A Defense of Infant Baptism, Treatise · Part 3 (4 of 4)
I Anſwer, I thinke indeed it would take with no ſober Chriſtian thus to argue: The Jewes had it, therefore wee muſt have it. But Sir, to argue thus, God gave ſuch a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews, that their Infants ſhould be reputed to belong to his Church, and have the initiall ſeale: Therefore if hee have not granted to Chriſtians, that their Infants ſhall alſo bee reputed to belong to his Church, and partake of the initiall ſeale; then his grace to beleevers under the New Teſtament is ſtraitned as to their poſterity. This Argument appeares ſo cleare to mee, that I muſt confeſſe my ſelfe one of thoſe Dull ones, who know not how to deny the conſequence. In the meane time I obſerve, that though you would make your Reader believe, that theſe perſonall priviledges of Abraeham, to have Chriſt born of his fleſh; the Virgin Mary to be the mother of Chriſt, &c. doe preſſe my Concluſion; yet you ſpake not one word to vindicate them from my anſwer: And therefore I collect that by this time you ſee, that now under this adminiſtration, ſome perſonal priviledges which a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the reſt, may be denyed us, and yet they make nothing againſt this Argument; That if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denyed us, our priviledges were Diſtinction of Proſelyres of the Gate, and of the Covenant, helps not Mr. Tombes.ſtraitned. Your other exception which you make concerning Melchiſedeck, Lot, and Job, have been often anſwered before. That which you adde concerning one kinde of Proſelytes among the Iews, who were called Proſelytes of the gate, who though they were not circumciſed, were yet reckoned among the Worſhippers of God, (ſuch at were Cornelius and others) and were alſo within the Covenant of grace. I know not what you intend to gather from it; unleſſe you would intimate, that they were Church-members among the Jewes, although they were not circumciſed; but had you ſaid ſo, that the priviledges and Church-memberſhip of theſe Proſelytes of the Gate, were as honourable as thoſe of the Proſelytes of the Covenant, your learned Readers would have ſmiled at you; ſure there would have been no need for God to have inſtructed Peter by a Viſion from heaven, that he ſhould not call them (to whom he was to be ſent) uncleane; nor had Peter been ever put to have made his apologie for going in to Cornelius and his company, if theſe uncircumciſed Proſelytes of the Gate had been reputed Church-members among the Jews. Next you grant, The Iews indeed had that priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward adminiſtration, as branches of the O live by their birth, which the Gentiles have not. But if we Gentiles have it not, then are not wee I pray you, ſtraitned in that particular? And I demand further, when we are graffed in, and ſo naturalized with them, doe we not partake of all the fatneſſe or priviledges of the Olive with them? what Scripture ever denyed it? I demand yet further, did the many ten thouſands of Jews who were baptized in the Apoſtles dayes, by their comming under this beſt adminiſtration of the Covenant, and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage; did they thereby deprive their Children of that which you ſay was their naturall priviledge? if you thinke ſo, produce your evidence to prove it; if they were not, then it ſeemes the Jewes who beleeved in Chriſt, and kept their ſtation, had a greater priviledge for their children, then the Gentiles who grow together with them, have for their children.
I added, Let any man ſhew out of the Scripture, where our priviledges under the Goſpel are cut ſhort in any of theſe things, and in particular for the caſe in hand, concerning our Infants right to the Covenant and ſeale of it; once we are ſure the Infant-children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant, and the ſedle alſo belonged to them: and by vertue of the Covenant (which is ſtill the ſame) … pl…ad their intereſt in it; let any ſhew when and where this was taken away. You anſwer, it is unreaſonable to require this at your hands, to ſhew what you doe not avouch: you goe not about to expunge Infants of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace; and you ſee no cauſe to beleeve me, who affirme that once they were within the Covenant, &c. I reply, but doe not you avouch, That the Infants of the Jewes had this peculiar privil…dge, and birth-right to be under the adminiſtration of the Covenant which ours have not; which you know is the onelyonly thing controverted betwixt us: may not I boldly ſay, That once the Infants of all Covenanters had this priviledge? may I not alſo exact of you to ſhew when and where this was taken away? who though you goe not about to expunge them out of the book of life, yet you expreſly expunge them out of viſible memberſhip, while you ſay, the Jews Infants had it, and ours have it not.
Laſtly, I added, who ever will goe about to deprive them of it, to cut off ſuch a great part of the comfort of beleeving Parents, muſt produce clear teſtimonies before they can perſwade beleevers to part with either of them, either right to the Covenant, or to the ſeale of the Covenant; becauſe next to the glory of God, and the ſalvation of their owne ſoules; their Infants intereſt in the Covenant, is one of the greateſt benefits beleevers have from the Covenant A great a bridgment of our priviledges to have our children left out of the Covenant.of grace, even to have their Children belong to Gods family and Kingdome, and not to the Devills; Children being the greateſt treaſure of their Parents, and the ſalvation of their childrens ſoules, the greateſt treaſure in their children; and therefore to exclude them out of that ſociety or viſible ſtanding where ſalvation is ordinary, is ſo great a loſſe, or eclipſing of their comfort, a… whoever would make them yeeld to it, had need produce very ſtrong evidence; and much more I ſaid in my Sermon to this purpoſe. You anſwer, Here I am upon my advantage ground, in a veine of Oratory, and on a ſubject, of all others, apteſt to move affections; to wit, Parents tenderneſſe to their children. I confeſſe in this point, I ſtand upon a vantage ground (not in Oratory, to which I pretend not, but) in point of truth, had I only ſpoken words without weight, you could and would have diſcovered their emptineſs, and ſcoffed at them ſufficiently; you make ſeverall ſmall exceptions which I ſhal briefly touch: as, Firſt, That I touch ſomething too neare upon the Popiſh Opinion; as if I might be gueſs'd to ſymbolize with that Opinion of the Papiſts, who judge all unbaptized infants to periſh; which is not worth the anſwering. Then you demand What comfort doe wee give Parents, which the Antipaedobaptiſts doe not give them as well as we; or what diſcomforts in truth doe they give them, which we doe not? I anſwer, the difference is very great, you leave them in the ſtate of Infidells, we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God; wee account them actually belonging to the viſible kingdom of Chriſt, you actually to belong to the viſible kingdom of the Devill; wee leave them under the benefit of that promiſe, I will be the God of thee and of thy feed, you acknowledge no more promiſe for them, then for the children of Turks: it may be theſe things are of no account to you, but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader.
I next proceeded to the maine and onelyonly Objection made againſt this whole Argument, which is this, There is no command, Sect. 12. Anſ. to the maine Objection.no expreſſe inſtitution, or cleare example in all the New Teſtament, of baptizing of Infants; and in adminiſtration of Sacraments, wee are not to be led by our owne reaſon, or grounds of ſeeming probabilities, but by the expreſſe order of Chriſt, and no otherwiſe. You ſay, this is indeed the maine Objection, and without anſwering it, all that I have ſaid is to little purpoſe. But Sir, did not you formerly grant, that upon the proving of my two firſt Concluſions the whole cauſe depended? if therefore thoſe Concluſions remaine firme, there is enough already ſaid to the purpoſe.
You adde, Ʋnleſſe this Objection be removed, the practice of baptizing infants will never be acquitted from Will-worſhip, and that the Prelatiſts will ſhew vertuall commands from analogy of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews, and Traditions Eccleſiaſticall, as ancient as ours for Paedobaptiſme, for their Prelacy, Holy dayes, Surplice, &c. And therefore if I ſtand not to i… here, I muſt yeeld up my weapons. Sure you think you are here like to get ſome advantage, you ſpeake ſo big, but by this time I have had ſuch ſufficient experience of your ſtrength, that I much feare not your great words.
Firſt, for the point of Will-worſhip, I ſhall deſire you to prove this Concluſion, 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 bee applyed, muſt bee expreſly ſet down in the new Teſtament; if you prove not this, you ſay nothing to the purpoſe, for this is our very caſe. I have already ſhewed the falſeneſſe of it, in the point of the Chriſtians Sabbath; for though the Ceremoniall Worſhip, which was a type of Chriſt, be wholly aboliſhed, yet not every thing which concerns all Worſhip which muſt have an inſtitution, is aboliſhed. And for the plea which the Biſhops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremoniall Law; when you ſhew how they will raiſe their Arguments (which poſſibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have) as plainly as I doe for Infant-baptiſme, you may poſſibly prevaile with the Reader in their behalf. And when you ſhew as much Eccleſiaſticall Antiquity for Prelacy, Holydayes, Surplice, &c. I ſhall beleeve your Reading to be greater, then I can yet be perſwaded of, that you have ſeen ſome ſuch Monuments of Antiquity, which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon. But I proceed with you. I firſt granted, That there is no expreſſe ſyllabicall command for baptizing of Infants, no expreſſe example where Children were baptized. Sure (ſay you) this is a ſhrewd ſigne that I am not like to make good my ground, having yeelded thus much. And why ſo I pray? your very next words leave me ground enough, when you ſay, That if it bee made good by good conſequence, it is ſufficient: what need was there then of this idle ſcoffe? I added, Many other points of high concernment, are not expreſly laid down in the New Teſtament, a… forbidden degrees of marriage, Laws againſt Polygamy, the Law of a weekly Sabbath, &c. You anſwer, In meere poſitive Worſhip, it muſt be ſo, it muſt have either Precept or Apoſtolicall example, equivalent to a precept found in the New Teſtament, elſe it is will-worſhip, and this ſay you is our caſe in hand; I anſwer as before, there is no abſolute neceſſitie that every circumſtance of an Ordinance, or the ſeverall Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed, muſt bee thus ſet downe in the New Teſtament, this is ſufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage, you ſay, there is one branch mentioned and cenſured in the New Teſtament, viz. the inceſt… ou… Corinthians caſe, and that is, ſay you, a finne againſt a morall commandement; but how would you laugh at ſuch a conſequence in another; a man may not marry his fathers wife, a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongſt the Heathens, Ergo, all the degrees of forbidden marriage in Moſes Lawes ſtand firme? The like ſay you againſt P…lygamy, there is proofe againſt it, Matth. 19. 5. 9. But is this an expreſſe prohibition of it? muſt you not bee compelled to goe by a conſequence to bring it in, which is all I contend for? For that of the Sabbath you referre your Reader to Sect. 8. Part 2. whither I alſo moſt willingly ſend him, and leave it to his impartiall judgement whether the advantage lie not clearely on my ſide. I added, there is no expreſſe command for children of Beleevers, when they are growne, that they ſhould be inſtructed and baptized, no expreſſe command or example where women received the Lords Supper, good conſequence I acknowledge there is, but no ſyllabicall or expreſſe mention of it; but ſay you, there is expreſſe mention of womens receiving the Sacrament, Let a man examine himſelfe, 1 Cor. 11. 8. where the Greeke word comprehends both ſexes, but doth that Greeke word, where ever it is uſed, ſignifie both ſexes? you will not offer to ſay it, I deliver to you what I received from the Lord, Verſ. 23. that, ſay you, is a command to the whole Church, which conſiſted of women as well as men, &c. But Sir, if any man were diſpoſed to wrangle with you, might hee not in your owne words doe it, and ſay, all theſe expreſſions muſt be limited pro ſubject a materia? I grant all this is good by conſequence, but not in expreſſe termes; the ſame ſay I for Infants, you grant all diſciples may bee baptized, for that you ſay there is an expreſſe command; your ſelfe alſo grant, that regenerate Infants may be called diſciples, I grant this a good Argument by conſequence, that ſuch Infants may bee baptized; and if I have proved or can prove, that Infants of beleevers by their birth priviledge have a right to bee eſteemed viſible Diſciples, then by your owne g…ant, by a good conſequence they alſo may bee baptized; and I undertake to juſtifie that Infants of beleevers are viſible Diſciples, as truely as regenerate Infants are inviſible diſciples. I adde further, they who are viſible Covenanters are to receive the viſible ſigne, Ergo, Infants (who have been at large proved to bee viſible Covenanters) are to receive Baptiſm which is the viſible ſigne of it: theſe things are fully cleared already, it is apparent there is as cleare a command for Baptiſme to be the initiall ſeale under this adminiſtration, as ever there was for Circumciſion under that adminiſtration; and as good evidence that our children are to be reckoned to the Covenant, as there was for theirs, and no exception in the word put in againſt them. Is not here then good conſequence, that therefore they are to have the Seale adminiſtred to them? ſuppoſe when Paul. ſaid let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eat…, that there had been no women there then amongſt them, would not this command by conſequence have reached women as well as men? if this qualification was found in them that they could have examined themſelves, muſt the command neceſſarily expreſſe all ſexes, ages or conditions, or elſe not reach them? theſe things I mention, as conſequences parallell to theſe which your ſelfe infiſt upon. I added, wee by good conſequence have ſufficient command and example for Infant… Baptiſme: to which you anſwer, I ſhould have ſaid jeere, I fetch ſuch a The command of Circumciſion reacheth us by analogy.compaſſe, that you imagine my attempt will prove but a Mouſe from the M…untaines travell; I perceive you know not how you ſhould poſſeſſe your Reader with prejudice, if you ſhould not now and then interline a confident ſcoffe, but let's try the particulars, my firſt was, Abraham who received the Covenant had a command to ſeale his children with the initiall ſeale, becauſe his children were in Covenant with him. Now becauſe what concerned the ſubſtance of the Covenant is alwayes the ſame, and what concerned them then who were in Covenant as they were Covenanters, the ſame concernes us equally with them as we are Covenanters, what concerned them in reference onelyonly to their adminiſtration was peculiar to themſelves, as that which concernes the manner of our adminiſtration is peculiar to us; it thence follows that the ſame command which was laid upon them in their adminiſtration in all thoſe things which properly related to the ſubſtance or ſpirituall thing intended in that adminiſtration, by a juſt analogie and proportion, binds us as well as them, I ſaid, this our Divines maintaine againſt the Papiſts, that Gods commands and inſtitutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant, and were not accidentall to them, my meaning being plainly this, that all Gods Commands and Inſtitutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes as touching their generall nature of being Sacraments and ſeales of the Covenant, and as touching their uſe and end, doe bind us in our Sacraments, becauſe in theſe they are the ſame. To ſpeake yet more plainely, if I can, there are in the Sacraments theſe two things to bee diſtinguiſhed, the generall nature, end, and uſe of a Sacrament to ſeale the Covenant of God by ſome ſenſible ſigne; and ſecondly, the manner of adminiſtration of theſe ſignes, as they referre to Chriſt to be exhibited, or to Chriſt already exhibited. The firſt concernes rem ipſam, the thing it ſelf, which I called in my Sermon the Subſtance; the other wch concernes the peculiar way or manner of doing it in reference to Chriſt not yet come, or to Chriſt already come; that in my Sermon I called Accidentall; now when I ſay that Gods commands about their Sacraments bind us, my meaning never was to aſſert, that the rituall part of their Sacraments doe remaine in the leaſt particle, or that we are tied to practiſe any of thoſe things, but onelyonly that there is a generall and analogicall nature, wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Teſtament doe agree; and that in theſe things, our Divines doe argue from their Sacraments to our Sacraments; thus Chamier de Sacramentis, Vet. T…ſt. cap. 1.Chamier, Catholici▪ docent convenire Sacramenta vetera cum novis, omnibus, iis capitibus quae ſunt de Sacramenti natura; Proteſtants doe teach that the Sacraments of the Old Teſtament doe agree with the Sacraments of the New in all things which concerne the nature of a Sacrament, and yet ſaith he, our very ſenſes teach us that the externall rites of their Sacraments doe differ from ours; So Ameſius, quaecunque de Circumciſione dicuntur & ſpectant Ameſ. Bellar. Ene…v…de Sacrament. in genere.ad Sacramentalem eju… naturam quam habet in communi cum reliquis Sacramentis, illarecte applicantur ad omnia Sacramenta, and addes immediatly, ratio ſignandieſt talis in circumciſione: and you know multitudes of our Divines ſpeake to the ſame purpoſe; their Sacraments were Seales of the Covenants, ſo are ours, their Sacraments had a Divine inſtitution, ſo have ours, their Sacraments were not empty Sacraments no more are ours, the grace accompanying their Sacraments was not included in their Sacraments, (tanquam contentum in continente) nor in ours, their Sacraments were to bee adminiſtred onelyonly to them who were accounted to bee in Covenant, ſo are ours; they had one Sacrament which moſt immediatly and properly, was a ſtanding Sacrament for admiſſion into the viſible Church, ſo have wee, now in theſe things doe our Divines uſe to argue by analogy and proportion from their Sacraments to ours: this was that which I intended in my Sermon, namely, That looke what dutie they were tyed to by their Sacraments, in ſeeking after the ſpirituall part of it, looke what graces they were bound to beleeve to bee ſealed unto them in their Sacraments, the ſame are we tied to beleeve in ours; theſe things concerne us as much as they did them; but for thoſe things which were the accidentall, or (if you like not that expreſſion) which concerne onelyonly the rituall part of their Sacraments, theſe doe no wayes oblige us; Rites and Ceremonies, which were peculiar to them, are ceaſed, the duties, obligations, comforts and benefits which they were led to in their adminiſtration, doe all remaine the ſame to us under our adminiſtration, when the Apoſtle ſayes, 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. explained.1 Cor. 10. That all our fathers did eate the ſame ſpirituall meat, and dranke the ſame ſpirituall drinke, our Interpreters generally doe agree, that by the ſame ſpirituall meate, and the ſame ſpirituall drinke is meant the ſame with ours; So Calvin, Beza, Chamier, and who not, becauſe ſay they, Eadem fuit veterum Sacramentorum & noſtrorum ſubſtantia, Their Sacraments and ours were the ſame in ſubſtance, yet no man is ſo abſurd, as to thinke that either the Manna or the water of the Rock doe remaine to us: ſuch an analogicall Epheſ. 6 1, 2. explained.Argument as this the Apoſtle Paul himſelfe uſes, Epheſ. 6. from the fifth Commandement which in the Jewes time was backt with a particular promiſe of living long in the Land whi…h the Lord their God would give them; and beleevers now have no promiſe of living in the land of Canaan, yet Paul there preſſes a promiſe to us from the generall ſcope of that promiſe, Honour thy father and mother, which is the firſt Commandement with promiſe, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayſt live long on the earth: I indeavour the more fully to expreſſe my ſenſe in this particular, becauſe after your uſuall manner you endeavour to make my aſſertion ſenſeleſſe, and abſurd, and then come to reaſon againſt a ſenſe of your owne making, and cannot bee acknowledged to be mine. Now I proceed to ſee what you ſay againſt this Argument, Firſt, ſay you, it is no und…niable argument that this muſt bee good, becauſe all Proteſtants uſe it, nor did I lay the weight of this upon their number or conſent, but onelyonly intimated, that it is obvious and uſuall; if you take away the ſtrength of the Argument, I ſhall not leaue upon the men. Secondly, you conſent not to this, that there were no other ordinary Sacraments among the Iewes, then Circumciſion and the Paſſeover; you rather concurre with Mr. Cudworth, that they had almoſt as many Sacraments as Ceremonies; I reply, whether this bee right or wrong, it is nothing to the buſineſſe in hand, Mr. Cudworth denies not the lawfulneſſe of ſuch an Argument as reaſoning from the Jewes Sacraments to ours, in that ſenſe which I have here ſet downe, yea in that very Treatiſe he acknowledges the Lords Supper to ſucceed the Paſſeover in that notion of being a feaſt upon a Sacrifice. Thirdly, you take a great deale of paines to put a ſenſe upon my words which I never thought of, (viz.) That the Iewiſh Sacraments are ſtill in force to us, that I make ſome things in the Iewiſh Sacraments to bee ſubſtantiall, ſome things to bee accidentall, that the accidentalls I would have aboliſhed, the ſubſtantialls to remaine, that I ſhew but little skill in Logick in oppoſing the ſubſtance of an Act, and the Accidents of it, that I would make ſomethings commanded by God in the Sacraments accidentall, and not to bee of the ſame weight or obligation as other things which are ſubſtantiall; and finally you bring no leſſe then ten Arguments to prove that all the Iewes Ceremonies▪ Rites and Sacraments, are all abrogated, ſubſtance and circumſtance, whole and part. In all your ten Arguments I fully concurre with you, and in that concluſion which you confute by thoſe Arguments, I never underſtood by the ſubſtance of their Sacraments, the ſenſible ſignes uſed in the Sacraments, but rem Sacram…nti, the ſpirituall part of the Sacrament, or the res ſignata; and my Argument was never intended to bee any other then that analogicall Argument which is above ſet downe, and none of your Arguments meddle with. You proceed to thoſe particular inſtances I gave, in which you might have knowne the meaning of my Argument if you had pleaſed, and ſpared fighting with your owne ſhadow by your ten Arguments. The firſt, is Circumcumciſion is called a Seale of the Covenant, theno… our Divines plead, our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant. To this you except, firſt, you know not where Circumciſion is called the Seale of the Covenant, though you acknowledge it is called the ſigne of the Covenant in one place, and both the ſigne and ſeale of the righteouſneſſe of faith in another place; truely Sir, I thought that the comparing of theſe two Scriptures together, had been ſufficient to ſhew that Circumciſion was a ſealing ſigne. Secondly, you except, though Circumciſion bee called ſo, yet that is no Argument to call our Sacraments ſo, though you are willing they ſhould bee called ſo, and you ſay our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant. I reply, lay aſide but this analogicall Argument, and prove if you can that our Sacraments are Seales; our Sacraments are neither called ſignes nor ſeales in the New Teſtament, all the world muſt grant indeed that they are ſignes, but when the Papiſts deny our Sacraments to be Seales of the Covenant, how will you bee able to prove it, if you lay aſide this Argument, Circumciſion was a Seale, therefore our Sacraments are Seales, ours agreeing with their in the generall nature of a Sac…ament? Next I ſaid, Circumciſion might bee adminiſtred but once, it being the Seale of admiſſion: therefore Baptiſme being alſo the Seale of admiſſion may bee adminiſtred but once; you anſwer, denying both antecedent and conſequent, you know nothing, you ſay, but that hoth Circumciſion, and Baptiſme might bee adminiſtred more then once, which I hope I have ſufficiently conſuted in anſwer to Sect. 4. Part. 2. And ſecondly, ſay you, had there been a command to circumciſe but once, it would not follow that therefore a perſon may bee baptized but once; but when this is proved that Baptiſme ſucceeds Circumciſion to bee the initiall Seale, which your ſelfe cannot deny, it muſt then follow, that a man may bee baptized but once, no more then hee may be circumciſed but once, becauſe where there is the ſame reaſon of a command or practiſe, there muſt bee the ſame practiſe. I added, that Circumciſion was to be adminiſtred upon the eighth day onelyonly, was an accidentall thing, and therefore binds not, meaning that it had ſome peculiar relation to that manner of adminiſtration, and had nothing common either to the nature of a Sacrament in generall, or to the end and uſe of that Sacrament as it was the Seale of admiſſion; you anſwer, if reaſon may rule the roſt, there is more reaſon that Circumciſing on the eighth day ſhould rather belong to the ſubſtance of the Covenant, then but once circumciſing, both becauſe it was commanded by God, and typified, as ſome conceive, Chriſts reſurrection on the eighth day. I reply, if you pleaſe but once to underſtand, that by the ſubſtance I underſtand the res ſignata, the ſpirituall part of the Sacrament, you will no longer inſiſt upon making every thing a ſubſtantiall part of the Sacrament which God hath made a part of the outward adminiſtration onelyonly; Indeed if Circumciſing upon the eighth day had had any ſuch ſpirituall meaning of Chriſts reſurrection upon the eighth day, you had ſpoke ſomething to the purpoſe; but had I pleaded any ſuch Type in it, as that Circumciſion was to be upon the eighth day, becauſe Jeſus Chriſt was to riſe the firſt day of the weeke, you would have laught at me though Cyprian had joyned with mee, and told mee as you doe here, mens conceits are voin… without the light of the word. My next inſtance was, from the Paſſeover, which being yearely to bee repeated binds us to a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which ſucceeds the Paſſeover, it being the Sacrament of ſpirituall nouriſhment and growth, as the other was for birth and enterance; but that the Paſſeover was to be eaten in an evening, and upon one ſet evening in the yeer, was accidentall and ſo binds not us. You anſwer, here are a heape of dictates, and you as confidently dictate the contrary, you grant that the Paſſeover was to bee yearely repeated, but that this yeerly repetition belonged to the ſubſtance of the Covenant, or that this binds us to a frequent uſe of the Sacrament of the Lords ſupper, you utterly deny, but I doubt not, that the Reader who knowes that by belonging to the ſubſtance of the Covenant I meant nothing but the end and uſe of it, to bee a ſtanding memoriall of that deliverance, and a typicall repreſentation of Jeſus Chriſt, and our deliverance by him, will not reject this, becauſe you magiſterially deny it, That our Lords Supper comes in the roome and ſtead of it, there is ſuch a cleare demonſtration of it, from the very manner of the firſt Inſtitution, and the ends and uſes of it; Chriſt our Paſſeover being then to bee ſacrificed for us, and wee in this ſervice ſhewing it forth; and in this parallell there is ſuch a harmony of conſent, that I intend not to lead the Reader into a digreſſion about it. As for the maintaining of Eaſter and ſuch ſuperſtitious cuſtomes, my diſcourſe gives not ſo much as one hint for it; yea in my Sermon I expreſſely ſhewed, That that Circumſtance of once a yeere belonged onelyonly to the Jewes adminiſtration. And I pleaded for a frequency of it, but becauſe you love to knit knots, for others to untie, you demand, ſince wee have ſo cleere an Example, Acts 20. 7. of the diſciples comming together the firſt day of the weeke … eate the Lords Supper, and that that Action gave denomination to the whole ſervice, and by the relation of Juſtin Martyr and others, this was the received practiſe in the primitive Churches, whether wee are not tied to have … Sacrament every Lords day in the weeke: I anſwer, though I conceive no abſolute tie to have it ſo, yet when it can bee with convenience, I know no reaſon why it may not bee ſo: but you making this one of your great Arguments, to prove the Inſtitution of the Lords day, (viz.) An Apoſtolicall example, and practiſe of the primitive Churches, whether you bee not further engaged in this point to a Sacrament every Lords day, I leave to your ſelfe to conſider. You demand further, ſince the Apoſtle does ſo expreſly, and diſtinctly in his relation of the Inſtitution mention the time of it, you would know of the Aſſembly of Divines, eſpecially ſuch of them, as have beene earneſt for ſitting at the Sacrament, how wee can be looſe to receive it at another time; I anſwer, certainly the Aſſembly would anſwer you, as Cyprian did in the like caſe, that the time was an occaſionall circumſtance; and that the cleere examples recorded in the New Teſtament of the Diſciples partaking of the Lords Supper at any of their Church-meetings, whether by night or by day, doth abundantly manifeſt it: nor can I conceive why you put this queſtion to the Aſſembly, unleſſe it be to ſhew you are not pleaſed with the diſpute about ſitting at the Communion, it ſeemes you ſtill like kneeling better, for the thing it ſelfe, you either judge thus of it, that it was an occaſionall circumſtance, and ſo you pick quarrells even againſt your owne light and principles, or if you thinke it a binding circumſtance, whence comes it that you uſe it not? You have yet another quarrell about that expreſſion of mine, in caliing Baptiſme the ſeale of our extrance and new birth, and thence you would inſinuate, that I deny Baptiſme to be a Sacrament of our nouriſhment and continuance, and you tell me that's but a dictate like the reſt, and ſomewhat akin to Bellarmine and the reſt of the Papiſts, who make the efficacy of Baptiſme to extend not to the remiſſion of the ſinnes of our whole life, but of originall ſinne onelyonly. I anſwer, that Baptiſme is a Sacrament of our Birth and entrance I have proved, and your ſelfe grant, that it is not of uſe afterward I never ſpake, never thought; but as for my being akin to Bellarmines aſſertion, if your aſſertions were no more akin to Socinus, Servetus, Marcion, &c. then mine are to the Papiſts, it were better for you.
My next Inſtance was from our Chriſtian Sabbath; the The ſame Argument which is good by conſequence for our Sabbath, is good for Infant-Baptiſme.fourth Commandement binds us for the ſubſtance, as much as ever it bound the Jews; there God once for all ſeparated one day of ſeven to be ſacred to himſelfe; and all the world ſtood bound by vertue of that Commandment in all ages, to give unto God that one day of ſeven, which ſhould be of his owne chooſing, though onelyonly the ſeventh day of the week be named in the fourth Commandement. Now (ſaid I) God having put an end to the Saturday Sabbath, and ſurrogated the firſt day of the weeke in stead thereof, to be the Lords day, we need no new Commandement for keeping of the Lords day, being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of ſeven which the Lord ſhould chooſe: And though no day bee mentioned in the fourth Commandment, but onelyonly the ſeventh from the Creation, yet our Divines think it no abſurdity to reaſon thus, Thou ſhalt keepe the Sabbath, thou ſhalt reſt the ſeventh day, that is, thou ſhalt reſt the ſeventh day from the Creation, while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath, and thou ſhalt reſt the firſt day of the week, when the Lord chooſes that to be his Sabbath; in like manner I ſay of the Sacrament of Baptiſme. To this you anſwer, You referre your ſelfe to what you have before declared, Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither alſo I referre the Reader, where I have vindicated this anſwer from you. I further adde, you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a conſequence, to be ſufficient for practiſe of ſome things in the Worſhip of God, which are not expreſly laid downe in the New Teſtament; onelyonly you adde here, I forget the marke at which I ſhoot, the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Iews Sacraments. I reply, firſt, I might as well reckon the ſeventh day from the Creation, among the Jews Sacraments, as you may ſay the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies. Secondly, I never numbred the Sabbath amongſt Sacraments, but becauſe the Sabbath belongs to the inſtituted Worſhip of God, as well as the Sacrament, and requires its inſtitution to bee at leaſt as cleare as this about Infant-Baptiſme, which touches but a circumſtance of age, this Argument from the one to the other, will appeare to the impartiall Reader, to bee too ſtrong for you to anſwer.
Next follows, the blow which will tumble downe all, if your ſelfe may be believed: Mark Reader how heavie a one it is. I ſaid when God made the Covenant with Abraham, and promiſed for his part to be the God of him and his ſeed, what God promiſed to Abraham, we claime our part in it, as the children of Abraham; and what God required on Abrahams part for the ſubſtance of obedience wee ſtand charged with as well as Abraham, to beleeve, to love the Lord with all our heart, to walke before God in uprightneſſe, to inſtruct and bring up our Children for God, not for our ſelves, nor for the Devill; to teach them to worſhip God according to his revealed will, to traine them up under Ordinances and Inſtitutions of Gods owne appointment. All theſe things God commanded Abraham, and wee by vertue of that Covenant (being Covenanters with Abraham) ſtand bound to all theſe duties, though there were no expreſſe reviving theſe Commandements in any part of the New Teſtament: and therefore conſequently that command of God to Abraham, which bound his ſeed of the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worſhip which was then in force, binds beleevers now to traine up their children in conformity to ſuch Ordinances as are now in force.
To all this you anſwer, ſuppoſing I meane the ſpirituall part of the Covenant to be that which God promiſed to Abraham, and the perſons claiming to bee beleevers; this paſſage you grant to bee true, be…auſe theſe are mor…ll duties. Well then, the deadly blow is not yet given; I meane this which you ſuppoſe: and I meane more then this, I meane that what Abraham might claime as an inviſible beleever, we may claime as inviſible beleevers; what he might claime as a viſible beleever or Profeſſor, wee claime the ſame as viſible Profeſſors; and ſo what he ſtood obliged unto as a viſible beleever or profeſſor, the ſame are wee obliged to; I meane all this, and you ſay nothing againſt it but the next paſſage is that which kills all. I ſaid, and the ſame command which enjoyned Abraham to ſeal his children with the ſeal of the Covenant, enjoyns us to ſeal ours with the ſeale of the Covenant; and that command of God which expreſly bound Abraham to ſeal his with the ſign of circumciſion, which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore, for the time, doth vertually bind us to ſeale ours with the ſign of Baptiſme, which is the Sacrament now in force, and ſucceeds into the room of the other by his owne appointment. Your anſwer is, This Conſequence is inferred from The reſt of Gods commands to Abraham, teach us.a Judaizing principle, without Scripture proving either principle or Concluſion, whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture againſt it; and that the meaning of the Conclucluſion muſt be, that we are ſtill bound to circumciſe, that our males muſt be circumciſed at the eighth day, that by no rule of Divinity, Logick, Grammar, or Rhetorique, any man can conſtrue this Command, Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day; that is, let a Preacher of the Goſpel baptize young Infants, male or female, by as good Conſequence I might ſay, thou art Peter, and upon this rock: Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church; or, ariſe Peter kill and eate, Ergo, the Pope may deprive Princes. So then, the din… of your mortall blow lyes in this, that you magiſterially call it a Judaizing principle; that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moſes Ceremonies & Rites do not bind Chriſtian men, but that they are all abrogated, ſubſtance and circumſtance, whole and part; that this vertuall conſequence from the command of Circumciſion to baptiſm cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logick; but ſure, if this be all you can ſay againſt it, the Conſequent and Concluſion will eaſily recover of this wound. When I ſaid but juſt now, That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews, to traine up their children in that manner of Worſhip which was then in force, binds us now to traine up our children in conformity to ſuch Ordinances as are now in force. You granted this rule was true, if meant of beleevers. I pray what difference is there betwixt this conſequence and that, eſpecially, it being cleare in the Scripture, that Baptiſme ſucceeds Circumciſion as the initiall ſeale of the Covenant, and our children have the ſame right with theirs to bee reckoned to the Covenant: if it be a good conſequent, That becauſe Abraham was bound to traine up his Children in conformity to thoſe inſtitutions which were then in force, becauſe their children had right to be ſo trained up; therefore we are bound to traine up our children in conformity to the preſent inſtitutions, becauſe our children have right to be ſo trained up; is not this other conſequence I ſay as good, That becauſe God commanded Abraham to adminiſter to his children, the ſeale of admiſſion into Covenant, becauſe his children were to be accounted to belong to that adminiſtration, we are to doe the like to our children now, becauſe they belong to this adminiſtration. I ſay further, becauſe Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the ſeventh day of the week to be Gods Sabbath, we therefore are bound by vertue of that Commandment to traine up ours to keep the firſt day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath: which conſequence your ſelf grant to be good, though the thing be a part of inſtituted Worſhip, and no expreſſe command or example of it in the new Teſtament. I appeale to al Divinity & Logick, whether this conſequence from the command of Circumciſion to Baptiſme be not every way as ſtrong & clear. As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewiſh Sacraments & ceremonies, they are al agreed to, & are brought nothing to he purpoſe in hand. I have already ſhewed that this argument from the Analogie betweene Circumciſion and Baptiſme, and the reaſon, end, and uſe of them both ſtands ſtill in force, though Circumciſion it ſelfe be aboliſhed; and I doubt not but the impartiall Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good, Circumciſe your children, becauſe your children have right to this initiall ſeale; Ergo, by analogie let Chriſtians baptize their children, who have the ſame right to the initiall ſeale; as this, ye Iewes keepe the Sabbath on the ſeventh or laſt day of the weeke, Ergo, ye Chriſtians keep the Sabbath on the first of the weeke. As for your ridiculous conſequences which you put upon me, of, thou art Peter, Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church, &c. I anſwer onelyonly this, I ſhall deſire you in your next, to deal with your Adverſary by ſolid Arguments, rather then ſeek to render him ridiculous by jeeres and ſcoffes, leſt in the end you meet with ſome adverſary who may dreſſe you in your own kind, which I have no minde to doe; whether I have not made good this command of Circumciſing Infants to prove baptizing of Infants, by good conſequence, I leave the Reader to judge; and proceed to try your ſtrength againſt the next.
Another command by good conſequence I gathered out of Mat. 28. compared with Mar. 16. 15. Gal. 3. 89. Rom. 1. 16, 17. Sect. 13. Mat. 28. A command for Infant Baptiſme by conſequence.where our Saviour bids his Diſciples goe and teach all Na…ions, baptizing them, &c. VVherein I obſerved two things. First, what they were to doe; viz. to teach the whole Covenant, the Covenant made with Abraham, whereof this was one branch, I will be the God of thee, and of thy ſeed; they were alſo to baptize, that is, to adminiſter Baptiſme as a ſeale of the Covenant, to all who received the Covenant. Secondly, wee have the perſons to whom they were to doe this, all Nations; whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation, one Nation onelyonly were diſciples; now their Commiſſion was extended to make all Nations Diſciples, every Nation which ſhould receive the faith, ſhould be to him now, as the peculiar Nation of the Iews had been in times paſt; now we know when that one Nation of the Iews were made Diſciples, and circumciſed, their Children were made Diſciples (made to belong to Gods ſchool) and circumciſed with them, &c. To this you anſwer, Firſt, that promiſe, I will be the God of thee and thy ſeed, that it ſhould be thus interpreted, the ſeed of beleevers are taken into Covenant with their Parents, is a new Goſpel, no older then Zwinglius. But I have ſufficiently proved that this was good Goſpel in the Apoſtles dayes, and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church. Secondly, concerning the perſons who were to be baptized, every Nation, or all Natitions: to this, becauſe it is like to trouble you, you bring forth your old artifice of framing many ſenſes, whether by every Nation, be meant beleevers of every Nation, then you grant the ſenſe is good: or, whether by Nation be meant a great or eminent part of the Nation, the Gove…nours, and chiefe Cities, the repreſentative body of a Nation. Then you fly out, and talke of baptizing all within the Precin… of a Pariſh, a conc…it which you faſten upon Cyprian, and talke of neceſſity of baptizing by officiating Prieſts; and bring in the Independents, nothing to the purpoſe, and enquire whether foreign, or [them] referre to Nations, or Diſciples, in thoſe words of our Saviour; then you vent your Criticiſmes againſt the author of Infant-Baptiſme, and undertake to ſhew that foreign, ſignifies to teach cum effectu, or teach till they be made Scholars; and after a long Diſcourſe upon theſe things, your reſult is, that foreign [them] may be meant of Diſciples, and Nations reſpectively, Diſciples of Nations, or Nations who be Diſciples, but not to baptize any of them till they were Diſciples. But Sir, what need all theſe things? the meaning is plaine; by Nations, I neither meane the major part of a Nation, nor repreſentative body of a Nation, nor the King of a Nation; but whereas before, onelyonly one Nation of the Jews were Gods people in Covenant, now other Nations ſhould be taken in likewiſe: and whereas before their Commiſſion to preach and baptize was reſtrictive, Goe not to the Gentiles or Samaritans, now he enlarges their Commiſſion to all Nations; and wherever their Miniſtery ſhould bee ſo bleſſed, as to have any Nation accept the Goſpel, they ſhould be his people now, as the Jewes had been in times paſt, according to that Evangelicall promiſe, Eſa. 19. 24. In that day ſhall Iſrael he a third with Egypt and Aſsyria, even a bleſſing Eſay 19. 24. explained.in the midst of the Land whom the Lord of Hosts ſhal… bleſſe; ſaying, Bleſſed be Egypt my people, and Aſsyria the work of my …ands, and Iſrael mine inheritance. Here is the Nation of Egypt, and the Nation of Aſsyria taken into Covenant as well as Iſrael Gods inheritance; and now Abraham indeed became the Father of many Nations; ſo that the emphaſis of this Text is in the word [Nations,] in oppoſition to the one Nation of the Jews; that whereas the Apoſtles thought they were never to go to thoſe vile nations who were eſteemed as Dogs and Swine; our Lord inſtructed them, That now hee would pluck up the partition wall, and that the reſt of the Nations ſhould be brought within the verge of his Church, and partake of the ſame Covenant, which the Jewes had before enjoyed as their peculiar treaſure (a wonder of mercy, as the Jews themſelves judged, when they came firſt to underſtand it, Act. 11. 8.) and conſequently when other Nations ſhould thus by receiving and profeſſing the Goſpel come under his wing, they ſhould enjoy the ſame benefit of the Covenant with the Jews, He would henceforth be the God of them and their ſeed.
Againſt this you except many things: Firſt, ſay you, then there may bee a rule aſſigned to know when a Nation may be called a beleeving Nation, but there is none: And to prove this minor, you run out at large, not when a King is baptized, nor when the repreſentative body, nor when the greateſt part are beleevers; and further, if the children of wicked parents in a nation may be baptized, it must be either from their deſcent, or place of birth, or both; if by deſcent, it must be either from their immediate parents, or forefathers within memory, or beyond memory; if from the place of their birth, then the children of Turks born in England may be baptized; and if the children of wicked parents may claime it, it must be from ſome Charter, Abraham indeed had a Charter to circum…iſe his, how wicked ſoever they ſhould prove, but other parents have none. And here againe you bring in Rom. 11. to be meant of a perſonall priviledge by faith, which hath been before confuted. I anſwer to all this in a word or two, there is a known rule, viz. when a whole Nation conſiſts of viſible Profeſſors, that Nation is to be reputed a Chriſtian Nation; and when the major part of a people may by a figurative expreſſion bee called a Nation, that major part, if they bee viſible Profeſſors, may by the ſame figurative expreſſion be called a Chriſtian Nation, a holy Nation, a ſeparated people, whether any who having been viſible Profeſſors, and afterwards prove apoſtates, or be excommunicate, may have their children baptized, or whether children in right of their forefathers, or r…mote anceſtor… (when their immediate Parents are cut off from the Church) may be baptized, or whether the Infants of infidels brought up by Chriſtians, and ſo adopted into their Families, may be initiated into Chriſtianity by Baptiſme, whether upon the ground of federall holineſſe or other warrant of Scripture, are queſtions not belonging to our preſent buſineſſe, therefore I paſſe them over.
I added, when that one Nation of the Jews were made Diſciples and circumciſed, their Infants were made Diſciples (made to What it is to make diſciples.belong to Gods Schoole) and circumciſed with them, when that Nation was made Diſciples in Abrahams Ioynes, and circumciſed, their ſeed was alſo the ſame when they were taken out of Egypt, and actually made Diſciples, their chi…dren were alſo with them. You anſwer, First, this ſuppoſeth that Christ bid them baptize all Nations after the manner that the Iews did circumciſe one Nation. Secondly, that the Nation of the Iews were diſcipled when they were circumciſed. And you ſay to the firſt Suppoſition, there is no ground for it, the Apoſtle knew Chriſts meaning well enough, that th…y were to preach and then to baptize; and that there was no alluſion from circumciſion to Baptiſme, as Mr. Blake conceives. But Sir, ſince it is apparent that here is no commiſſion for any new Method in their work, but onelyonly an enlargement of their commiſſion to apply their Miniſtery to new perſons, how could they underſtand our Saviours meaning to proceed any other wayes to the Gentiles, then among the Jews? Now among the Jews and Proſelytes, it is apparent, that children receive the initiall ſeale with their parents, yea, and you your ſelfe grant that their infants were baptized when they were circumciſed, though baptiſme was not then a Sacrament; and when it was taken into the honour of being a Sacrament, there is not one word in the Scripture of reſtraining it from being applyed to infants as in times paſt, the reaſon of the ſilence of the new Teſtament about baptizing Infants, comes afterward to be conſidered, when your Objection from it comes to hand.
To the ſecond Suppoſition, That the Iews were diſcipled, and their children were diſcipled when they were circumciſed. You ſay, it is ſuch a conſtruction of the word foreign, [make diſciples, as you beleeve no Lexicon, nor any Expoſitor to this day, hath ever made of that wo…d, which plainly ſignifies …o to teach, as that the perſons taught do learn, and accordingly profeſſe the things taught. Sir, I pretend not to be a Critick, though you doe, but I have learn…, from better Criticks then your ſelf, that foreign, is a …abbinick phraſe, and from their uſe of it, it is beſt to be underſtood, and with them it ſignifies to admit Scholars foreign is a familiar manner of ſpeech among them for to admit Scholars, and foreign to get or retaine a Maſter; now this admiſſion of Scholars was not quia erant docti, ſed, ut eſſent; and there is this difference with them about this matter, that foreign is to admit Scholars to be taught, and foreign is to breed Scholars, or to make them learned. And if you pleaſe to conſult the Learned Spanbemius, in his Dubia Evangelica, upon this very place, wherein he vindicates it from the Anabaptiſts, he will tell you that foreign, ſignifies not onelyonly to teach, but to make diſciples; which (ſaith he in this place) is done by baptizing and teaching; therefore (ſaith he) the ſending forth of diſciples in this place, is ſhewed or laid down, Firſt, from the end of their ſending. Secondly, from the ſeverall acts they are to doe to to attaine this end. The end of their ſending is foreign, to make Diſciples; the actions whereby they are to attaine this end, are baptizing and teaching: and he gives this good reaſon for this his Analyſis, becauſe if foreign, ſhould ſimply ſignifie onelyonly to teach, there would be found a tautologie in Chriſts words; thus, Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, teaching them. The ſenſe therefore (ſaith he) of Chriſts words, is this, Goe ye, make diſciples to me out of all Nations by baptizing and teaching; and this making diſciples, ſuo modo infantibus etiam aptari poterat; quando enim parentes, &c. For when parents doe give their names to Chriſt for themſelves and their families, their whole houſe is diſcipled, their children as well as themſelves. By this time I hope you may be perſwaded that baptizing may well bee rendred diſcipling. And among the Jews, to become a diſciple, was not by being firſt taught, and then initiated into a Maſter, but is meant of being initiated into a Maſter, to bee taught by him; ſo all Iſrael was baptized into Moſes, 1 Cor. 10. not as already inſtructed, but to bee inſtructed and guided by him for the future; ſo Ioſeph of Arimathea, foreign Mat. 27. 57. diſcipled in himſelfe, entred himſelfe into Chriſts ſchoole; ſo the blind man to the Phariſees, Iohn 9. will ye bee his Diſciples, will ye profeſſe him, will ye bee initiated into him? the very firſt day any one initiated themſelves to learn, they were called Diſciples.
Further you ſay, if the Apoſtles had underſtood our Saviours command thus, Diſciple all nations baptizing them, that is, admit the Infants of all nations to baptiſme, as the Jewes did the males of that one nation to Circumciſion, they might have ſaved themſelves a great deale of labour of preaching before Baptiſme, and of baptizing females, and would have left us ſome preſident of ſuch a practiſe. I reply, why the baptizing of Infants of Beleeving Parents ſhould ſpare any Preachers the paines of teaching growne men, who are infidells before they are converted, doth wholly tranſcend my capacity, becauſe the Infants of Proſelytes were to bee Circumciſed with their Parents, therefore the Jewes might ſpare the labour of preaching to growne men before they circumciſed them, this is a moſt wild conſequence; or why the vertuall and analogicall arguing from circumciſion to baptiſme, ſhould be brought as an Argument againſt baptizing of women, hath as little reaſon in it; there being now under the Goſpell, in reference to this Seale of admiſſion, neither male nor female. Whereas you adde, had they done it they would have left ſome preſident of ſuch a practiſe; whether by good conſequence they have not left us ſome evidence of it, is the queſtion wee are now debating. I added, in every nation the children make a great part of that nation, and are alwayes included under every adminiſtration to the nation, whether promiſes or threatnings, priviledges or burthens, mercies or judgements, unleſſe they bee excepted, whereof I gave divers inſtances in my Sermon; you anſwer, the Lord hath plainely given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this adminiſtration, according to ordinary rule, in that hee directs them to baptize Diſciples upon preaching, hee excludes Infants, &c. and when Chriſt and John baptized onelyonly ſuch, this practiſe excludes others. I anſwer, by what rule then durſt you baptize an Infant knowne to you to bee regenerate, ſince they cannot bee Diſciples upon preaching, if you ſay you cannot doe it by ordinary rule, ſhew us (I pray) your extraordinary; if you anſwer they are Diſciples, therefore they may bee baptized; I anſwer, the Infants of beleevers are viſible Diſciples, they viſibly belong to the kingdome, family, ſchoole of Chriſt, as I have abundantly proved already; any manifeſtation of Gods that perſons belong to his Covenant is to your ſelfe a ſufficient ground of accounting them ſuch, either a promiſe, or powring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt, (though they are no infallible ſignes of inward ſanctification) or confeſſion of faith or of repentance, are warrant ſufficient for us to baptize them, now the promiſe of God to beleeving parents to bee the God of them and of their ſeed, and his owning them as perſons belonging to his Church, is as reall a manifeſtation of it as the other ſignes of receiving extraordinary gifts, externall profeſſion, &c. either are or can be. And whereas you adde that Chriſts and Johns Baptizing ſuch, and no other as made a viſible profeſſion, is excluſive to all others. I anſwer, firſt, it is no where ſaid they baptized no others; ſecondly, I deny that conſequence, this is not an excluſive rule, the practiſe and example of Chriſt, and John is ſufficient to make an affirmative or poſitive rule, they baptized ſuch, therefore wee may baptize ſuch, but it's not excluſive, that therefore wee may baptize no other, and the reaſon is plaine, they poſſibly might not meet with all perſons and occaſioons, and ſo their practiſe is a good rule, not a full rule; I ſhall give one inſtance, wee read not before the tenth of the Acts that either Chriſts Apoſtles or Iohn the Baptiſt baptized any proſelytes of the gate, or that they baptized any (as you ſay) untill they made actuall confeſſion of their faith and repentance, or that there was any rule given, that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoſt ſhould without any other confeſſion bee a ſufficient warrant to Baptize any, yet Peter upon the very powring out of thoſe gifts, without requiring any further confeſſion either of faith or repentance, baptized Cornelius and all his company: in one word, any word or act of God declaring that ſuch and ſuch belong to his viſible Church, is a ſufficient warrant without any danger of wil-worſhip, and this wee have abundantly for the Infants of beleeving parents, wee have therefore here nothing to doe with a mixture of wine and water, ſalt and creame and ſpittle, they are impertinent to our buſineſſe, and you bring them in to no purpoſe; all your diſcourſe of wil-worſhip which you thus often repeate, reaches not the point in hand in the leaſt tittle; the Sacrament of Baptiſme is an ordinance of his owne appointment, and by his appointment may bee applyed to all ſuch as himſelfe doth manifeſt to bee in the number of thoſe who belong to his viſible Church, what courſe ſoever himſelfe pleaſes to take to manifeſt it, whiles wee keep within theſe bounds, we are therein out of the danger of will-worſhip. I added, it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new adminiſtration, that they might know his mind if hee had intended to leave them out, which that ever hee did in word or d…ed, cannot be found in the Scripture; to this you anſwer, it behooved the Lord to give a precept to put them in into this new adminiſtration if hee intended to have them in, which that ever he did you cannot find; I reply, but I have abundantly proved that they alwayes had a right to bee accounted as belonging to his Church, to bee reputed viſible members, and therefore need no new putting in: if God once beſtow upon a people a Sabbath to bee a ſigne between him and them, they may lay claime to that Sabbath upon what day of the week ſoever he pleaſe to appoint it: the like is to bee ſaid here, while the Lord will own any to be viſible members of his Church, they have right to the adminiſtration, bee it new or old, if they bee capable of it, and no barre put in againſt them by himſelfe. That which followes in your booke, page 133. about Childrens being taken in with their parents, and included unleſſe excepted, and of being under the former adminiſtration, and ſo under this, by paritie of reaſon, hath been abundantly ſpoke already. I added, our Infants are capable of being Diſciples as well as the Infants of Jewes and Proſelytes, you grant it to bee true, and I aske no more for ours then they had for theirs, and though they bee not capable of receiving actuall inſtruction from men, yet they are capable of Gods owne teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jewes Children were, which is ſufficient for my purpoſe▪ I added, in Chriſts dialect to belong to Chriſt, and to bee a Diſciple i… all one, and cleared it by ſome Text in the Margent, you anſwer onelyonly this, that though Mr. Blakepr…ph in this n…tion, yet it is a triumph beford victory, and that the Text cited by me ſpake not of little ones in reſpect of age, and ſome of them mention not little ones at all, but what's this to the purpoſe, when the intent was onelyonly to prove this notion or expreſſion that to bee a Diſciple and belong to Chriſt is all one. Laſtly, I argued from Act. 15. 10. to ſhew that Children may bee called Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated.Diſciples, becauſe they upon whoſe necks thoſe falſe teachers would have put the yoake of Circumciſion, are called Diſciples, and to bee called Diſciples, and it is apparent that they would have put it upon the Infants of beleevers as well as upon the beleevers themſelves, becauſe they would have impoſed it after the manner of Moſes Law, and preſt that Law ſtill to bee in force; you anſwer, you ſee no neceſſitie from this to call Infants Diſciples, and you firſt deny the major, that all are to bee called Diſciples upon whoſe necks they would have put that yoake. To which I anſwer, without any further reply I leave it to the Reader to judge, onelyonly I thanke you for the reaſon you alledge why you deny the major, becauſe it is not ſaid they would put it upon Diſciples onelyonly: I hope you will receive the ſame law you give, and therefore will reſt ſatisfied, when your ſelfe doe plead, Johns and Chriſts Diſciples required confeſſion of ſaith and finnes of thoſe whom they baptized, and when Chriſt bid his Apoſtles and Diſciples firſt to teach, then to baptize, I ſhall anſwer, it is no where ſaid, they baptized onelyonly ſuch, or were to baptize onelyonly ſuch. Secondly, you anſwer that this yoak of Circumciſion which neceſſitated them to keep Moſes Law to ſalvation was not put upon Infants, but upon brethren who were taught the neceſſitie of it. I anſwer, then Paul himſelf was much miſtaken, who ſaid, that every one that was Circumciſed was bound to keepe Moſes Law; and certainely Paul meant that which theſe falſe teachers alledged, even Circumciſion impoſed after the manner of Moſes. Laſtly, you make your ſelfe merry with Mr. Blake, as if hee alluding to Eſa. 49. 22. of bringing ſonnes and daughters upon their ſhoulders to Chriſt, &c. had alledged that Text nothing to the purpoſe; I confeſſe I am not ſatisfied, that that Text is cleare to the purpoſe, but I am fully ſatisfied, that you often make a noyſe with Texts leſſe to the purpoſe, as in bringing Acts. 19. for rebaptization, 1 Cor. 7. 34. to prove holineſſe to bee meant of Chaſtitie, and many others.
My next inſtance was from the forementioned place, Acts. 2. whence I ſhewed the Children of ſuch as beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant, and therefore by good conſequence Sect. 14. Acts 2. 39. holds forth a command for Infant Baptiſm by good conſequence.are to receive the Seale of the Covenant, and that that Text not onelyonly ſhewes that they are within the Covenant, but alſo that a right to baptiſme is a conſequence of being within the Covenant; Your anſwer is to this effect, that you have already anſwered this plaoe, and that it is ſo far from proving this, for which I alledge it, that it proves the contrary; I cheerfully referre the Reader to my vindication of this place, Sect 6. Part 3. I added, wee have likewiſe examples enough by good conſequence. Firſt, Examples of Infant Baptiſm by good conſequence.I ſhewed that the Goſpell tooke place by bringing in whole houſholds as the former adminiſtration alſo did; you alledge to the contrary ſeverall examples page 138, 139. that it was not conſtantly ſo, nor did I ever ſay it was ſo alwayes or conſtantly either among Jewes or Chriſtians; you alledge the thouſands converted in the Acts, the Citie of Samaria, and others, yet no mention of the whole houſholds; yet poſſibly their whole houſholds did come in with them, the Scripture ſpeakes nothing to the Contrary, how ever I alledge it not, nor doth the cauſe depend upon it; I alledged many houſholds who were baptized, Cornelius and his houſhold, the Jaylor and his houſhold, the houſhold of Stephanus, of Criſpus, of Ariſtobulus, of Narciſſus and ſeverall others; to all which you anſwer, this muſt bee interpreted by other places, which when they expreſſe the haptizing of the houſhold, they expreſſe alſo the beleeving or receiving of the word by the whole houſhold, and that ſometimes the houſe is put for the people of growth in the houſe; but who taught you it muſt bee ſo interpreted? hee that will may force ſuch an interpretation upon himſelfe, and it is hard to open the eyes of a prejudiced man, but I feare not, try it when you will, that you ſhall never finde ſo good evidence out of the houſholde eating the Paſſeover, Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eate the Paſſeover, as this proves that the Infants of the houſe were baptized, becauſe according to your principles women might not bee numbred amongſt the Circumciſed; and the Law was plain that no uncircumciſed perſon might eate the Paſſeover, whereas on this hand for Infants baptiſme, it is not to bee doubted, but that there were ſome Infants amongſt theſe houſholds who were baptized, and no Law made againſt the baptizing of them. And for your evaſion that though is bee ſometimes ſaid houſholds were baptized, yet it is ſaid theſe houſholds received the word, though this might be pleaded concerning ſome of them, yet there is no evidence why you ſhould ſpeake it of all of them. And whereas you further alledge, that a houſe is ſometimes taken for the growne perſons in that houſe▪ (though all the Scriptures which you mention are not fit inſtances) it may very well bee granted, and hurts not mee, unleſſe you can prove that it muſt bee ſo meant: I have better warrant to affirme concerning the Jaylors houſe, of whom it is ſaid Paul preacht to all thoſe that were in his houſe, that either there were no Infants in that houſe, or that the preaching of the word to all in the houſe is to bee limited pro ſubjecta m…teria to them who were capable of preaching, and yet the reſt received baptiſme who were capable of it. And thus I have cleared and vindicated my firſt and great Argument, Infants are foedera …, therefore they muſt it … they are in Covenant▪ therefore the initial … of the … belongs unto them. I proceed to the ſecond.
My ſecond Argument was to this effect▪ the Infants of bele… vers even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward gra… of Baptiſm… as well as growne … who are viſible profeſſors; Sect. 15. Argu. 2. Infants are capable of he grace whereof Baptiſme is a Seals.therefore they may and ought to … Baptiſm…, which is the outward ſigne of this inward grace. In your anſwer you grant the major, that all who partake of the inward grace may partake out of the outward ſigne, and that …o Antipaedobaptiſt will deny this, but then you enquire what I meane by having the thing ſignified, and you ſuppoſe I doe … …old that all Infants of beleevers have actually the inward grace ſignified by baptiſme; no indeed Sir, nor do I thinke that you conceive that all grown perſons who are viſible profeſſors have it. In your anſwer to the minor propoſition that Infants as well as growne men are partakers of the inward grace, according to your uſuall courſe, you enquire after a great many ſenſes, whether I meane it of potentiall having it, or actuall having it, whether I meane onelyonly ſome have it actually, others potentially; in one ſenſe the argument hath foure termes, in another forme, the argument will conclude but for the baptizing of ſome Infants; then you enter into a diſcourſe upon the Lutherans, and about a booke intituled, Baptiſmall regeneration of elect Infants, with which you ſay Doctor Fe…tley concurs, and of a book written by S. C. Intituled, A Chriſtians plea for Infants Baptiſme, which holds poſitions ſomewhat like the Lutherans, all which you profeſſe you mention to diſcover what ſtuffe the Pedobaptiſts doe feed the people withall, you might have added, to worke prejudice in your Readers, and to ſhew your owne reading, and to ſwell up a volume, otherwiſe quorſum haec? my meaning is as plaine as the high way, that as Infants are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant as well as grown viſible profeſſors (which was the drift of my firſt Argument) ſo the ſcope of this is to ſhew that they are in the ſame capacitie to partake of the inward grace of the Covenant, while they are Infants, as there is of grown viſible profeſſors; and that they are not onelyonly capable of it, but many of them are actually partakers of it as well as grown men▪ and conſequently that wee have the ſame ground to look upon and judge Infants of beleevers to bee regenerate as upon grown men by a viſible profeſſion, there being to …s no infallible ground of certaintie, but of charity, for the one no… for the other, and that their viſible right to the Covenant and the many promiſes of God made to the ſeed of the faithfull are as good evidences to ground this judgement upon, as the externall ſignes which growne men can give; and therefore whereas you ſay, that all the Infants of beleevers▪ or the Infants of beleevers in as much they are the Infants of beleevers, are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptiſme, elſe the Argument will not ſerve for my purpoſe; I utterly deny, that this is the Concluſion to be proved, or that my argument is not to the purpoſe, unleſſe I undertake to prove this; for I argue in the like caſe from grown men who are viſible Profeſſors, thus; All who are partakers of the inward grace of Baptiſm, may and ought to partake of the outward ſigne and ſeale, but viſible Profeſſors are partakers, &c. This minor is lyable to the ſame exceptions that the other is, for who knows not that many viſible Profeſſors have not the inviſible grace, That many are called, when but few are choſen? and yet your ſelf doe hold, that we may de ſide, out of faith & aſſurance, that we do it according to Gods will, apply the outward ſigne to them, though we have nothing but charity to make us conceive the inward graces to be in them. Neither can we by the judgement of charity think that all viſible Profeſſors taken together in a lumpe have the inward grace; the Scripture (which is the rule of our charity) having declared the contrary, our charity onelyonly warrants us to judge of every ſingle perſon, when poſſibly we may know no more againſt the one, then againſt the other, though we know there are ſome falſe hearted amongſt them: The ſame is to be ſaid for Infants; and this I proved out of the Scripture, Mark 10. To ſuch belongs the kingdom of God; and in my Sermon I Mark 10. vindicated from Mr. Tombes exceptions.vindicated this Text from the gloſſes which the Anabaptiſts would put upon it: your exceptions againſt it are ſuch as theſe, it is poſſible they were not very little ones; poſſibly our Saviour meant not of them, but of ſuch as they, for the word is foreign of ſuch, not foreign of theſe: poſſibly, horum & ſimilium, of th…ſe and the like: poſſibly, they were not the children of beleevers: poſſibly, it is meant onelyonly of elect Infants, that theſe were elect, and ſhould in time be called: but yet, ſay you, grant all, and it will not …ence follow, that all Infants of beleevers have right to inviſible grace; yea, it here ſuits better for confirmation, then for baptiſme; yea, that it is rather an evidence Chriſt would not have Infants baptized, becauſe he ordered not th…ſe Infants to bee baptized. But Sir, how many of theſe things would you have called dictates in another, aſſertions without proof and to how little purpoſe are all theſe things brought i…? your ſelf grant enough to ſerve my turne; you grant that the kingdom of heaven did belong to theſe Infants, and I intended from this inſtance not to prove that all Infanta of beleevers are made partakers of ſaving grace▪ but that Infants in their infantile age, are capable of inward grace, and ſome of them actually partakers of it; this is enough for me; and more then this cannot be ſaid of growne men who are viſible Profeſſors. I added in my Sermon, sa one branch of a reaſon, that there is nothing belonging to the initiation and being of a Chriſtian, whereof Baptiſme is a ſeale, whereof Infants are not capable, as well as grown men; as receiving the holy Ghoſt, union with Chriſt, pardon of forme, regeneration, eternall life. Your anſwer is a ſcoffe out of Hora…e, Amphora caepit inſtitui, &c. I ſhould prove, ſay you, that all Infants of beleevers are actually partakers, and in ſtead of this, I prove they are capable of it. Sir, this is but one part of my reaſon; and I undertook not to prove that all infants, but onelyonly that fome are partakers of it.
I added, and it is further conſiderable, that in the working that inward grace, of which baptiſme is the ſigne and ſeale, all who partake of that grace, are but meer… Patients; and therefore Infants are as fit ſubjects to have it wrought in them, as growne men; and the moſt growne men are in no more fitneſſe to receive this grace, when it is given them, in reſpect either of faith or repentance, which they yet bave, then a very little child, &c. You anſwer, by demanding whether I bring all this as a proofe; that all infants have it, or that they are capable of it; or whether I intend it …s a further argument, that baptiſme is to be given to thoſe, who are capable of the firſt grace, which becauſe Infants are as well as grown men▪ therefore they are to be baptized; but then you deny the major, for a perſon is not to be baptized, becauſe he may have grace, but becauſe he hath it. Sir, I brought it to prove that which was in hand, viz. that Infants are capable of it as well as grown men, and that ſome of them are partakers of it as well as grown men; and therefore their Infant-age cannot be pleaded againſt them, as if inward grace could not comp…tere to their preſent condition. And as for that you adde, That baptiſme is to be adminiſtred, not to them who may have grace, but to them who have it. Then it ſeemes they are all wrongly baptized who have not inward grace; and ſo (according to your owne expreſſion) baptiſme to ſuch is as a ſeal ſet to a blank; yet you know, even the Apoſtles themſelves baptized many who were in no better condition: and your ſelfe afterward grant, That a Miniſter may defide adminiſter this Sacrament to ſuch as make a viſible profeſſion, though he be not aſſured of any inward grace. I have often proved, that a right to bee reckoned to belong to the viſible Church, is a ſufficient warrant to adminiſter the ſeal of admiſſion. Secondly, you much trouble your ſelf, to finde out what I meane by the firſt grace: whether the free favour of God, or the Covenant of grace; whether if I meane the firſt grace in exceution, I pitch upon juſtification, or regeneration, or adoption; and then inquire which is the ſecond grace. But all this is but ſeeking a knot in a ruſh. I am perſwaded all other Readers underſtood me to meane by the firſt grace, all that grace which is requifite to the being of a Chriſtian, union with Chriſt, forgiveneſſe of ſin, the indwelling of the holy Ghoſt, as a principle of a new life; and your ſelfe ſay more then once, that baptiſme is the ſacrament of our Initiation, and that which exhibits us members both of Chriſt and of his Church; and therefore thus needleſly to quarrell about things wherein your ſelf concurre with mee, is too too vain. Laſtly, you have ſomewhat to ſay to that of our being meerly paſſive in our firſt converſion, and you tel your reader, what the Divines of great Britaine ſaid in the Synods of Dort, of ſome preparations going before converſion: and what Mr. Rutherford, Dr. Twiſſe, and Dr. Preſton have delivered about this point. And after a needleſſe ſhewing that you have read theſe Authors, you grant as much as I contend for, That the taking away the be art of ſtone, and inſuſing of a principle of new life, is only Gods work; and that a new heart, faith, &c. are the effects of converting grace, and that in theſe things wee are paſſive: in ſumme, you are of my judgement in this point, that Infants are capable of new life, and ſome of them partakers of it: and I likewiſe conſent with you, and thoſe above mentioned Reverend Divines, that in Gods uſuall way of working upon grown men, there are ſome preparations for converſion, before converſion it ſelfe, in which preparations men are not meerely paſſive; but in the receiving of the principle of new life, all men are meerely paſſive. I know you will owne that expreſſion of Auguſtine, Qnid agit liberum arbitrium? ſan…tur. I conclude this argument of baptizing Infants, with a ſpeech of Bellarmine, there is, ſaith he, no impediment why Infants may not bee baptized; nec ex parte prohibitionis alicujus divinae, &c. neither Bella…. lib. 1. de Baptiſmo, cap. 8from any divine prohibition, nor on the part of the Sacrament adminiſtred, nor on the part of the Miniſter adminiſtring, nor on the Infants part to whom it is to bee adminiſtred, nor on the Churches part in which it is adminiſtred. Paedo-baptiſme therefore is rightly continued in the Chriſtian Church.