christs speech Mat. 19. 14. Deut. 30. 6. Acts 2. 38, 39. Luke 1. 76?
I answer, This may be said, that all these are frivolously alleged to prove that Christ should appoint the Gospel to be preached to infants (which were to make Christ as ridiculous as the Legends do Francis the Fryer) sith none of them mention any speech or preaching to little infants, though some of the speeches are of or concerning infants. As for what he further adds, It was no absurdity that infants were circumcised, Christ laid his hands on infants, Peters feet were washed, though these acts were not then understood. I grant it, and say, if Christ appointed infants to be baptized, I should not count it an absurdity, but sith his express institution is, that teaching should go before baptizing, till that order be shewed to be alte…ed, it is a prophane abuse of the ordinance of baptism to baptize those who are not taught.
Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 243. speaks thus, This is the weakest of all arguments, to reason for a precedency of one before another from the order in which they are placed in Scripture, so we may say John baptized before he preached the baptism of repentance, for his baptizing is mentioned before preaching of baptism Mark 1. 4. So we may say we must have glory first and vertue after, for so they are placed by the Apostle, 2 Peter 1. 3.
Answ. Though in Histories of facts sometimes things are s…t down last which were done first, yet in setting down institutions, order and every circumstance is observed, so as thence to conclude it irregular not to observe the order used in the primitive institution, 1 Cor. 10. 16. the cup of blessing is mentioned before the bread we break, and yet it would be counted a disorder and sinful to administer the wine before the bread, because in the mention of the institution the three Evangelists and Paul observe exactly the order as well as the use of the elements, as delivered by the Lord. In like manner when Christ appoints, and the constant practice of the Apostles expounds his words thus, that first persons be made disciples and believers, and then be baptized, sure it is an act of transgression of Christs command to do it otherwise, especially considering that by so doing the prime and chief end of baptism, to wit, to signify the baptized persons engagement to repentance and faith in Christ, is thereby evacuated.
Mr. Blake …aith Vindic. foederis pag. 136. God is a God of order, and he will have order observed, & p. 164 God will not suffer that disorder that the leading Sacrament should come after.
I may more truly say, God will not suffer the disorder of Mr. Bl. to have baptism go before and faith follow, when by necessity of precept, as he speaks there, Christ having instituted it and commanded it, discipleship and believing are put before baptism Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. and the Apostles so taught and practised Acts 2. 38. 41. & 8 12. 37. & 10 47, 48. & 11. 17. & 16. 15, 33, 34. & 18. 8. Glory is put before Vertue 2 Peter 1. 3. without disorder, if either the meaning be as Heinsius in his Preface to his Aristarchus sacer on Nonnus conceives, he hath called us by his glorious power, or if the ordinary reading be retained, though Vertue be before glory, yet we are called to glory first as the end, and then to vertue as the means, the end being first in intention, though last in execution.
There is another exception which I counted in my Examen p. 126. a very absurd one, and such as I presumed none that had any wit would entertain it, to wit that making disciples Matth. 28. 19. is to be by baptizing them, and yet Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 212. goes about to maintain that the Jewes children were discipled when circumcised, & pag. 213. that baptizing may be well rendred discipling, and allegeth Spanheimius for it. Mr. Hussey vents it as very remarkable and advantagious to prove infant-baptism. But against this toy I argued in my Examen page 131. 127.
1. No Lexicon, nor I thought expositor do expound [foreign make disciples] that is circumcise or baptize them.
2. That the word plainly signifies so to teach as that the persons taught do learn and accordingly professe the things taught.
To this Mr. M. replies, 1. That better Criticks than my self say that foreign is a Rabbinick phrase, and from their use of it it is best to be understood, and that with them it signifies to admit scholars, not because they were taught, but that they might be taught.
Answ. But Mr. M. neither names the Criticks, no… brings proof for what they say, nor if it were all granted would serve his purpose to prove that ever [disciple ye] is as much as [circumcise ye, baptize ye] I grant there is great use to be made of the Talmuds and Rabbins in expounding many passages in the New Testament, but in expounding this term there is no need of using them, when the use of it in other places, and comparing it with other Scriptures are sufficient to cleer it, yet if Mr. Ms. Criticks look over all the Talmuds and Rabbins I presume they will not find one passage wherein the making of a disciple or admitting of a Scholar was ever applyed to an infant. And though Mr. Hussey ridiculously tell us of taking children to School, and counting them for Scholars, who carry a hornbook to School, though they be put there only to play and keep them from harm, yet neither do any so admit as Scholars infants of a day or eight days old, nor is [a Scholar] all one with [a disciple] the latter word being from learning, the other from vacation from other imployment that he may learn, nor is making a disciple all one with admitting a Scholar.
Rightly saith Becman: Exercit. Th…ol. 17. pag. 2…0. verbum foreign (quod omnes libenter admittunt) ex nativa origine est discipulos facere foreign. Atqui hoc ipsum non nisi accedente doctrina fit. Qui enim discit tanquam foreign ab alio …x ra…ione foreign dicitur ita que discipuli sunt qui docentur & discunt. pag. 261. nec ulli discipuli sunt nisi qui docentur. Dum igitur Christus Apostolos jubet foreign ante omnia & quidem de necessitate jubet docere.
But 3. Mr. M. refers me with a blind direction to Spanheimius to consult with, which however I have done, as I find his words Dub. Evang. part. 3. dub. 27. and I say as in my Apology page 100. besides the mention of his words there need no other refutation.
For 1. it is false, that [to make disciples] signifies the end of their sending, and not the act they were to do, whereas it plainly notes the first act they were to do: and if it had been the end of the act of baptizing and teaching, it should have been thus [baptize and teach them all things, foreign that ye may make all nations disciples.]
2. Spanheimius there makes [foreign make disciples] to answer to [foreign he maketh disciples, John 4. 1.] But there it is another thing than baptizing, for making disciples and baptizing are knit together as two distinct things, and the making disciples there was by preaching, as the story of the Evangelist shews, therefore making disciples Matthew 28. 19. is by preaching, and is not barely baptizing.
3. His own words do refute the reason of his analysis. For he allegeth this reason, because if foreign should simply signify only to teach, there would be found a tautology in Christs words thus; Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, teaching them. But this absurdity is not avoided by his own exposition. For he himself saith, non significat solum docere, sed & discipulos facere, now if it signifie at all to teach the tautology is alike, if we say, Go, not only teach, but also make disciples baptizing them, teaching them, for by his own words teaching is twice commanded. Nevertheless in my exposition (commonly received) there is no tautology, Go, make by teaching or preaching the Gospel (that Jesus is the Christ) disciples, so as that they learn him to be the Messias, and profess him, as Mr. M. expounds John 9. 27. will ye be his disciples? and then baptize them, and after teach them to observe all that I have commanded. So that here is a double teaching injoined, one to preach or teach them the Gospel, that Jesus is the Christ, as Philip did the Eunuch, Acts 8. 36, 37. and then baptize, and then teach duties commanded by Christ. And for what Spanheimus saith, That this may in its manner be …i…ted to infants. For when parents do give their names to Christ for themselves and their families, their whole house is discipled, their children as well as themselves, it is false. For then if a parent give his name to Christ for himself and his family, and the whole house is discipled, thereby it will follow, that the wife, child, servant, though infidels, are discipled, and so in fidels should be Christs disciples. But no where is in Scripture any made a disciple but by his own act of learning. As for what Mr. M. adds to shew that without teaching first, by initiating into a Master a person may become a disciple, it is insufficient to that end. For 1 Cor. 10. 2. though all our Fathers be said to be baptized into Moses, yet not to be discipled, and the term foreign was discipled, Matth. 27. 57. doth not note a bare entring into Christs School without teaching or hearing of Christ, much less such an initiating as they give to infants without any act of their own, and John 9. 27. Mr. M. himself paraphaseth thus, will ye be his disciples, will ye profess him? which is an act of their own, of which infants are not ordinarily capable, and it supposeth some teaching and learning, at least this, that Jesus is the Christ.
2. I argued from Mark 16. 15. to which our Translators refer in the margin at Matthew 28. 19. as cleering the meaning of it, and generally interpreters shew thence how they were appointed to make disciples, to wit, by preaching the Gospel, and so Mr. M. Sermon page 35. Express command there is that they should teach the heathen and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptize them, and Defence page 210. Their commission was to preach and baptize, and hereupon from Matth. 28. 19. is gathered, that none are to baptize but preachers. Whence I argue, If the making disciples were to be by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples, then by making disciples is not meant baptizing, nor baptizing to be rendered discipling, For baptizing and preaching the Gospel are not all one; But the making disciples is appointed to be and was by preaching the Gospel to them who were made disciples; Ergo discipling is not by baptizing.
3. I argued from John 4. 1. in which it is confessed by the New Annot. edit. 1. on Mat. 28. 19. [made disciples and baptized] answer to [make disciples baptizing them Mat. 28. 19.] now John 4. 1. making disciples is one thing, and baptizing is another thing, though coupled with it; therefore the making disciples is not baptizing, but a distinct thing.
4. The Commission of Christ is to be understood according to the Apostles practice, unless we will say that either they understood not, or followed not Christs appointment; But their practice was to make disciples first by preaching, and then to baptize, and no other mentioned, as Mr. M. grants in his Sermon page 44. Ergo. I truly said, nor need Mr. M. wonder at it, or call it a wild consequence, as he doth Defence page 214. that if the Apostles had understood Christs Commission as Mr. M. doth, baptize according to the rule of circumcising, they might have saved a great deal of labour in preaching to the baptized afore they baptized them, and in baptizing females, sith the rule of circumcising did not require either. And though I grant it to be true, that male and female are all one, yet in the rule of circumcising a difference is made, and if that be the rule of baptizing infants, then in baptizing them male infants should be baptized and not female.
5. If making disciples be by baptizing without preaching before to the baptized, then non-preaching ministers may and do baptize rightly though they preach not the Gospel; But this I suppose will be denyed by Mr. M. Ergo.
6. If making disciples be by baptizing without preaching to them, then the Spaniards in America who drove the Indians into the water to be baptized, without teaching them or preaching the Gospel to them, did rightly, For they followed Christs rule thus expounded; But that is absurd; Ergo.
7. Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists say that the commission Mat. 28. 19. was the commission for first constituting the Churches of the Gentiles: If then the Cōmission be to be understood, make ye disciples by baptizing them, without first preaching to them, then he had appointed them to constitute or plant the first Churches without preaching, and then the Apostles gifts of tongues &c. were unnecessary, they might have constituted Churches by hands, baptizing them only without the use of those gifts; but these things are absurd, besides other absurd consequences wch follow on the exposition that discipling is baptizing, or baptizing discipling, Mat. 28. 19.
Lastly many of their own grants and expositions before recited do so cross this conceit, that as I said before, I thought none that had any wit would embrace it, so now I wonder that such men as have taken it up did not better make use of their wit, to decline so witlesse a shift. OnelyOnly I perceive any thing will erve turn to keep up the credit of Infant sprinkling.