Apostolical Baptism, Part 1
Mr. Blake his answer hereto Pag. 21.
This is the man that being reviled will not revile again, Athiest is the worst word a brother shall hear from him; but if here be any fallacy, it is none of the objectors sophistry, but of the stormers forgery; I challenge this daring champion, who so contumeliously slanders the Churches of Christ, for garisons of Antichrist, and then so insolently insults over them, to produce the man that ever layd the weight of this conclusion; that Infants are to be baptized, upon this one observation, that they are part of the Nation.
Reply.
Nor do I charge any man so to have done; But your self know, that it is an usuall Argument brought for baptizing Infants; and therefore it stood me in hand to answer it: Yea, it is answered, that it is a fallacy of division, which you are not able to refute. And whereas you charge me, that what is rightly observed by the Objector (meaning I suppose your self) is falsely put together by the Stormer, p. 21.
Answ. I did not give it as an answer to any such Argument brought by your self, not remembring you had any such; but to an Argument I once heard brought in a populous Auditory. And therefore you do not fairly, in making persons believe that of me, which I never meant: And so much the rather, in that you accuse me of calling a brother Athiest, which never was in my thoughts, much lesse dropt from my pen. Yea, that I contumeliously slander the Churches of Christ, for Garisons of Antichrist; I abhor such speeches. Neither can Mr. BLAKE produce the least reviling speech in all my Book, and if he could, I doubt not but I should have heard of it. But for lack of such speeches, I may say of him, as the King of Israel said of the King of Syria, 2 Reg. 5.7. Consider I pray you and see, how he seeketh a quarrell against me. The searcher of hearts knoweth, that in using this similitude, I never meant to charge either Mr. Blake, or any other man, with any reviling speech; but being a story I had formerly react, and cleerly demonstrative in this particular; I made use of it, not imagining any man could have beene so heated hereby, as Master BLAKE seemeth to bee. And whereas in conclusion he tells me, of such as would loose their God, rather then their jest, I suppose he cannot find nor jest, nor jeare in all the booke which he takes upon him to confute; and those that know my life, I appeale to, whether they know me to be given to any kind of jesting, much lesse to prophane jesting. And therefore Mr. Blake is much mistaken, in saying that I slanderously and contumeliously traduced a brother (I suppose he meanes himselfe) in using such a comparison. If Michael durst not bring a rayling accusation against the devill, Iude 9. then farr be it from me to rayle upon any, that either are, or may be Saints of God; but of this perhaps enough and too much.
Now to answer to your argument, with which you close up your answer, Pag. 22.
The disciples of Christ belonging vntounto him and bearing his name, ought to be baptized.
But Infants of Christian parents, belong to Christ, and beare his name in Scripture language;
Therefore, Infants of Christian parents ought to be baptized.
Answ. 1. In your proposition there is a contradiction in the adjunct, viz. the disciples of Christ belonging unto him, and bearing his name, ought to be baptized, to speak properly, they do not beare his name, till they be baptized.
2. To your assumption; Infants of Christian Parents in Scripture language, belong to Christ. I have disproved before, that belonging to Christ, and being a Disciple of Christ, are two severall things; which were enough to overthrow your assumption.
But I will deny your assumption in the 3. branches of it.
As first, that Infants of Christian Parents, belonging to Christ; for they no otherwise belong unto him, then as God shall call them out of the world, Acts 2.39. And so do the Infants of wicked men.
2. A second branch, that Infants bear Christs name in Scripture-language. Mr. BLAKE might have done well to have brought his Scripture to prove it; for I know no Scripture, that holds forth Infants of Christian parents, more then the Infants of wicked parents, to bear Christs name in Scripture-language; Oft doth God convert the children of wicked parents, when the Infants of godly parents growing up, prove wicked.
3. A third branch is, that they are disciples.
Answ. None for the present are, for Christ hath no disciples but are learners, which infants are not; nor are they so qualified as Christs disciples are and ought to be: As was proved before.
Contrarily, I argue:
Those of whom there can no appearance be …ad of their belonging to Christ, or of being his disciples, they ought not to be baptized into the faith of Christ, or profession thereof.
But of no infants, there can ordinarily appearance be had of their belonging to Christ, or of being his disciples:
Therefore, no infants ought to be baptized.
The proposition is undoubted; The Assumption appeares, that there can no appearance be had of any infants belonging to Christ, in their infancie; for no infants of the holiest persons, appeare so; and some prove wicked: as appears in some infants of Abram, Isaac, David, Samuel, &c. No man can say for certainty, of any infant of any godly man; this infant belongs to Christ, or will be a disciple of Christ.
Obj. But you will say, no more can you have certainty of their belonging to Christ, that make profession, seeing Magus, &c. were hypocrites.
Answ. True, we cannot have a certainty of infallibility, but we have a certainty of precept, being bid to baptize those that are made disciples, Matth. 28.19. Also we have a certainty of evidence, by words and life; neither of which infants can give, and which charity reaches us to judge as truth.
Also we have certainty of example, in that PHILIP baptized the Eunuch upon the confession of Christ his nature, knowing him to be a Proselyte of the Jewish Church, to be instructed in Christ his Offices; and it seems this profession or confession, was of all Christians at their baptisme, Heb. 10.23. As it is word for word in the Greek, viz. And having washed the body with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of the hope without wavering. What profession or confession was this? Surely that which was made at our baptisme, when we washed our bodies with pure water.
Next, Mr. BLAKE comes to reason against my fourth and fifth Argument together, p. 22. viz. The baptisme of Christ requires faith and repentance, to the right receiving of it; but neither of these can be in infants, therefore infants baptisme, cannot be Christs baptisme.
To this Mr. BLAKE p. 23. distinguisheth and answereth, that want of faith and repentance is twofold: First privative, which he makes to be want of that grace in a subject capable of it, and by the precept of the Gospell called to it: Secondly Negative, where it is not (meaning faith, where Note, he acknowledges infants have not faith, as also in the next page. See p. 22. 23.) Negative, where it is not, but not expected, nor the subject of capacitie to receive it: Now it is not meer negative want of faith, that makes uncapabale of baptisme, but privative; that is, the unbelief of a person of capacitie to believe.
Reply.
The Scripture requires justifying Faith in all, or that which is deemed equivalent thereto: viz. A profession thereof, which every Church and person judges to be in truth, not being able to search the heart; See for this these places, Heb. 10.22. Mark. 16.15.16. Acts 8.37.
Therefore where there is any kinde of want of it, the person so wanting it, and especially being known to want it, ought to be excluded from baptisme: Negative want of faith, and privative (if any such distinction can be herein, which I deny) though they may differ in degree of guilt, yet are they both alike, in that they hold forth a want of those absolute qualifications of faith and repentance, without which (at least in profession) we never finde baptism administred. Away with these frivolous distinctions, great is their guilt.
Mr. Blake having acknowledged want of faith in infants: Yet after comes to be offended, for my calling the distinction of seminall and actuall faith, a vain distinction; seeing there is but one faith; Ephes. 4. And replyeth, though faith be but one, yet it may admit of a double consideration, in the root and in the fruit.
Answ. The root of faith, is the habit which most properly is called faith, and the fruits are the acts of it; still there's but one faith.
Again, Mr. Blake is offended, because I said the first seed of faith is illumination, of which infants are not capable; To which he replyes, the Spirit is the first seed.
Answ. The spirit is the sower, illumination is the first seed.
Then pag. 24. Mr. Blake tels us; It's the absurdity of our party, to maintain this Sacrament of baptisme is applied upon the ground of charity, and not certainty, upon hopes that the person is of capacity, not upon assurance.
Answ. We do so, because we finde it so administred in Scripture; as we see in Magus, in charity they thought him to be a believer: And we have a certainty of charity herein to bear us out. But for a certainty of infallibility, upon which baptisme is to be applied to any person, the Scripture mentions no such; and had there been any such I doubt not but the Churches would have excluded Ananias and Saphyra, Magus, and many others, from baptisme: And if Mr. Blake, or any other Paedobaptists, know of any such certainty of infallibility, upon which to dispence the Ordinance of Baptisme, they do ill to dispence it to so many, as after prove wicked.
Then Mr. Blake concludes with this Argument, p. 25.
That want of faith and repentance, which debars from baptisme, excludes also from salvation:
But want of faith and repentance infants, excludes not from salvation;
Therefore, the want of faith and repentance, debars not infants from baptisme.
Answ. We deny the proposition to be simply true in adult persons, unlesse it be finall; for present want of faith and repentance, may debar them from baptisme, and yet they may be saved, believing after. Also it's not true in infants: infants being not of capable understanding neither to believe nor repent, may be excluded from Baptisme, and yet may be saved through Gods Election, or Christs satisfaction; Iacob was loved before he had done good or evill. Or through Gods future calling of them.
Contrary, I argue:
Such qualifications as Christ and his Apostles, set down for persons baptizable, these ought onelyonly to be observed.
But Christ and the Apostles set down onelyonly the qualifications of faith and repentance, for persons baptizable;
Therefore, the qualifications of faith and repentance, ought onelyonly to be observed.
The proposition is undoubted, for we are to hear Christ as the Prophet of his Church, Acts 3.22. And the Apostles as speaing from him, Ephes. 2.20.
The Assumption is as sure, that neither Christ in his commission cyted by Matthew, or Mark, nor any other of the Apostles in their sermons, set down any other qualifications for baptisme, save faith and repentance; and it had been great unfaithfulnesse for them, to set down Ordinances for Christians, and left out qualifications for the persons that should have received them.
The next Argument Mr. Blake sets upon, is this.
The children of wrath are not to be sealed with the seal of grace; infants are such, Ergo. &c.
To this Mr. Blake faith, a childe of wrath is to be considered two wayes: First, so by nature, originall corruption putting him into that condition. Secondly, so in his present state and condition, not translated and chang'd through Grace.
Answ. Your distinction is no distinction; For what difference is there betwixt a childe of wrath not chang'd, and a childe of wrath put in that estate by originall corruption? The one is unchang'd, and so is the other.
2. Christ giving commission, that repentants and believers should be baptized; infants by nature impenitent and unbelieving, must needs be excluded.
Next, Mr. Blake excepts against an objection I made, which was: But if infants as well as others, be children of wrath by nature, then they dying in their infancy must needs be damned.
Answ. No: naturall de…lement with originall sin, doth not simply damn; it shewes there is something in us deserves damnation; but it doth not appear from Scripture grounds, that any Person was damned for it alone.
To this Mr. BLAKE answers, P. 27. The universall damning power of originall defilement, we can prove out of 1 Cor. 15.50. Iohn 3.3. Ephe. 2.3.
Answ. That there is an universall damning power of originall defilement, is cleer, out of Romans 5.12. &c. In respect of merit we acknowledge, but not in respect of execution; for if there bee, good now tell me whether it be executed on your infants dying after baptisme in their infancy, before th believe, or whether your baptisme hath taken away this damning power or originall defilement? If you assert the former, then you uncharitably affirm, your own infants dying after baptisme in their infancy, to be damned; if the latter, then you assert your baptisme, to take away the damning power of originall defilement, and so joyn hands with the Papists.
As Heterodox is that which Mr. BLAKE saith, p. 18. That the charity of the Paedobaptists (whereby they hold infants dying after baptisme in infancy to be saved) is not grounded upon any conceived immunity in those infants, from all damnable guilt, but on the title to that covenant, whereof circumcision was a signe and seal.
Answ The supposition of the salvation of any person whatsoever, must be grounded upon an immunity from all manner of guilt; which cannot be upon any imaginary title to that covenant,Apoc. 21.27. whereof circumcision was a signe, but upon the presentment of the satisfaction of Christis death to the justice of God, for all manner of sin and guilt.
My next Argument Mr. Blake sets upon, is out of Acts 8.10.12. where there is mention made of a whole City baptized, both men and women; there's no mention made of believers and their seed.
To this Mr. Blake answers; the sex is in this place noted, and not the growth and age, as appeares in the distinct mention of both sexes, and the age and growth not mentioned at all.
Reply. Is not the distinct age and growth mentioned, when they are said to be men and women? Are infants ever said to believe as these Samaritans did? Or called men and women, as these Samaritans were?
Further, whereas p. 30. Mr. Blake saith, that this distinction of sex, in all probability, was to distinguish baptisme in this particular from circumcision; where the male was circumcised, not the female: But here, male and female, men and women, are both baptized.
Reply. It is of far more probability, if not of direct certainty, that the Holy Ghost by this distinction of them, both by grace of faith, and statures of men and women, would denote unto us, that onelyonly believing men and women, are fit subjects of baptisme, and not believers seed; none of which are mentioned.
Then Mr. Blake assaults my seventh Argument, from Acts 19. 2, 3, 4, 5. which is;
Baptisme that wants faith in one of the persons of the Trinity, is insufficient. Infants at baptisme wants faith, not onelyonly in one, but in every person of the Trinity; Therefore is insufficient.
To this, Mr. Blake p. 31. saith, Faith is twofold:
First, Explicite; as able to know a Trinity and Unity, and to distinguish it.
Secondly, implicite; to know one Iehovah in Covenant with his Elect, and reconciled to them, though not knowing distinctly any Trinity of persons; to make baptisme insufficient in all, in whom this explicite knowledge is not found, is (I suppose) to nullifie the baptisme, almost of all whom Iohn baptized.
Reply: Baptism may be deemed insufficient in all persons, who have not an explicit knowledg of the Trinity after Christs ascension: because the form of it, is in being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now the from gives being. If a person then be ignorant of any of the subsistences (or as they are commonly called, persons in the Trinity) how can he be baptized aright? and though sometime persons were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, yet doubtlesse had those persons a knowledg of the Trinity. Yea, and Iohns Disciples also had the same knowledge; in that the Spirit descended visibly like a Dove upon Christ, at his baptisme, and a voice cried out; This is my beloved Sonne, in whom I am well pleased. Matth. 3.16, 17. Where Father, Son, and Spirit, are all named.
Its a prime principle, that souls be informed in the object of worship, especially, if they go so far as to take Christs badge on them by baptisme.
Mr. Blake, p. 32, 33. counts it a singular opinion in me, in that I affirm the Particle They, twice mentioned in the 5. verse, to have reference to Lukes relation, of Pauls proceeding with these twelve disciples at Ephesus, and not to have reference to the hearers of Iohn Baptist.
Reply. This is no singularity it me, for Cyprian long ago thought so much. Epist. ad Iubaian.
2. It seems not spoken of Iohns hearers, but of the twelve; because there's a period at the end of the 4. verse at these words; saying, They should believe on him that should come after them: that is, on Christ I…su…. Here is a period, when it should onelyonly have been a Colon, had it been spoken of Iohns hearers.
3. If this had been meant of Iohns hearers, and not of the twelve Disciples, then Paul should lay his hands on the twelve, and the Holy Ghost come upon them, vers. 6 before they were baptized into the Holy Ghost; which is not any thing credible.
4. It seems cleer by the continuation of the History; and it would trouble a good Grammarian to give a reason, why the Pronoun They, should agree with Iohns hearers, rather then with the twelve.
But my second reason, is that which swayes with me. I grant, if it can be evinced that it's spoken of JOHNS hearers, then the Argument is of no force: For to confirm which, Mr. BLAKE brings no Arguments from the Text. But if the contrary be evinced further, as others may see further demonstrations for it, more then is yet revealed, then the Argument is unanswerable. For Mr. BLAKE'S saying herein, vers. 5. hath a full relation to saying yea to JOHN's saying, vers. 4. And why not as well or better to PAUL's saying? vers. 4. Then said P…ul — Wh…n they b…ard this, vers. 5. And for the agreement, it may be very fit, for vers. 2. he askt them, whether they had received the Holy Ghost? And the twelve answered; they had not heard whether there had been an Holy Ghost: He asks them, unto what then were ye baptized? And the twelve answered, vers. 3. into JOHNS baptisme: Then vers. 4. PAUL replied, that JOHN baptized with the baptism of repentance, &c. q.d. The scope of JOHNS baptisme, was to bring persons to believe Christ: And when they heard this that is the 12. they were baptized into the Name of the Lord JESUS, which may be put Synecdochically for all the Trinity: And when PAUL had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them, vers. 6. as it did on the Samaritans, Act. 8.16, 17. as soon as ever they were baptized: I see not, but there may be a good agreement, betwixt all the parts of the Text. But of this enough.
Next, Mr. BLAKE licks over my 8. Argument, which is this.
The same conditions and qualifications, are required in persons baptizable in our dayes, as were in time of the Apostles. But to have put on Christ, to be baptized into Christs death, to have the heart sprinkled from an evill conscience, to be buried and risen again with Christ, to have the answer of a good conscience, were the conditions then required; Ergo, such conditions and qualif…cations are required in our dayes, …. 34
Here Mr. BLAKE gives not any answer worth replyall, onelyonly he saith, my s…lf ac…nowledged the benefit of salvation which infants have by Christ his death, and why may they not then be baptized into his death?
Reply. I put it onelyonly in a charitable supposition, for elsewhere I say, the Scripture reveals nothing of the salvation or damnation of infants.
2. Though dying infants (it's to be hoped) have benefit by Christs death, yet being no man knowes which of them will dye in infancy, nor which of them will grow up and prove godly or wicked, yea they all being without any profession of life or godlinee, yea without any such qualifications whatsoever; therefore we baptize them not, because no such unqualified persons, were bap…ized in the Apostles dayes, nor by Christs Commission; to the adherency of which Commission and example, we are not yet informed that we transgresse
Next Mr. BLAKE, P. 35. Examines my 9 Argument, which is.
That tenent which brings mischiefes to the Churches, and the contrary practise, benefits: the pract…zing of the one is unlawfull, and the contrary practise required.
But the baptisme of Infants brings mischiefes to the Churches:
And the delaying of baptisme till Persons believe, brings benefits;
Therefore the practising of infants baptisme is unlawfull, and the contrary practise required.
To the proposition Mr. BLAKE answers: the same lists of mischiefes which you heap up to make good your assumption, were undeniably in the Church of the Jews through circumcision of infants, as well as in the Churches of Christ, by their baptisme.
R…p…y. You should have added […n their infancy] to the word [baptisme] or else you deceive the Reader, to make him think, that I think, that there are mischiefs in the Ordinances of God; as in a right baptisme, which I do not. Now granting your speech to be of infants baptisme, I deny there was any such mischeifes could b… pretended against Circumsition. Did that confound the world and the Church together, when there was a command from God to circumcise every male? was that a ground-worke of traditions, which was done by a precise command from God? or could that fill the conscience with scruples, where there was a cleere command for it? Gen. 17. I might go through the rest of the particulars of the assumption which you urge, in answering to the proposition; but these are enough.
P. 36. Mr. BLAKE saith, in further answer to the proposition, viz. You imagine no un…l mischiefs to com… to the Churches, by compulsion of conscience, yet that which you thus brand, in the old Testament, was the command of God, and p…actised of renouned Princes, with singular approbation of the Holy G…ost.
Reply. I suppose this instance, doth not a whit prove the point in hand; we never find in the old Testament, any Magistrate, compelling any persons to this or that beliefe; or punishing him if he did no… so b… lieve, as the Magistrate would have; we only find him compelling those of the Jewish Church [himselfe being a Member thereof] to practise the things they did professedly believe; yet did not the Magistrate, bring in any proselites this way, nor compell any Town or City of any forreign nation, to imbrace their beliefe; as the Ammonites, Hittites, or the remainder of those Nations that remained amongst them. That he did; I suppose, he did by command from God.
In the new Testament, we find none compelling in point of beliefe, hat I know of, save the beast, Apoc. 13.15. Which causeth, that whosoever would not worship the Image of the beast shou…d be killed, and v…rs. 16.17. Causeth all, small and great, rich and poore, bond and free, that he may give them (for so it is in the orginal…) a mark in their right hand, or in their forhead, and that no man might buy or sell, unlesse he …ave the mark.
Besides, what Asa did in compelling the Jew a themselves to enter into Covenant with God, he had some Prophet to direct him herein; else could he not have done i…, seeing there was no ru…e for any such thi…g in the law of Moses: without which how he could have b…en exemp…ed from will-worship, I cannot for the present understand, neither he nor any other King, compelled any Person to the Jewish religion, or to be present at their Sacrifices, or to be a member of the Jewish Church.
And what if sundry Princes in the old Testament practised the same, yet was the Kingdome of Israel an earthly or worldly Kingdome, an earthly or worldly Temple, an earthly or worldly People, and the King an earthly King, who in and over all that Kingdome, Temple, and People, could require only earthly …bedience: but the Kingdome of Christ, now is an heavenly Kingdome, not of this world; his Temple, Tabernacle, House, People, all heavenly, and spirituall: and the King Christ Jesus, a King requiring spiritua…l obedience; to whom obedience ought to be willing and cheerefull, not voluntary and forced.
Nay, should the Magistrate by his power bring his people to truth, and they walke in an outward conformity to the trut…, and …y in the profession thereof, in obedience to the Magistrates power, either for fear or love; shall they be saved? no they shall not, but they only whom the love of God constraines to obedience, shall be accepted: The Magistrate being then unable to make men offer acceptable sacrifices to God, will he (whether Persons will or no) make them bring unacceptable sacrifice to God? surely the Magistrate herein will not please God. It was not long since, that the Magistrates compelled men to kneele at the Sacrament, to bow at the name of Iesus, at the alter, with many other will worships; as cr…ssing their Children, joyning in the service book, &c. Had the things been lawfull, they had been abominable to the Persons that did them, if in their consciences, they had been u…lawfull. But the things being unlawfull, and the Magistrate compelling them too, did he not compell them to sin against their conscie…ces? and those that would preserve their consciences, and departed from evill, were they not made a prey and ruined?
If the Magistrate have not power to rule the conscience, in the least things, which are in their own nature indifferent, Rom. 14.23. As to command a man to eat meate, or weare clothes, of the lawfu…nesse whereof he doubts; then hath he not power to command mens consciences in the greatest things, as the choyce of his religion.
And if …his magistrate or state have this power, then all foregoing and following magistra…es have the same; then had Queene Mary power to compe…l her s…bjects to go to M…sse, and if they refused, she might burne them; and who knows what Magistrates in following times may produce, or what …heir religion may bee? Neither let any man though at present sitting …t the ste…, think that how ever things go he shall have his principles sa…sfied: for reflect but upon the A…rian controvercy, in the course of history af…er Constantines time; how men potent in state were in a moment degrad…d. H…w great a man was Cyprian, yet dyed a Marter, b…cause he would not worship the Gods at the Magistrates command. Hyppotlitus as P…u…e…tius rep…r s, to be torne in peec…s by horses. Was not Athan…sius Bishop of Alex…ri…, having s…ff…red many treacheryes of the Arrians, forced …o fly to the …mp…ror Co…st…ns, and after his death was driven away againe: was not Chrysostom B…shop of Constantinople, by the envie and calumny of Th…ophilu… of Al…x…ndria, banisht into Armenia, by the command of the Emperour …cadius and not being at rest there, his enemies procured a further banishmēt, till they got his life at length in banishmen…. These and many more lost lives and liber…ies, from the commands of Magistrates, who being in great degree, times turned against them in a moment.
Are not the Marian dayes and Episcopall banishments fresh in our memories, because we would no… wo…ship the Images that they set up. How often did they compell persons to ea… the Lords supper with doubting consciences, nay against their consciences, and so made t…em ea… unworthily, to their owne judgement, by kneeling, bowing; and being constrained to practise against conscience, in time lost all conscience.
Truely can the Magistrate or State, prove that we may obey them in the things that they command in point of religion, without the everlasting destruction of Soule and body then let us for ever be branded, if we refuse to obey, but if they cannot, that rule remaines everlasting, that we must obey; God rather then men: and so much the more as the Magistrate is set over us only as men, not as we are Christians, but onelyonly by accident; the bond betwixt Magistrate and subiect being essentially civill; but religious, accidentally only. To conclude, with the word… of a late writer, considering God is not pleased with unwilling worshippers, Christian societyes bettered, nor the worshippers themselves neither, but the plaine contrary in all three; the saying of the wise King of Poland (Stephen by name) seemeth approveable; that it is one of the three things God hath kept in his own hands, to urge the conscience this way, and to cause a man to professe a religion, by working it first in his heart.
Further, whereas Mr. BLAKE, Pag. 36. Distinguishes of inconveniencies, and makes a greater, and a lesse, and that the lesser may be borne to avoid greater.
Reply. The allegation is not of inconveniencies, but of mischiefes, the particulars in the assumption, alledged are not only inconveniencies, but mischiefes; yea such, which so far as I apprehend (with submission to better judgements) tend unavoidably to ruine the Churches, as will appear in examining the particulars.
Mr. BLAKE Pag. 36. Excepts against the first mischiefe, viz. That Infants baptisme fils the Church with rotton members, to which he answereth; Pag. 36. That he and his, find not by experience, rottennesse of members by our way prevented; and eagerly breakes out in charging heavily, not any person, but almost the whole, of some newformed congregations.
Reply. For secret rottonnesse, that is only knowne to God, for scanda-rottennesse I am perswaded it is a notorious untruth.
Mr. BLAKE to the 2. Mischiefe viz. Paedobaptisme, confounds the world and the Church together; he saith, just nothing in effect, Pag. 37.
To the 4. Mischiefe, wicked persons rest in their infants baptisme. Mr. BLAKE, so will they in their baptisme, received at the age of Magus.
Reply. But do Persons rest in such sottish ignorance, and open prophanenesse in the one, as in the other?
To the 5. viz. Infants baptisme is a nest-egge to traditions.
Mr. PLAKE, Bellarm. When he is to deale against Anabaptists, can prove it from Scriytures.
Reply. It is a knowne refuge for Papists, and popishly inclined, and cannot be denyed; for your saying, I quote Bellarmine, with as good a conscience, as Bellarmine wrote. Your office was to judge of the cause in hand, and not of the conscience of a person you know not, Rom. 14.4. Who art thou that judgest another mans Servant?
To the 6. It fills the conscience with scruples; as some question, whether they were ever baptized?
Mr. BLAKE to this saith, with as good reason as Paul might question whether he were circumcised, Pag. 39.
Reply. Not so, for circumcision made a visible marke, which baptisme in infancie doth not.
Mr. BLAKE, Pag. 40. is offended at this. But that which causeth most scruple, is about the formall cause that intights persons to baptisme: to which he saith, God is one party in the Covenant, the Believer and his seed is the other; when the believer assents to the promise with a faith dogmaticall, so as to make profession, he and his are interessed in the priviledge, Pag, 40. No where hath God made a promise to be the God of believers and there seed, but promised so only to Abraham and his seed.
Reply. Seeing you say God is one party in the Covenant, and the believer and his seed is the other; if you meane an inward covenant, or the Covenant of Grace, wherein Salvation is promised, and the Believer and his seed are one party in that; how come they to fall away? doth God fall from his promise, or the childe fall from Grace?
If you meane only, an externall dispensation of this Covenant, and that though infants are not in the externall Covenan…, yet they are in the externall dispensation of it;
To this I answer,
1. Its a grosse errour, to thinke the signes of the new Covenant, viz. Baptisme and Supper, to be outward dispensations of the Covenant; this new Covenant is wholly an inward thing, lying betwixt the Trinity and a believing soule; there is but one way of dispensing this inward Covenant, viz. the spirit of Christ applying the blood of Christ to the soule; and baptisme is a signe hereof.
2. There can be no outward dispensation of an uncertaine thing; now its uncertaine of any individuall infant, whether he be in the new covenant.
3. As it was not being in Covenant gave right to circumcisiō for any externall dispensation of it, for Noah, Adam, Lot, & Abel, had the same covenant, yet was there no externall dispensation of it, for want of a command; so it is not being in Covenant makes a person a fit subject of Baptisme, but profession of life joyned with profession of words, Acts 8.37. Heb. 10.23.
4. Its no where said in the new Testament, that where parents are in Covenant with God, their children shall be in the externall dispensation of the same, much lesse is it said, where parents are only in externall dispensation of the covenant, their children shall be in the same.
Now whereas Mr. BLAKE seemes to make the formall cause of baptisme, to be the Believers assenting to the promise, with a dogmaticall faith; so to make profession.
Answ. If he understand profession of life and words, we assent thereto; and this being acknowledged to be the formall cause of the baptisme, doth wholly cut off Infants; and no other formall cause doth he assigne upon demand.
Mr. Blake, p. 41. Endeavoureth to excuse this mischief, that infants baptisme makes no jar betwixt the doctrines laid down by the learned; making it a signe or seal of forgivenesse of sins, of ingrafture with Christ, and the present dispensation of it to infants; of which we have no ground of their forgivenesse and ingrafture with Christ, seeing many, if not most, grow up and prove wicked. This, Mr. Blake excuseth by a distinction, p. 4.42. There is, saith he, in baptisme two parts; an outward, and an inward, and a double benefit proportionably answering: First outward, which is initiation into Church society. Secondly an inward benefit, which is the blood and spirit of Christ, with the fruits and effects both of justification and sanctification; of which infants are capable by the immediate work of God: And hence he thinketh, he takes of all jarring herein.
Reply. The question is not about the parts and benefits of baptisme, but about the right of dispensation; Seeing that baptisme is a signe of forgivenesse of sins, whether it be well done to administer it to those, of whose forgivenesse of sins we have not the least ground to be perswaded. But whereas Mr. Blake seems to affirm, that baptisme is a signe of some externall thing, viz. Initiation into Church-societie, and infants are capable of that, in the perswasion of any administrator of baptisme, though he have no ground to think their sins pardoned.
Answ. The matter of Churches in Scripture being Saints; 1 Cor. 14.33. 1 Cor. 1.2. how can infants be capable of initiation into Church-societie? Especially, seeing the ground of all society with the Churches of Christ in fellow membership, is a presupposed communion that those persons have in Christ, and his death; whereupon they are taken into membership, to remember the said benefits. Therefore none ought to have the outward part in baptisme, and so consequently no initiation into Church society, but they that upon some grounds are supposed to have the thing signified; which Infants cannot.
Mr. Blake p. 42. setteth upon the 9th. mischief, viz. Infants baptisme produceth many absurdities: Ar first, it puts Infants in a state of remission of sins before calling. To which he answers, I had thought neither you nor we, had believed such an opus operatum in baptisme, as thus to work grace and remission of sins: It presupposes indeed a capacity (you would say a capability) of such grace in Infancy.
Reply. But is it not absurd, to presuppose all infants in a state of remission of sins,…rsu… om… disputa…onis inci…t a defi…io…. as they do (or ought to do) that administer baptisme to Infants, which is so much more absurd, because the persons were never capable of any externall calling.
Hence, its necessary for me to set down what baptisme is; and will describe it no otherwise, then the famousest Divines have done and do generally in their books; and I could wish Mr. Blake had done so.
Baptisme is a signe of our fellowship with Christ, in his death, buriall, and resurrection, Rom. 6.3, 4. Col. 2.12. Of our putting on of Christ, Gal 3.27. Of remission of s…ns in his blood, Acts 22.16. And the answer of a good conscience issuing therefrom, 1 Pet. 3.21. That as the person is buried in water, so the sins of that person are deemed to be buried in the death of Christ, Rom. 6, 3, 4. Col. 2.12. I wish Mr. Blake would define, or at least describe baptisme, it would cleer many controversies.
2. Absurdity, It makes them visible members of Christs Church, before calling; contrary to 1 Cor. 1.2.
To this Mr. Blake saith, if you mean effectuall calling, according to purpose, there are many such among your own baptized on…s.
Reply. The absurdity is, that they are made members, before any manner of calling appear to the Administrator or Church, which is contrary to Christs Commission, and Apostolicall practice, who first called persons to faith and repentance, Acts 2.38. and then after baptized them.
3. Absurdity, Paedobaptisme upholds a Nationall Church.
Mr. Blake saith, tell me how there can be a nation of Disciples, and not a Nationall Church.
Reply. It upholds a Nationall Church, because if that were taken away, a nationall Church would fall down, for it is hereby that all the Nations become (Pseudo-Christians, many of them) Christians, not from any Nationall multiplication of Disciples. In the old Testament, there was a Nationall Church, Deut. 16.16. all the Tribes of Israel were three times to appear at Jerusalem, there was an high Priest for the whole Nation, and sacrifices to be administred by him, Lev. 16.1. to 29. and with him other Priests and Elders, to whom appeales should be brought, Deut. 17.8. to 13.
4. Absurdity, by this Infant-baptisme, all are compelled to become Christians whether they will or no; to which Mr. Blake saith, compulsion is against heart, and Infants themselves have no heart rising against their baptisme, p. 43.
Reply. If they have an heart-rising against Christianity, when they come to yeares of understanding, its enough to prove the vanity of Infants baptisme; for the people of Christ ought to be a willing people, Psal 110.3. And as at other times, so especially at their baptisme, Acts 2.41.
5. Absurdity, many by Infants baptisme, are received into communion of baptisme, who are excluded from communion in the supper; whereas the communion in baptisme, is one and the same. To this p. 44. Mr. Blake saith, what warrant to deny a baptized person the L…ds Supper, who is qualified with knowledge, and manifests no scandall in his life.
Reply. Nay show what warrant, to deny any baptized person the Lords supper; if they were ignorant or scandalous, why did you bapti…e them? if there be a samenesse or communion in baptisme, and in the supper, as you confesse; then those that are received to the one, ought to be to the other: is not baptisme as well as the supper, a signe of communion with Christ in his death, buriall, and resurrection; and consequently there is an absurdity (I might call it a prophanation) in infants baptisme, in that hereby thousands are received, who neither can, nor ought to be received to the supper.
Some other absurdityes Mr. BLAKE reckons up, which because he gives to some of them no answer; as absurdity the 8. and to the rest no materiall answer, I will not spend time about them.
Whereas I had alledged, that delaying of baptisme till persons believe, brings benefits: Storm of Antichrist, Page 22.