A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 17
SECT. XVII. The grosse absurdities to which Mr. B. vaunted I was driven in the dispute, were not so as he imagined.
PAge 207. He makes a catalogue of my absurdities at the dispute, to which (being the chief thing he charged me with in the Epistle to the people of Kederminster) I answer. The first and second will be shewed to be no absurdities in examining the first part of his book chap. 6. The third is no absurdity, understanding it of visible membership by profession of their own, in which notion I said in the dispute I understood visible Church-membership, as commonly Protestant Divines do. Upon what occasion the fourth and many other of them were spoken by me (if they were spoken by me) I cannot remember, nor what limitations or explications I then used, but this I conceive was my meaning, that infants of the Jewes were not visible Church-members in the wildernesse in that manner they were when they had circumcision, that is, by their visible particular note or mark, and yet then they were visible in the lump, the whole congregation being then Gods visible Church: in which sense they were then visible, and so the women too who were not circumcised. And when I said no infant can be said to be a visible Church-member without some act of his own: I meant it of visibility according to the note of visibility in the Christian Church. Which things being rightly understood, there was neither absurdity, nor contradiction in my speeches, nor any thing against conscience, nor deserving such derision as was in Mr. B. and his collegues, though perhaps through distraction of thoughts chiefely occasioned by Mr. Bs. concealing the notion in which he used the terme [visible] which I often in vain assayed to understand from him, or forgetfulnesse, or scantnesse of words I did not expresse my self clearly. This is answer sufficient about the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, nineth, sixteenth pretended absurdities. The tenth a candid man would have conceived rather to have been lapsum linguae, a flip of speech, then errorem mentis, a fault of mind, and that however a mistake might slip from me (a thing very incident to the most learned in the heat of dispute, yea sometimes in preaching, conference and writing) yet I meant [visibility] to be the adjunct, and the persons visible to be the subject. The eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth I conceive no absurdities, the Church-visibility of infants then being from that imperfect Church-frame, which was to continue onelyonly till Christ came, and was clogged with many burdens, which by Christs coming all were mercifully freed from, as, to go up to Jerusalem thrice a year, &c. without any losse of mercy to infants, though it were for a time a mercy to them: which will be morefully cleared (God assisting) in answering Mr. Bs. argument p. 1. chap. 6. The fourteenth is no absurdity, as I then to my best remembrance expressed it, though Mr. Bs. juvenility thought fit to make sport with it, that the elect people of the Jews were natural (not as Mr. B. sets it down naturally) that is according to nature, in that they were descended from Abraham (the roote of the Church of believers) by natural generation, and so natural branches, yet not by nature, that is, natural abilities or works of their own, but by grace as the efficient cause, Rom, 11. ver. 5, 6. To conceive it, the olive there notes a race of men who were the Church of believers, which because after Abraham the roote it was first in the Jewish Nation, is called their own olive: ver. 24. Of which Abraham is ver. 16, 18. made the roote bearing two sorts of branches, some ingraffed who were the Gentile believers, some natural the Jewes, and he is a roote under a double habitude, one as a natural Father, and another as Father of believers. Both sorts of branches are by the Apostle made to stand in Abraham the roote as branches of the Church of believers or the invisible, the one natural in that they were not proselyted or ingraffed, but came of Abraham by natural generation, the other proselyted or ingraffed by believing foreign, besides the natural way of descent from Abraham, yet both united in Abraham the common roote of believers, and in the olive-tree the Church of believers, as particular branches thereof: yet neither by nature, that is, by vertue of natural generation, as the Apostle determines, Rom. 9. 8. but by election of grace, Rom. 11. 5, 6. And whereas Mr. B. tells me, Rom. 11. 24. sayes both, he is mistaken. For 1. it is not said that any was a branch of the roote Abraham by nature, but that the ingraffed branches were antecedently to their ingraffing in the olive wild by nature: nor is it said of the branches from the roote that are called natural, that they were branches in the true olive by nature, as Mr. B. would have it to prove them of the visible Church by nature: but that they were branches of that olive or race of men who were not wilde by nature, that is Gentiles bringing no fruit to God, but of that olive which was descended from Abraham by natural generation, which was the Church of God till broken off. 2. Whereas the translation turnes foreign ver. 21, 24. by [natural] and once ver. 24. [by nature] yet it is the same terme foreign in all. 3. It is not true that the Jewes in the translation of ver. 24. are said to be branches by nature. And for the fifteenth absurdity it is no absurdity: they are called natural onelyonly in respect of their descent as men from Abraham, but not as branches in the olive-tree. And this is clear. For the ingraffed branches can be said to be no otherwise foreign besides nature, but in that they were not descended from Abraham by natural generation, and therefore on the contrary the Jews are natural branches, not as believers, but as men descended from Abraham by natural generaration. The seventeenth absurdity is a relation of a speech of mine that Mr. B. cannot finde one Author expounding 1 Cor. 7. 14. of infants Covenant-holinesse in his sense before Luther, and Zuinglius; and then askes, is this irue? I answer, I think it is, and if he can produce any one, me thinks he should have done it in his book. If he do, he will do more then Mr. Ms. friend better versed as I conceive in Antiquity then Mr. B. hath done, though attempting it page 21. of Mr. Ms. Defence of his Sermon. Two places; he cites; one in Tertullian, which I have answered in my Apology page 85. The other in Athanasius qu. 114. ad Antiochum, as teaching infant-baptisme by vertue of federal holinesse from 1 Cor. 7. 14. But, 1. The Author is confessedly spurious, by Rivet. Critic. sac. l. 3. c. 6. Scultetus part. 2. Medul. Patr. l. 1. c. 42. Perkins Preparat. to the Demonstr. of the probleme. The works falsely imposed on Athanasius are these. The book of divers questions of the Holy Scripture unto King Antiochus; for therein great Athanasius is cited. Yet Mr. M. or his friend hath these words ubi supra. These wordes then which are safe and sound, grounded upon tho same Scripture which I have much insisted on are read in the works of Athanasius: where the question is about infants dying requiring a resolution, that might clearely set whether they go to be punished or to the Kingdome. The answer is, seeing the Lord said, Suffer little children to come unto-me, for of such is the Kingdome of heaven. And the Apostle sayes; Now your children are holy (observe the Gospel-ground the same that I build upon) it is manifest that the infants of believers which are baptized do as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome. This assertion is owned by all the reformed Churches] But had Mr. M. or his friend recited the words fully then it would have appeared how impertinently the words are alleadged to prove the baptizing of infants by vertue of federal holines from 1 Cor. 7. 14. & that none of the Reformed Churches would own the doctrine of that Author, being built on no Gospel-ground, but Popish opinion of Limbus infantum. For the entire words are these Qu. 114. ad Antiochum, Whither go dying infants to punishment or the Kingdome? and where are the infants of believers dying unbaptized disposed, with the believers or unbelievers? Answ. The Lord saying, Suffer little children to come: for of such is the Kindome of heaven, and again the Apostle saying, But now are your children holy, it is manifest that the infants of believers baptized go into the Kingdome as unspotted and believing: but the unbaptized and Heathenish neither go into the Kingdome nor into punishment: for they have done no sin. Which answer plainly determines that infants of believers if baptized enter into the Kingdome: but neither the unbaptized infants of believers or Heathens enter into the Kingdome or punishment: for they have done no sin. Not a word of federal holinesse, but the plain Popish doctrine that infants dying unbaptized go to limbus infantum, but the baptized into the Kingdome of heaven: which is the same with the doctrine father'd on fustin Martyr. qu. 56. ad orthod. Now this is contrary to what the reformed Churches assert even from 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the children of believers are federally holy afore baptisme, and go into the Kingdome though they die unbaptized. Nor doth the alleadging 1 Cor. 7. 14. prove that the Author observed the Gospel-ground (more truly Antievangelical or Jewish) which Mr. M. buildeth on. For the holinesse in that Author is meant either of holinesse in possibility in being likely to be baptized, because believing parents would likely breed them up in Christianity and they be baptized, in which sense Tertull. de anima c. 39. expoundes the Apostle as calling them holy not in act barely by descent from a believer, but because designati sanctitatis, or as Hierome Epist. 153. ad Paulinum alledging, Tertullian de monogamia, quod candidati sint fideiet nullis idololatriae sordibus polluantur, which Erasmus in his glosse on Hierom, renders thus, quodvelut ambiunt et exspectant baptismum; or else of actual holinesse in being baptized, believers being wont to baptize their infants when neare danger of death not by reason of Covenant-holinesse, but the giving of grace by baptisme, and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing. I am still confident that neither Father nor Interpreter preceding the sixteenth century did interpret 1 Cor. 7. 14. of holinesse of separation to God as visible Church-members by Gods Covenant to them: Nor doth Chamier panstras. Cathol. tom. 4. l. 5. cap. 10. bring any though he purposedly sets down the various opinions about the holinesse there meant, and sayes omnes complecti conabor & examinare sententias. Sure I am Augustin. tom. 7. l. 2. de pecc. mer. & remis. c. 26. saith, Ac per hoc & illa sanctificatio cujuscun que modi sit quam in filiis fedelium esse dixit Apostolus, ad istam de baptismo & de peccati origine vel remissione omnino non pertinet: nam & conjuges infideles in conjugibus fidelibus sanctificari dicit eo ipso lo…o, &c. Unto which I think good to adde, that whereas Mr. M. in his Defence page 10. 58. brings in the Pelagians acknowledging that infants were baptized secundum sententiam Evangelii, which he imagines to be the Gospel-ground (as he calls it) of federal holinesse from the Covenant to the believer and his seed in Aug. tom. 7. l. 2. contra Pelag. & Coelest. c. 5. That he hadadded the next words [quia Dominus statuit regnum Coelorum non nisi baptizatis posse conferri] it would have appeared, that the Gospel he meant was John 3. 5. which with Rom. 5. 12. was elleadged in those dayes as a reason of the Churches tradition of infant-baptisme, and no other reason can I finde for infant-baptisme, nor in any the exposition of 1 Cor. 7. 14. in Mr. Ms. or Mr. Bs. sense till Zwinglius his dayes. The eighteenth absurdity is, that I said the word foreign is taken many hundred times for authority, and askes is that true? To which I answer, This was spoken in the dispute, when I had not time or means to collect the number of times wherein foreign is used for authority in Scripture, and therefore spake at adventure, and if I did Hyperbolize it might be neitheir absurdity nor untruth so to speak, as is frequent in speakers & writers without imputation of falshood. Nevertheless I find it used above an hundred times in the New Testament, in Matthew 10. and 6. of them it is traslated authority, and in most places where it is translated power, it might be translated authority, and if it be used for liberty in any of these places, yet it is no where used for a veile but one, 1. Cor. 11. 10. and I doubt not but it is used for authority, or power, or liberty many hundreds of times in the Lxx Greek of the old Testament, though I have not a Greek Concordance of the old Testament, to number them by, and therefore there is neither absurdity, nor untruth in any speech any more then in that John 21. 15. though I conceive there is scarce need of an hyperbole to verifie it, but am sure Mr. B. trifles in putting this into the score of my absurdities to which I was driven. To the nineteenth I do not remember I said, the Corinthians doubted whether their living together were fornication. My resolution and exposition of the Apostles words will be made good against this exception, in answering Mr. Bs. fifth argument c. 29. of the first part, which I intend to fit for the presse with as much speed as I can. To the twentieth I have in my Examen of Mr. Ms. Sermon, Exercit. Antidote and Review shewed a ground of necessity to take the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 7. 14. in my sense, not in Mr. Bs. the reply to which made by Mr. B. will appear to be insufficient upon the examination of chap. 29. of the first part of his book. The one & twentieth absurdity which Mr. B. would fasten on my arguing as most absurd, and like a right Anabaptist (in his scoffing language) is meerly from his mistake of my expression, as if by present prayer I meant prayer coexistent and continued during the use of the thing sanctified: whereas my meaning was to exclude an habit of prayer without the act, and actual prayer interrupted in its course, through lapse into such sin as Davids adultery, in which time things are not sanctified to real believers till repentance restore their sanctifying exercise. And so the two and twentieth and four and twentieth absurdities which Mr. B. makes so horrid, are also answered, nor was the three and twentieth an absurdity. Mr. B. himself page 98. limits the speech [all things are pure to the pure] that is, all things good and lawfull; and is not this all one as to say [some things are pure;] nor is it unusual to limit such universal termes, as the matter requires, as 1 Cor. 13. 7. & 10. 23. &c. The twentiefith and twentiesixth were no absurdities, but fit answers to so trifling arguments. For the terme [disciple] importing one that hath learned, it is but trifling to argue [infants of believers are disciples] without proving they have learned; and the reason why they have not learned is because they are untaught; and if Mr. B. had further asked why they are not taugh, I would have answered, because ordinarily uncapable, and God both not extraordinarily shewn them this mercy: But because I perceived he was about to leave the plain way of proving them disciples, by shewing that the notation and use of the word disciple (which himself page 92. confesseth to come from the act of learning) did agree to them, never imagining that ridiculous sense in which he takes the word [disciple] page 14. as a relation without a foundation without actual learning for the present, or so much as an assay, intention or capacity to learn, and making actual learning the end of an Infants being a disciple, who hath no thoughts of it, and that he sought to winde about an intangling discourse about Gods mercy to Infants, which though it were but frivolous in respect of the thing to be proved, to wit, the appliablenesse of the word [disciple] to Infants, yet being popular and pausible, would be taking with the Auditors (which I quickly perceived he affected). I conceived on the sudden the answers I gave fittest, and so still do think. The last in number is no absurdity, but if Mr. B. put in [actual] used by him in the dispute, and understand it of circumcision as acted barely, not as taught, and put in the terme [yoke] it is Mr. Bs. absurdity to maintain the contrary as is proved above. And for the latter part it is no absurdity, nor seemed to Grot. annot. in Mat. 11. 29. Jugum mandata singnificat. It à vox ista sumitur, Act. 15. 10. & Johannes hunc locum explicans pro jugo foreign dixit, 1. Epist. 5. 3. To like purpose Pareus in Mat. 11. 30. where he useth the terme jugum doctrinae, the yoke of doctrine, applied to the Gospel in opposition to the yoke of the law, Acts 15. 10. So the N. Annot. on Mat. 11. 29. Acts 15. 10. 1 John 5. 3. Pisc. sch. on Act. 15. 10. the yoke] to wit, the law of Moses by comparing it with verse 5. Deod. on Mat. 11. 30. calls it the rigorous yoke of the law unsufferable without Christ, and therefore unsufferable not so much for the labour in observing it, as the imperfection to quiet the conscience, and the condemnation it bound to for not keeping it, on Acts 15. 10. My arguing to prove the repeale of infants Church-membership was onelyonly lamentable, in that it met with such a contemptuous respondent, who judgeth that idem, per idem, which was rationally thus. The repeale of Church-membership was proved from the altering the Church-state from Jewish national to Christian personal, this proved from the different call, this proved from the different way God took to gather his Church in the New Testament from the Old, by preaching not authority of superiors as when he brought the family of Abraham, and the Jewish Nation into Covenant. What the Ministers (so called) which sate next Mr. B. judged I passe not. They were much deceived in their judgement about my arguing, and my being mated and puzzled then. What ever puzzling I had was in the beginning, when I was almost at a stand what to answer, and therefore varied my answers by reason of my not understanding where that ordinance of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed Mr. B. speakes of is, and in what sense Mr. B. called them visible Church-members and disciples under the Goipel, which then I understood not, nor did he explaine so as that I could clearly understand him, nor so fully since by his book, but that by much diligence I am fain to pick it out by comparing one passage and expression with another. It is untrue that not knowing what to say I was resolved to say something, lest if I were silent the people should think I were worsted, or that I requested him to name my absurdities: or that by private confessions or by my own confession I was conscious of absurdities I was driven to.