Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 1
SECT. I. The second Argument against Infant-Baptism, that it is will-worship, is confirmed.
HAving proceeded so far in the Review of the dispute concerning Infant-baptism, as to vindicate the Texts, Rom. 11.17. Act. 2 38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. from such glosses as tend to wrest them to the maintenance of it, and to make good my first Argument against it, from the institution of Christ, Mat. 28.19. Mark. 16.16. The Apostles and primitive Evangelists practice and sayings, in two parts of the Review already printed, I go on to the finishing of the rest of the forementioned Review.
My second Argument against Infant-baptism is thus formed, That which is will-worship is not agreeable to the will of God, nor according to the rule of baptizing: But the ordinary Baptizing of Infants, though by a lawful Minister, is will-worship. Ergo.
The Major is proved, 1. From Col. 2.13. where will-worship is disallowed by the Apostle, and so generally Commentators and other Authors account will-worship a sin. Doctor Lakes defence about the Sabbath, Thes. 2. Ye know that foreign did never please God; yet Doctor Hammond in his Treatise of will-worship, will have foreign, or will-worship, to be understood in the better sense. But against it are the fra… of the Apostles words, and the drift of them, which is to blame them for being subject to ordinances after the doctrines and commandments of men, as not agreeing with a Christians co-dying with Christ; And he saith, Such things have a shew of wisdom: and verse 18. he that promiseth that none do beguile them of thei… reward foreign, willing in humility, or as our Translators, in a voluntary humility. I may not now divert from the present business to examine Doctor Hammonds Allegations, there being enough in that Text to prove, service as done to God, invented by men, and practised after their commands, without Gods appointment, not to be after Gods will: and I take Doctor Hammond to be well answered by Mr. Cawdrey. 2. However the Major is plainly proved from Christs words, Mat. 15.9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine mens precepts; which proves that worship which is taught after mens precepts (which is the same with will-worship in my proposition) is in vain, and therefore not agreeable to the will of God. But I need not say any more about it, sith my Antagonists do most of them except against will-worship as a sin.
The Minor is proved thus, That which is worship not appointed by God, is will-worship: But the ordinary baptizing of Infants of Believers, Churched or unchurched, though by a lawful Minister, is worship not appointed by God. Ergo. The Major is confirmed from the very definition of will-worship, which is, A worship of God nor appointed by him, but taken up according to the command of man, out of Mat. 15.9. The Minor is proved, by demanding a Scripture wherein God appointed Infant-baptism.
In answer hereto, in conference with me, it was once denied that Infant-baptism was used as a worship of God: But if so, then it is no holy thing, no Sacrament, no profaneness to contemn it, no matter if a Midwife do it, with many more of the like absurdities.
Master Blake in his answer to my letter ch. 13. pag. 92. Vindic. foed. ch. 44. denies Infant-Communion, Bell-baptism, to be will-worship, he makes will-worship then when men devise an Ordinance, but not when it is onelyonly an abuse, profanation, misapplication of an instituted worship to a wrong subject.
And Master Marshall page 195. of his Defence, would put me to prove, 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 be expressely set down in the N. T. pag. 196. There is no absolute necessity, that every circumstance of an Ordinance, or the several sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to be applied, must be set down in precept, or Apostolical example equivalent to a precept, found in the N.T. pag. 205. The point about Infant-baptism toucheth but a circumstance of age. In which speeches Mr. M. seems to make Infant-baptism but an arbitrary circumstance; and if so, then much injury was in the first use of his Sermon, in which he made the denial of Infant-baptism, odious, as if it were as bad or worse than the facts of Herod, and Hazael in slaying Infants; then much guilt of oppression lies on them that have denied place in the Ministery, scourged, imprisoned, fined, banished, put to death men for opposing, or not owning Infant-baptism; and very unrighteous have been their declamations, who in Pulpits and elsewhere have inveighed against them as Hereticks, Sectaries, &c. censured their opinion as intolerable, as Maresius qu. 6. their practice as Sacrilege, as Master Blake vindic. foed. ch. 4. If Master M. do indeed think the point of Infant-baptism to touch but a circumstance of age, and that it needs no divine institution, then it is an indifferent ceremony with him, such as the power of the Church may appoint, and if so, it is no otherwise blameable to omit it, than it is to omit any other Church-constitution. But the truth is, it is false which he saith, That the matter toucheth onelyonly a circumstance of age: for indeed it toucheth the qualification of the person to be Baptized; and the very end and use of Baptism (which are the essentials of it, as it is a Sacrament) which is, that the person Baptized, do thereby testifie his profession of Repentance and Faith in Christ, and covenant to be his, as appears by the very phrase used, of being Baptized into the name of the Trinity, Mat. 28.19. compared with 1 Cor. 1.13. as I have proved before, Part 2. Sect. 5. And were it a circumstance onelyonly of age, yet it being determined by Christ, who are to be baptized, to wit, Disciples and Belie…s, it is an arrogant presumption to alter it. Rightly saith Chamie… Panstr. tom. 4… lib. 8. c. 4. Sect. 32. quae non sunt institutae circumstantiae habeto sane sibi Ecclesia, ut tempus locumque celebrandi, & si quae sunt similia. At quae instituta sunt ea ne moveto.
As for M. Blakes speech, that a misapplication of … instituted ordinance to a wrong subject, is an abuse or profanation of it, but not will-worship, 1. It is not right. For though every misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance be not will-worship, yet a misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance is a will-worship, when not onelyonly the rite it self is made worship of God, but also the application of it to that subject, though it be but mens invention, yea and such a one as alters the end and use of the ordinance▪ as is in infant baptism, bell-baptism, altar-baptism, infant-Communion, Prayer, sacrifice, vows, keeping solemn feasts, offering incense, building altars, were instituted ordinances, yet Jeroboams sacrificing and keeping a feast at another time than God appointed, Ahaz his forming an altar after the pattern of that at Damascus, Nadab and Abihu their offering strange fire, prayer to Saints, for the dead, vowes to Saints, monastick profession after such a rule, keeping of holy dayes to Saints, and many other things among Pagans, and Papists, are: condemned as will-worship. Generally Protestants, even the Assembly in their Conffession of faith, chap. 29. art. 4. make the lifting up, reserving the elements in the Eucharist, Contrary to Matth. 15.9. and chap. 21. they say, the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy…scripture; yea the non-conformists have gone further in so censuring the three ceremonies, cross at baptism, kneeling at the Lords Supper, the wearing the Surplice in holy ministrations, to be will-worship, as the Abridgement of the Lincolnshire Ministers petition, and other writings shew, and D. Morton in his Defence, and D. Burges in his Rejoynder to the reply, chap. 2. and elsewhere, acquit them onelyonly from will-worship, in that they placed not holiness in them, made them not necessary parts of worship, which I presume M. Blake will not say of Infant-baptism, the denial of which he counts, though vainly, to be sacrilege, Vindic. foed. chap. 40. And sure baptisms were instituted ordinances among the Jews, Heb. 9.10. yet our Lord Christ applies the Prophets censure of will-worship, Isai. 29.13. against the Pharises placing holiness and fear of God in their washings of hands and other things so often and in the manner they used. Mark. 7.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Secondly, were it granted, that it is not properly will-worship to misapply an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject, yet if it be an abuse or profanation, the matter is no whit mended with M. Blake, if I put in my argument instead of the term (will-worship) the term (profanation or abuse) I presume Paedobaptists will not justify a profanation or abuse, which Infant-baptism is acknowledged to be if it be not after Gods appointment or Christs institution. Wherefore M. M. and the most of the paedobaptists, not trusting to these evasions seek for an appointment of Infant-baptism in the institution of Infant-circumcision, Gen. 17. Yet M. Baxter in his p…in Scripture proof, part. 1. chap. 4. &c. declines the command of Circumcision for proof of Infant-baptism, and imagins an ordinance of their visible Church-membership, distinct from the ordinance of Circumcision, unrepealed, out of which he endeavours to prove Infant-baptism, though he no where that I know shew us where that ordinance is, notwithstanding in my Praecursor and elsewhere he hath been often pressed to shew it, which book of M. B. taking so much, that a third edition is printed, I had hoped paedobaptists would have stuck to his way, and declined the other way of analogy of the Command of Circumcision. But I see latter books, as M. Sidenham, M. Fuller, and others, still insisting on the hypothesis concerning the covenants and the seal, and Baptisms succession to Circumcision, &c. M. Gataker in his Latin treatise against D. Ward about the force and efficacy of Infant-baptism, though by his Epistle▪ it appears he had seen M. Baxters books, yet p. 16. he speaks thus to D. Ward. I would you had specially designed the Command concerning the baptizing the infants of believers, which you mean. For although from the analogy of Circumcision, and the nature of this very sacrament, as it is destined to initiation, the comprehension of infants in the Covenant of grace &c. I deservedly believe both the Antient Church to have used, and the Church at this day justly to use Infant-baptism, yet hitherto I have found no speciall Command concerning this thing. I wish he had formed and confirmed his proof for Infant-baptism from the Analogy of Circumcision, &c. so antient, learned a man, and so accurate in Controversies, me thinks should have yielded some better proof for Infant-baptism than others have don, or have forborn calling them novel sectaries who with so much endeavour oppugn Infant-baptism (which is the expression in his Epistle to the Reader) and with-held his hand from subscribing to that attestation wherein the Four positions of my Examen were censured as erroneous and pernicious. But not meeting with any other proof than this, I shall keep on in the Review of the dispute, and examine the pretended institution of Infant-baptism out of the Old Testament, taking in some texts of the New, and first Examine the way of proof by analogy of Circumcision, which seems to have been the Assemblies way, and then M. Bs. more refined way, as is imagined, desiring the Reader to take notice of what was before disputed in the Second Section of the second part of this Review, to prove that consequences drawn from analogy between meer positive rites of the Old and New Testament to prove a duty in the use of them, without particular institution, are not good.