2 3 4 5. where stoning to death by the people of the land and that without mercy is threatned against the offender in this kind See! these uncommanded things as they are called here were things elsewhere most strictly prohibited most severely interdicted § 20. Again it is said in the Third Commandment The Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain Is that all that the Lord will not look on him that taketh his name in vain as altogether an innocent man Is it not that the Lord will most severly punish him What else is meant in Ezek 17. 18 19. Jerem. 7. 9 with 12 14 15. Zech. 5. 2 3 4. Malach 3. 5. Hosea 4. 2. Jerem 23. 10. So his not commanding here is his forbidding The not coming into his heart is his hating such abomination as it is called Jerem. 32. 35. § 21. Now what is this to Infants Baptism Where hath God any where forbidden it that the doing of it should be such an abomination to God From this manner of Gods expressing himself I commanded not touching things most severly forbidden hated and abhorred by God how doth any argument arise how is any reasoning framed to the rendring of that unlawfull to man as abominable unto God which God is so far from having ever any where forbidden or exprest any detestation against that he is supposed never to have said the least word about it § 22. Yea what if this be spoken in the way of aggravation of their fault in proceeding to such unnatural cruelties towards their children in the worship of false gods as were never by the true God required of them As if God Almighty had said Your idolatrous wickedness is so much the greater in that ye do these things to serve your false gods which for the cruelty and unnaturalness of them I who am the true God never commanded you to perform to me it never so much as once came into my heart or mind to require any such thing of you to my self still this will no way be applicable unto Infants Baptism which can in no respect be parallel'd unto these most inhumane acts of the most devillish worship § 23. No more can that of Isa 1. 12. a place often enough thrown in our dish about this business Who hath required this at your hands For the fault there reproved was not the performing of Offerontium nequitla bene olens thymiams in abominationem convertit D. Chrys Hom. 27. in Gen. There are several accounts upon which God in Scripture is said to disregard and not to approve or accept of Sacrifices which yet were of his own institution 1. In respect of the Hypocrisie of the offerers That people being grown formal and corrupt trusted in Sacrifices and the work wrought in them and said by them they should be justified God expressing his indignation against such Sacrificers rejects the things themselves wherein they trusted that is in reference to them that used them This is the intention of the Holy Ghost Isa 1. 12 13. Dr. Owen Confut. of Biddle Catech ch 22. p. 472. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrysost 1 Orat. adv Judaeos an uncommanded action the thing it self to come and appear before God and that no less than thrice a year being most particularly commanded Exod. 23. 17. and Exod. 34. 23. But it was the performing of a commanded action with such hypocrisie as they did it with it was their being hypocrites in their hearts even whilest they were before the eyes of God Their hearts were not with him even whilest they were performing exterior acts of worship and service to him Now in such case the most commanded acts of worship are hateful to God not as acts of worship but as acts of such worshippers This may be seen in the Context from 12 to 21. and so again Isa 66. 3 4. Prov. 21. 27. Prov. 28. 9. § 24. Now this can no way be applicable to the prejudice of Infants Baptism unless our Antipaedobaptists will say that our coming to appear before God with our Infants to offer and consecrate them unto him in baptism is all Hypocrisie and that as oft as we tread the courts of God to that end we come but to play the Hypocrites with him Which yet I hope they will not unjustly and I am sure they cannot justly charge us with all What we do in this we do it simply and sincerely walking according to our light and acting according to our conscience without hypocrisie § 25. But put case we do allow them their own sense of all those Texts which they bring to prove the unlawfulness of any thing that is not commanded in the word of God viz. Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6 c. yet still it will not follow that those Texts which were given under and as a rule for the Legal Dispensation and reached to all the most minute parts and circumstances of Gods worship which were every one under the penalty of a curse to be punctually observed are now in force under and as rules for the Oeconomy of the Gospel For that will be to bring back again and make necessary all the former legal administrations because there must be no Diminutions from Gods Word For by what Texts of Scripture are forbidden all Additions to the word of God by the same Texts are forbidden all Diminutions from his Word And if we must do nothing more than has been commanded because we must not add then we must do nothing less because we must not diminish And so we must fall again to Circumcision and all the outdated services of the Law and in plain terms turn Jews § 26. If it be said that the not doing of things now that were commanded then is no Diminution because there has been a disannulling of the Commandment going befoâ—e Heb. 7. 18 then I answer that for the same reason the doing of things now that were not commanded then is no addition And those Texts must be in force both ways or neither way reaching unto all Diminutions or else not extending unto all Additions Besides if the Commandment be disâ—nnulled then it is no Commandment And how there should either from or to a no Commandment be made any diminution or addition is not so very easie to understand How can any thing be done either more or less than is commanded when there is no command And a command disannulled is annihilated as to all existency of being a command and is now none § 27. If it be replied that the equity of those Texts remains still And that therefore as nothing was to be done in the time of the Law but what was written in the Book of the Law so nothing is to be done in the time of the Gospel but what is written in the Book of the Gospel I answer No. Thus far the equity of them remains that what is commanded in the Gospel be done as it is commanded and
11. And what hath been said of this Text will serve in answer to other Texts of the same import Such as Deut. 12. 32. where it is said What thing soever I command you observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it What thing soever that is as the Septuagint render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every word that I injoyn you every word of command that I give you that shall you be carefull to observe to that shall you pay an uniform obedience forbearing to do the things that I forbid and doing the things whatsoever they be that I command and to my words ye shall add no words of your own ye shall put into my Law no commands that I never gave you you shall not take from my Law any of the commands that I have given you ye shall not change the Rule I have set down for you â—o walk by either in whole or in part by imposing on your selves either more severe or more easie performances than I have required from you instead of those that I have required but ye shall do fully that which I have commanded and ye shall do it faithfully as I have commanded it § 12. And this is agreeable to those Texts where this uniform observance of the then setled rule is more explicately set down As in Deut. 5. 32. ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord hath commanded you you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left And Deut. 28. 14. Thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day to the right hand or to the left to go after other gods to serve them And Joshua 1. 7. Be thâ—u strong and very couragious that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commanded thee turn not from it to the right hand or to the left § 13. Now what is this to Infants Baptism supposing it utterly uncommanded How is the baptizing of an Infant a not doing as the Lord hath commanded or a going aside from any of his words or a turning from them to the right hand or the left What one word of our own or anies else have we added to his to bring it in what one word of his have we left out that else might have given a stop to our doing of it what one word of his have we changed to make the easier way for its introduction or continuation what one thing required by him have we turned from and let alone unperformed that we might do that in the stead of it yea on the contrary how doth not our doing of it hold proportion with his word and so can be no violation of his word In short when it can be made appear that the baptizing of Infants is the putting of words into Moses's Law then we shall and till then we shall not yield that it is that adding to the word of God which God by Moses in this Text for bad § 14. Such again is that saying of Agur Prov. 30. 6. Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liaâ— What can this mean other than that no man ought to add any of his own or others words to the word of God as if God had spoken them whereas he never spake word of them This whosoever he be that doth he must needs be found a liar when God comes to reprove him But what reproof can he be liable to for adding to his words that hath added nothing to them Or how can he be found a liar upon the account of adding to Gods words who doth not affirm God ever said one word more than he hath said § 15. And now what is this Text or any thing that can be inferred from it to our pleading for Infants baptism Have we for the introducing or defending that practice inserted into the word of God any words of our own pretending them to be his words Let the book be searcht and the words produced and let the shame of such adding light upon the doers of it But if we do no such thing if we have added no one word concerning this to Gods Words then can this Text make nothing at all against us who have done nothing of that which is forbidden by it § 16. Indeed from such words of God as are expressed in Scripture we draw such Consequences as naturally flow from them being rightly interpreted But this is no adding to the words of God This is but what we are enabled to by the example of our Saviour and his Apostles who prove things not expressed in Scripture by Consequences deduced from Scripture and by such proving justifie a rational collection from the word to be no culpable addition to the word which is the thing that this Text forbids § 17. Yea but do we not find the Jews severely reproved again and again for performing uncommanded acts of worship of which saith God I commanded thâ—m not neither came it into my heart or mind Jer. 7. 31. 19. 5. 32. 35 Yes verily And what then Why then uncommanded acts of worship and service are unlawfull And so Infants Baptism will upon that account also be unlawfull as being an uncommanded thiâ—g § 18. So the Anabaptists indeed reasons from these Texts but without any reason yea against all reason For the acts spoken of in those Texts as not commanded are acts of devotion to and worship of false gods building high pâ—aces to Baal and causing their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech Now in the name of God doth this follow Israel were repâ—oved for performing uncommanded acts of devotion and Idolatrous worship to false gods therefore it is unlawfull for Christians to perform uncommanded acts of devotion and religious worship to the true God Or because it was unlawful for them to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire to Molech therefore it must be unlawfull for us to cause our sons and daughters to pass through the water to Jesus Christ May not we baptize our Infants and so consecrate them unto God because they may not burn their Infants and so sacrifice them to the Devil What an absurd What a wild and irrational consequence is this § 19. But let us a while consider the expression which I commanded them not nor speake it neither came it into my heart or mind What is this but a Meiôsis intimating in a milder expression a severer interdiction which I commanded not that is which I have most strictly forbidden as abhorring it and abominating it in my heart And were not these things forbidden strictly enough both in general in the first and second Commandment of the Decalogue and particularly in Levit. 18. 21. where it is expresly said Thou shalt not let any of thy sâ—ed pass through the fire to Molech neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God And again Levit. 20. 1
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 47. I might add that its being said that all that believed were together does not prove that the whole multitude of believers men and women were always all together never asunder but all in all places and at all times and in all actions still together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not enforce that I might add also that it is not demonstrable that the breaking of bread here is infallibly meant of the Holy Sacrament for some understand it otherwise though it is ordinarily so understood And then where 's all the force of the Argument from Example gone Nothing here said by H. D. has proved it And much of the same rate is the proof for Command from 1 Cor. 11. 28 Let a man examine himself and so let him eat Here saith H. D. the Greek word signifieth a man or woman the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the common gender as appears 1 Tim. 2. 4 5. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man and Woman To which I Reply Admitting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be as he saith of the common gender and that whilest it continues undetermined to either sex by any distinguishing note it may be allowed to comprehend both sexes in it as in 1 Tim. 2. 5. where we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any article of either masculine or feminine gender to confine it to either sex and exclude the other yet where it is determined by distinguishing notes to either sex how doth it follow that the excluded sex is necessarily implied under that note that excludes it The nature of common words being such that before their determination by any masculine or feminine adjective they are applicable to either sex but after their determination to either they are no longer common to both Had it been said to be of the doubtfull gender something might have been inferred from that But as the word is not of that gender so H. D. expresly saith it is of the common gender Now look but into 1 Cor. 11. 28 and it is most evidently apparent that the signification of the common word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is determined to the male sex by the very next word that follows it viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself which is of the masculine gender and not of the feminine and in propriety of speaking denotes the male and not the female sex So that that Text which is onely express for mens receiving the Sacrament can be no express command for womens receiving it also And whereas he saith there is the same word used in Gal. 3. 28. First it signifies nothing if it were there unless it were so used as expresly under a determination of sex by gender to intend a sex excluded by such determination But secondly it is not true that it is there for there is no such word used in that Text but to take in both the sexes there are two words each distinctly belonging to its several sex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first for male and the second for female And so that Text is nothing to the purpose And now having shewed that there is no proof from either the Example or Command produced by H. D. from Scripture for womens admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I may conclude that the proof for Infants Baptism is as good as for womens Communion and wish it might as H. D. saith it shall suffice CHAP. XXXVII The Conclusion of this Discourse with a Reprehension Caution and Exhortation § 1. THe remaining part of this Discourse wherein I will not be long shall be spent in a threefold address by way of Reprehension Caution and Exhortation Reprehension of such as baptize not their Infants Caution against the seductions of Antipaedobaptists and Exhortation to the baptizing of Infants § 2. And first if it be so that little children are to be suffered to come to Christ and ought not to be hindred from coming to him then do they deserve a sharp rebuke that will not suffer them to come but hinder their coming Hath Christs so much tenderness of heart towards your Infants hardened your own hearts against them What a cruelty is this to them to debar them from and deprive them of that Remedy for their native Infirmity which the Physician of souls hath provided for them Do ye love to see them wallowing in the blood of their nativity unwashed therefrom in the Laver of Regeneration Is natures filth so amiable in the eye of any pretending to be Christian What a presumptuousness is this in you to let them live and venture their dying in a damnable estate And if they be not damned they have more to thank the mercy of their God then the care of their Parents they might have been damned for all you you resolved to venture both theirs and your own damnation too rather than have them baptized though you knew baptism to be the means the onely ordinary means there is whereby they might be saved What shall I call it in you pride or perverseness that you so contumaciously and contumeliously oppose and confront your private novel conceit to the judgment and practice of Christs whole Catholick Church Yea what is it cross-grainedness or rebelliousness against the Lord Christ himself to have no regard to his word no respect to his reason but opposing your resolution against his reason and your will against his word to hinder little children from coming to him and forbid their coming though he hath said Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not § 3. Secondly are little children to be suffered to come to Christ and ought they not to be forbidden coming to him then my Brethren beware of giving ear to the contrary Infusions of Antipaedobaptistical Seducers O let no man whisper into you any doctrine that contradicts the Command of Christ disagrees with the Institution of Christ and crosses the practice of the Universal Church of Christ O consider not what they say now but what Christ so long ago hath said and let his word be of more prevalency with you than the words of any heretical Seducer O regard not what they do now but what the Church of Christ hath ever done and let her judgment be of more power with you than the Opinion of any Schismatical Separatist O think not that an upstart generation of men not heard of in the world till many hundreds of years after Christianity had been planted and setled in the world are the onely men in the world that have the priviledge of discerning the truth But stand ye in the ways and see and ask for the old paths where â—s the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your souls Jer. 6. 16. § 4. Lastly are little Children to be suffered to come to Christ and ought not their coming to be forbidden Suffer then