not alleged by any before Mr. B. and therefore besides the impertinency of the words as he himself allegeth them I see no need to search any further into it His allegation pag. 154. out of Iraeneus is impertinent wherein besides other frivolous inferences out of his words he tels us that Irenaeus cannot mean by sanctifying internal real sanctifying onely for then according to their exposition of Renascuntur it should be but Tautology q. d. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified or new born whereas had he heeded these words set down by himself this imagined Tautology had been seen to be his meer mistake for his words are Omnes venit per semet ipsum salvare He came to save men of all ages as Dr. Hammond renders it not as Mr. B. He sanctifieth all that are sanctified And yet if they had been thus he sanctifieth by himself all that are born again or sanctified by him it had not been a Tautology sith it is manifest that Irenaeus by per semetipsum meant by the patern or example of his own age and then it is no Tautology but hath this plain sense that all that are sanctified by Christ he came to sanctifie them by the patern or example of his own age and therefore lived in every age of a man which is the purport of Irenaeus his discourse in that place which is by all sorts of writers censured as his mistake Having said so much of Mr. Bs. mistakes and thereby sufficiently shewed that no writer in the two first Centuries mentions infant-baptism and therefore Mr. Bs. speech is most false that he shall easily prove that infant-baptism was used in the Church as high as the Apostles days as there is any sufficient history extant to inform us I leave the examining of the testimonies for baptizing of infants or against them till I have finished the review of the dispute from Scripture testimonies and then I intend not onely to examine what Mr. B. hath scribled in his Plain Scripure Proof c. part 2. chap. 15. and in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 3. but also what Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Young as I am informed and what Dr. Hammond men better acquainted with the writings of the Ancients than Mr. B. or Mr. Bl. have said about the antiquity of infant-baptism and do no whit doubt but that I shall with the Lords assistance make good the assertions of the first part of my Examen that First infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pre ended Secondly that as it is now taught it is a late innovation meaning as it is taught by the Assembly Mr. M. and the reformed Churches called Calvinists As for Mr. Bs. assertion that he should easily prove that the deferring of Baptism came in with the rest of Popery upon popish or heretical grounds if he mean the deferring it till a person were catechized and of years sufficient to answer by himself to the three questions about Repentance Faith and Obedience which were still put to the baptized it is not onely vain and inconsiderate but notoriously false it being the constant order of the Church to baptize after catechising and the baptizing of infants onely an exception from the common rule and order in case of danger of death till after Angustines days who flourished in the fifth Century The grounds on which Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen did perswade the delaying of Baptism were neither popish nor heretical as their words alleged in my Exercit. Sect. 22. shew But on the contrary the hastening of infant-baptism manifestly appears by the words of Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen alleged there and of â—yrian and Augustine together with the relations of Gregory Nazianzens and Austins Baptism alleged in my Examen Part. 1. Sect. 7 8. to have come from the popish conceit that without Baptism infants could not come to Gods Kingdom or were damned I deny not deferring of Baptism to have been an abuse upon sundry misconceits set down in Mr. Ms. Defence pag. 22 23 24 25. but not one of them popish except that of washing away sins by it which was the very ground of hastening infant-baptism as appears from the passages forenamed by me That which made persons of years defer their own Baptism made them hasten the Baptism of their infants Whereas Mr. B. would have Mr. Cradocks Gospel Liberty read I have read it and do finde that neither in his second part chap. 12. nor here Mr. Cradock is well used by Mr. B. Mr. Cradock pag. 114. counts the custome of the Church the weakest rule to discern by and then onely he leaves Christians to it when there is no other light to go forward Mr. B. himself pag. 302. concludes against Mr. Bedford that in so material a thing as infant-baptism to hold Traditions Apostolical not contrary to Scripture-custome or which may not be confirmed from Scripture as our rule is prejudicial to Scripture and a complying with Papists Besides I need not say anymore than Mr. B. there saith about the uncertainty of Traditions unwritten and customes of the Ancients which may serve for the present till a fuller answer be made to that calumniating question in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 3. Do not you care to smite through Christianity so you may bring down infant-baptism which he hath as much need to answer as my self for he shews pag. 303. by the uncertainty about Easter the mistake of Irenaeus about Christs age how uncertain the relations of the Ancients are about things not set down in Scripture And for the customes of Christians an Age or two after the Apostles Writers do shew many corrupt customes came in about Easter Lent Infant-communion sending the Communion to the absent mingling Water with Wine Monastick profession honoring of Martyrs about Baptism giving Milk and Honey to the baptized anointing them the use of the sign of the Cross which grew to a very great number in Augustines time so as that in his 119. Epistle to Januarius he complained as is before mentioned and yet they increased after in the heighth of Popery by reason of the innumerable company of humane Ceremonies insomuch as that the pure worship and truth of the Gospel was shadowed so much as that for the abundance of such leavs the fruit of the Gospel-worship and doctrine was very little or scarce discernible and Christian Religion was almost wholly placed in those Ceremonies And therefore however there were weight in that argument of the Apostle we have no such custome nor the Churches of God of those times yet especially in matters of Ceremonies and positive worship the former after the Apostles days much less the present customes of the holiest Saints and Churches should not be of any great weight in cases controverted except when they serve to expound some passages of the Scripture that are cleared by them Yet this will no whit infringe the validity of the testimony of the Ancients about the canonical books or right readings of the
old man that hath not filled his daies For the chiâ—â— shall dy an hundred years old but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed How shall the child dy as at an hundred years old but that he is so well instructed and inlightned by Christ and thereby as capable of enterance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old Ans. 1. Were M. Cottons paraphrase granted yet the conclusion followes not thence that therefore infants are disciples to be baptized according to Mat. 28. 19. or as he speaks children of the Church For to be so well instructed and enlightned by Christ and thereby as capable of entrance into heavenly glory as a grown disciple of an hundred years old may agree by extraordinary inspiration to one that is only of the invisible Church and not of the visible Church as disciples meant Mat. 28. 19. 2. Mr. Cotton when he saith how shall the child by as at an hundred years old doth slâ—ly intimate as if as were in the text whereas it is not so but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the child or boy shall dy an hundred years old or the son of an hundred years Which without any allegory hath a plain sense as the New Annotations expresse it He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he dy Which was accomplished in the return from the captivity according to the prophecy of Zechariah ch 8. Vide Grotius 4. and therefore we need not run to any allego annot in Zeâ— rical interpretation nor refer it to the times of 8. 4. the Messiah either after the resurrection or afore of which Hieronym in Locum 3. Were an allegory allowed yet not only in Hierom but also in Calvin Piscator and others there are vaâ—iety of senses different from Mr. Cotton so that in alleging these texts he trifled more than became so grave a man But he goes on thus The Apostle Peter reckoneth infants of the Church for disciples Acts 15. 10. If the infants of the Church had not been disciples the false Apostles could have pretended no power to have â—ut that ordinance upon them Answ. 1. infants of the Church is a phrase the Scripture useth not and iâ— serves only to possess the unwary reader with this conceit as if the children of believers inchurched as they speak were children of the Church whereas none is a child of the Church till taught the Gospel and made a believer 2. It is untruly suggested as if the false Apostles pretended power to circumcise infants of Christian disciples from this chat the infants were disciples But ver 1. 5. shew plainly that they alleged that the Gentile disciples were tied to observe the law of Moses and so to be circumcised both they and their children But saith he Peter acknowlegeth them disciples but the yoke of circumcision was too heavy for them as drawing upon them the yoke of the Ceremonial Law Answ. There is not a word of Peter acknowledging the infants disciples but the believing parents nor is the yoke of circumcision said to be too heavy for them now as if it were not so 〈◊〉 but it 〈…〉 such as neither the Apostles nor their Fathers Were able to bear much less Gentiles But 〈…〉 Christ Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. 〈…〉 is the Kingdome of God which argueth that even little children are members of the Church here Answ. It is proved in my Postscriptâ— 20. that Matth. 19. 14. the Kingdom of heaven in Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. the Kingdom of God is meant of the Kingdom of Glory But it follows not that therefore infants are members of the Church here many belonging to the invisible Church which belong not to the visible and vice versâ as abortives still born infants converts at the point of death c. are of the Kingdom of Glory who are never members of the visible Church here But saith he Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child to wit as a little child receiveth it for so much the Grammer construction requireth he shall in no wise enter therein Answ. It is untrue that the Grammar construction requireth that it should be understood thus that a little child receiveth the Kingdom of God but only this is meant that none shall enter into the Kingdom of God but such as have such an humble mind free from ambition as a little child hath as our Lord himself expounds it Mat. 18. 3 4. But saith he Christs testimony of them and his carriage towards them shew that little children born in the Church are accounted disciples of Christ and therefore commanded to be baptized with their believing parents Answ. Mr. Cotton himself confesseth that it doth not appear that their Fathers who brought them were baptized themselves how are they then said to be children born in the Church or to be baptized according to rule wherefore his own words shew it to be uncertainly and therefore insufficiently alleged to prove that the infants of believers are among the blessed ones of Christ such as of whom his Church and and Kingdom consisteth and so come under the fellowship of his disciples whom Christ commandeth to be baptized And in very truth in that there is nothing apparent whether the parents brought them or others whether the parents were disciples or not nor is any thing at all ascribed to the parents but to Christs indulgence in this action and it appears Christ did not command them to be baptized nor spake any thing as intituling them to discipleship and baptism though he said Of such is the Kingdom of God this text is not only impertinently brought to prove the discipleship and baptizability of believers infants but also makes to the contrary that infants are not disciples nor baptizable sith if they had been so Christ would have so declared on this occasion which was opportune for it But there is yet another argument in that chapter of Mr. Cottons and it is to this effect That the Commission Mat. 28. 19. appoints believing parents to be baptized and would infer that in Gods account and in Scripture phrase parents themselves are not reputed of God to be baptized if their children remain unbaptized Answ. But will any man believe Mr. Cotton in this that in Scripture phrase parents are not reputed of God to be baptized if their children remain unbaptized Scripture speaks of thousands baptized and mentions not the baptizing of any of their children under that relation as their children shall we believe Mr. Cotton that those phrases of Scripture that say they were baptized speak false and that they were not reputed of God to be baptized because there is no mention of their childrens baptism many believers were baptized their children being infidels Mat. 10. 35. were not the parents reputed in Gods account baptized because the children were against it But let us hear Mr. Cottons goodly proof in his own words Surely saith he in the old
meaning of the word holy here we are agreed about the sense that it signifieth one so related to Christ as their â—aster the difference is about the application of this term But this is false that I agree with him about the signification and sense of the word Disciple of Christ as it notes a relation to Christ as Teacher yea I utterly deny it notes such a relation as Mr. B. fancies in title without actual learning or owning Christ as Teacher in which sense it is no where taken in Scripture or any Ancient Author I know 3. Saith he However I am certain if we have not the name elsewhere yet we have the description and names of the same signification they are Church members Gods people his servants and therefore Disciples Answ. 1. This doth not at all avoyd his owne charge of prostituted consciences c. in another case he charged these things on me for using the word holy in a different sense from what elsewhere it is used though I brought a term of the same signification Mal. 2. 15 and cogent reason out of the Text for my interpretation and therefore by his own Law to me he is to be charged as he chargeth me for doing the same though it were true he had the description and names of the same signification 2. It is not proved no nor can be proved the terms Churchmembers Gods people Gods servants to be of the same signification with Disciples of Christ 3. There is no so much as one Text in the New Testament which alone is written in Greek by the Holy Pen-men and therefore the fittest if not the onely way to shew the meaning of a New Testament term brought to prove infants under the New Testament to be caled Churchmembers Gods people Gods servants 4. The consequence shall be examined in that which follows Besides I argued from the Text the putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples is the same with that which is mentioned v. 1. they taught the brethren and v. 5. they said it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses and v. 24. certain which went out from us have troubled you with words subverting your souls saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law Now is any man so sensless as to think they did these things to infants Again the Text. v. 1. 23. calls the Disciples v. 10. brethren saith v. 9. their hearts were purified by faith upon the hearing of the word which none but those that are resolved to outface a plain truth would aver to be meant of infants therefore neither the term Disciples v. 10 fiâ—h what is said of the brethren is meant of the Disciples v. 10. To this all the reply I finde in Mr. B. is this pag 252. And your bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not no more than several passages in Deut. 29. applicable onely to the aged will prove little ones were not taken in to be Gods people Answ. It is true the bringing some passages of the chapter not applicable to infants doth not prove that therefore the rest is not if I had made such an Argument I would give him leave to use his Rhetorick of silly insipid arguings But my arguing is this The same thing which is expressed v. 10. by putting the yoke on the necks of the Disciples is expressed v. 1. by teaching the brethren v. 5. by saying to them it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses v 24. by troubling with words subverting their souls saying ye must be circumcised and keep the Law and the same persons which are expressed by Disciples v. 10. are termed v. 1. Brethren are said v. 9. to have their hearts purified by faith v. 19. those of the Gentiles that were turned to God v. 23. Brethren of the Gentiles But these things were not done to infants nor infants comprehended under these persons in these places which express the same thing and the same person which is apparent by the narration Peter reprehends the same thing in the same persons v. 10. which is related v. 1 5 23 24. the occasion of his speech was the same fact the drift of his speech is to condemn the same fact the determination of the Council is against the same practice the same persons are in all these places spoken of and this is proved by Mr. Bs. first Argument who brings v. 1 5 24. to prove Circumcision to be the yoke v. 10. which Argument supposeth the same persons and things meant v. 10. which are meant v. 1 5 24. But not one of the things said there is applicable to infants How then can any man imagine that the same act being meant in all the places it should be meant of the act of Circumcision v. 10. and not v. 1 5 24. and the same persons meant they should be infants meant v. 10. and not v. 1 5 24 Is not this to make the same act and the same persons not the same which is a contradiction I know not how men conceive of my intellectuals But I am still possessed of this to be so good proof that I should as soon doubt of other common notions as of this and as soon believe that the Moon is made of green Cheese as believe Mr. B. affirming that Peter meant infants by Disciples Acts 15. 10. I added further if the putting on the yoke had been Circumcision it had been to be done not on their necks but elsewhere the yoke was put not on their flesh but on their consciences their souls are said to be subverted their mindes troubled v. 24. not their flesh pained by the putting on the yoke it was done by words v. 24. not by a knife or such like instrument Again the yoke v. 10. was such as neither the present Jews nor their fathers were able to bear but Circumcision put on infants was tolerable I argued also that Christs doctrine is called his yoke Matth. 11. 29. I alleged the testimonies of Pisc. sch on Acts 15. 10. Grot. Annot. in Acts 15. 10. calling it the Law and Doctrine that the yoke of bondage Gal. 5. 1. is the Doctrine or Covenant of the Law which genders to bondage Gal. 4. 21 24. That Circumcision is not the yoke without subjection of minde or opinion to it which are not verified of infants These things he saith are answered already but where I know not if he mean in his Argument before he may see his Cannon turned against himself I said all the colour Mr. B. hath from this Text to prove infants disciples is by conceiving the yoke to note barely and precisely the cutting off a little skin To this he answers I must say it is but one of your fictions Did you over hear me talk of such a thing Cutting that skin is not Circumcision as the word is used for a Sacrament
it at laying on of hands but the same persons had the Doctrine of both layd in them 4. There 's not a word of reciting the Doctrine at the several rites by the taught but the laying of the foundation of the Doctrine of those rites by the Teachers 5. The Doctrine of baptisms whether by them be meant those of John and Christ or other and of laying on of hands is more likely and more generally conceived to be concerning the use of baptism and laying on of hands But the Doctrine of the use of these was not recited by either sort of catechized persons though both sorts were taught both doctrines 6. The placing the words the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands in the middle between faith and resurrection of the dead is against the Doctors sense sith the Doctrine of baptisms being joyned by apposition to faith and repentance the sense must be that repentance and faith were the Doctrine recited at baptism not the resurection of the dead which comes after if the Doctors sense were right 7. This order leads us to conceive that the writer of that Epistle did orderly place the elements of Christianity in which Christians were instructed to wit repentance and faith before baptism then the baptism of water and the laying on of hands for the obtaining the Spirit by prayer after baptism and then the declaration of what they were to expect the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement wherein sentence should pass on them concerning their everlasting state 8. The terms of repentance of faith of the doctrine of the resurrection of judgement are all governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the foundation as if they were possessed of it as the Grammarians speak the word Doctrine is not joyned by apposition to faith as if the sense were which is the Doctrine of baptisms which must be the sense if the Doctors interpretation be right 9. Those interpreters which are brought as giving us that sense which Dr. Homes and Mr. Brinsley allâ—ge are but late writers and such as speak onely by ghess without proving the antiquity of the use they mention out of ancient writers or alleging any ancient writer expounding the Text Heb. 6. 2. â—s referring to that use Dr. Homes recites p. 59 60. the words of Pareus Calvin Bullinger Marlorat Hofman Theophylact Mr. Cotton of all which there is none afore the 16. Century but Theophylact placed by Dr. Usher at the year 10 70. and his words with the words of Hofman and Marlorat do not at all speak of the use of laying hands on children of believers baptized in infancy and Bullingers words apply the laying on of hands to the ordination of Pastors So heedlesly did Dr. Homes write his Animaâ—versions that his own authors he allegeth are not for him or else against him And for Mr. Cotton he sayth onely There be that conceive and that not improbable there was such an use and that some judicious Divines have conceived that use to be the reason of reckoning the laying on of hands among the Principles Heb. 6. 2. and he brings it to prove that then Elders were not without laying on of hands for all Church-members had hands layd on them and so might more freely lay hands on others which speech if true and the inference be good then women who were Church-members had hands layd on them and might more freely lay hands on others But the New England Elders of whom I think Mr. Cotton was one if not the very Penner of those answers in the Answer to the 32. Question pag. 69. say If it were not so then one of these would follow either that the Officers must minister without any Ordination at all which is against 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 6. 2. So that there it is referred to the same laying on of hands which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. which is indeed a very common exposition of interpreters It is true Calvin and Pareus refer it to the use Mr. Brinsley mentions yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect 39. allegeth with Salmeron Justinian Calvin Beza Aretius Piscator concerning the initial laying on of hands upon the catechized to prepare them to receive baptism for which use Dr. Hammond in his letter of resolut pag. 195. brings some places of the ancients and Calvin in his institutions l. 4. cap. 19. sect 4. disallows Hieroms judgment conceiving that the laying on of hands for confirmation was an Apostolical Ordinance Beza saith that the Doctrine Heb. 6. 1 2. was delivered when they met either to baptize or lay on hands on infants or adult persons so that he speaks as one not fully resolved And indeed interpreters as is shewed above are not agreed whether to refer it to laying on hands on the baptized or the ordained yet very few of the Protestants refer it to the laying on of hands for confirmation of them that were baptized in infancy and the 25. Article of the Church of England makes Confirmation one of those things which have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles I sayd in my Exercit. sect 14. that if Hierom. tom 2 in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture yet he allegeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it but the Examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands in the Acts of the Apostles To this Dr. Homes replies 1. That however the antiquity holds good that imposition of hands was used to be after applied to them that have been baptized To which I say This being granted yet as I shew there and here the use of baptizing infants is not proved thereby nor doth Hierom confirm Mr. Brinsleys Exposition 2. Sayth Dr. Homes In that place he quotes other places than the Acts of the Apostles and speaks to our purpose thus and then reciting some words of Hierom adds so Hieronymus Wherefore he supposeth imposition of hands may be on them that had the Spirit in baptism before which is not denied by me nor do I see what that is to Dr. Homes his purpose to prove that the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. is meant of believers infants before baptized and then upon their own profession received into the Church by imposition of hands Yet Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cath. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect 41. allegeth Hierom as referring the imposition of hands to the time of baptism not some years after I sayd in my Exercit. pag. 23. but if it were supposed that this imposition of hands meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptized yet this proves not the baptism of infants in the Apostles days unless it could be proved that it was used after the baptism of infants onely for a confirmation either of the baptism or the baptized On the contrary it is apparent out of Tertullian de corona militis cap. 3. that in the primitive times the baptized did make his confession sub manâ—â— antistiâ—is the
neither is any other than an humane device it cannot be proved that onely scandalous sin answers to leprosie original sin or sins of thoughts may as well be conceived to be signified by it and separating from the congregation may as well typifie exclusion from heaven as removal from the visible Church yea more agreeable to the end sith putting out of the Camp was not for amendment as excommunication was That excommunication which the Scripture in the New Testament mentions as belonging to Christians I grant is to be of women as well as men but we need not run to the Old Testament to prove it 1 Cor. 5. 9 10 11 12 13. 2 Thess. 3. 6. 14. 2 Tim 3. 5. prove it If that Rev. 2. 20 belong to excommunication a woman is in express terms made liable to it I agree with Mr. Blake In all penalties for transgression in Scripture we find no regard had of distinction of sexe and by consequence it is not to be denied that women offending are within this censure so that by his own grant we need not run to analogy from ejecting the Lâ—per to prove excommunicating of women It is not true that 〈…〉 d unsay my words are plain distinguishing juâ—â—dical Excommunication of superious from social granting this latter though demurring about the former I have shewed my meaning plainly in the Addition of my Apology sect 17. 19. in my letter to Mr. Robert Baillee of Scotland what Mr. Blake holds in this point I cannot well tell Some conference I had with him in London made me doubtful whether he were not somewhat of Erastus his judgement in this point here he doth not say there is an institution of Excommunication as he is sure there is of Baptism But I deny if there be an institution of excommunition that it may be evinced from Num. 12. 14. that it reacheth both sexes much less that any precept may be thence gathered as obliging Christians in the use of excommunication If there were a rule thence obliging it would follow that excommunication is to be but seven dayes and then the excommunicate to be received in again What I said of ordering things by alterable rules of prudence is expressely meant of things concerning which we have not precise direction from Gods Word which I suppose Mr. Blake will not deny to be true though he is pleased to mention it as if it were mine and not his tenent He saith further I brought an instance not for a proof of it self but illustration of another proof from Divines arguing against non-residence from Ezek. 44. 8. This he saies is good after other arguments but of it self is not convincing Such arguments then are of validity when aright placed and marshalled orderly I hope this of mine then is of force it is not in the van but brings up the rear Answ. What I acknowledged that the argument was good after other arguments I mean to illustrate not to prove nor would I deny an argument from Circumcision of infants good to illustrate Baptism of infants if it were before proved from precept or Apostolical example manifested in express assertion or deduced by good consequences But the most of Paedobaptists make the argument from Circumcision their Achilles and by their texts and confession of a Committee of them it was the main if not the onely argument in the Assembly Mr. Bs arguments he puts in the van are no better as is briefly shewed Postscript sect 2. c. Yet for the text Ezek. 44. 8. upon better consideration it seems not fit to illustrate a proof against nonresidence sith the sin there charged was not leaving the Temple themselves but admitting at the will of the Prince other than of the Tribe of Levi to be in Gods sanctuary Num. 18. 4. yea even the uncircumcised and thereby Gods holy things were profaned and idolatry brought in And therefore the observation of the New Annot. of the second edition is that unlawful Ministers false in doctrine soul in life are not to be admitted but ejected But for Mr. Blakes rule there is no one text brought out of Gods Word to prove it that we may argue from analogy so as to infer a duty from an use in meer positive worship of the Old Testament now abolished in the use of a rite of the New without any other precept in the New Testament when we do not institute thence any piece of worship or the least part of the service of God but onely make it a help to a right understanding of the nature use and extent of that which is instituted Yea this rule seems to me to speak inconsistencies For he supposeth that analogy may not institute any piece of worship or the least part of the service of God yet allows direction from analogy in the nature extent and use of that which is instituted whereas the nature use and extent being the chief part or the very service it self and are determined in the institution Mat. 28. 19. if we may take direction from our conceived analogy in them we may not onely institute a piece of worship or the least part of the service of God which Mr. Blake denies but also the main part yea the very service itself which hath no greater parts than the nature use and extent So that Mr. Blakes first rule denying the use of analogy in the least part of Gods service yet allowing it in the nature use and extent of that which is instituted is but a rule destroying in one part what is built up in the other He adds further The second and third rules he saies are not set down from any declaration or example in the Scripture I desire him at his leisure to look again and he may see the second rule confirmed from the Apostles way of thus arguing 1 Cor. 9. and the Lord Christs Mat. 12. The third is confirmed by that reasoning of Christ with the Pharisees before mentioned compared with our reasoning with Antipaedobaptists Answ. I have looked again and I say still these are impertinently alleged by Mr. B. as being not one of them from such analogy as Mr. B. maintaines and I deny as I have before shewed and for Antipaedobaptists reasonings they are the fairest that can be keeping close to the confessed institution of Christ and practice of the Apostles and there is this objection which is fairly brought against Infant-baptism that there is no command or example for it in Scripture which cannot be brought against Infant circumcision and for the hypotheses of Paedobaptists from the Covenant seal succession to circumcision c. there is not one of them true as God willing shall be shewed in the process of this Review Mr. Blake goes on His second exception is These are very uncertain For no reason is given why they may not make a new worship who may by their analogy extend it beyond the institution in the New Testament This very well answers Mr. T. his ingenuity to which
for maximes Parium exacta est convenientia Quod de uno parium affirmatur id affirmatur etiam de altero e contra But these with Mr. T. are vain and uncertain and all arguments that dance not after his pipe though our Saviors St. Pauls or any others Answ. There is nothing here but flirts and flams Neither do I destroy old Logick nor set up any other than what I have from the Scripture yea and the best approved writers nor need I any new Logick to help me in the reformation of Infant baptism but such as Protestant Divines have used in reformation of Popish and Prelatical ceremonies I do not say the maximes of Logick Mr. Blake here sets down are vain and uncertain and all arguments that dance not after my pipe But this I say Mr. Blakes rule about arguing from analogy conceived between Circumcision and Baptism or any other Old and New Testament rites so as without precept or Apostolical example in the New Testament to frame an obligation on our consciences is vain and uncertain nor doth our Savior or St. Paul or any other sacred writer argue so as in my answer above may be seen Mr. Blake This can never happen saith Mr. T. in analogies between the rites of Moses and the rites of Christ. How did Paul then reason from a parity in the Jewish altar and the Lords table 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. Yea from manna and the rock to the Lords Table as Pareus and other interpreters observe that spiritual meat was eaten in the one and in the other and a like danger of prophaning the one and the other Answ. I said true it can never happen in analogies between the rites of Moses and the rites of Christ that all things should be even or that there should be an exact agreement between them so as that which is affirmed of the one should be affirmed of the other or that there should be the same reason in the use of the one as in the other and thence inferred what ought to be done in the one ought to be done in the other they who are to partake of the one are to partake of the other This is enough to overthrow the supposed parity between Circumcision and Baptism as inferring Infant baptism that they agree not in this that the institution of Baptism extendeth it to all those to whom the institution of Circumcision extends it It is not true that Paul did reason 1 Cor. 10 16 17. from such a parity in the Jewish altar and the Lords table as if what was done at the one must be done at the other by reason of an answerableness in the one rite to the other But he argues from that which is common to both and to all other Religions whether true or false that they which did partake either of them did thereby profess the same Religion to prove that they which should eat of the Idol meats had communion with the Idol and so with the Devil It is not true that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3 4. argues from manna and the rock to the Lords Table as if he would prove that spiritual meat was eaten in the one therefore in the other or that it was dangerous to profane the one for what danger was there in profaning the cloud Sea manna or water out of the rock therefore there is the like danger of profaning the other much less what was done in the one was to be done in the other by reason of analogy between them But the Apostles argument is manifestly this the Israelites being under the cloud and passing through the Sea was to them as Baptism to us their eating manna and drinking water from the rock noted Christ as well as the Lords supper to us and yet this could not save them from Gods displeasure when they sinned therefore our sacraments will not shelter us from Gods wrath if we sin which v. 6. 11. 12. of 1 Cor. 10. manifestly shew to be the force of the Apostles reasoning Mr. Blake adds If when there is a parity in many things it will be saith he uncertain how many parities will serve turn to make the proportion full Here is an excellent dexterity to enervate so many Scripture arguments that the weakness of this argument in spight of all Logick might appear I have told him and may tell him still The Corinthians and the Pharisees wanted his head-piece otherwise Christ and Paul had not gone so away with arguments of this nature To satisfie him therefore fully one parity will serve the turn The exact proportion say Logicians is in quantum paria respectu tertii in quo paria comparantur There are many imparities between the Lords supper and manna yet they agree in this that both were spiritual meat so between the Jewish altar and the Lords Table but they agree in this that there is Ecclesiastical communion in both of them to make the partakers of one body Ecclesiastical many differences between Circumcision and Baptism but so farre they agree by Mr. T. his confession that both are initiating sacraments he hath multiplied many differences but stands not to any as in application to this particular in difference Answ. There is in my answer nothing tending to enervate any Scripture argument though what I say is enough to shew the vanity of Mr. Blakes arguments there being no certain rule to shew how many or what sort of parities general or special essential or accidental will serve turn Neither Paul nor Christ did argue thus this was appointed in a rite of the Old Testament therefore thus it is to be observed in a rite of the New In Logick it is usuall to deny an argument valid à comparatis though there be some parities caeteris non paribus It is true one parity will serve turn to make things compared even in the thing in which they agree But there must be so many parities or such a parity in things compared as make them equall in the reason of the thing inferred otherwise one disparity proper to the matter is enough to enervate the argument Which is very manifest in the argument about Infant baptism For the formal reason of Circumcising Infants being the command there is no parity to infer thence Baptizing of Infants without the parity of command Which is the difference I have often stood to in application to this particular in difference which is not whether Baptism and Circumcision be initiating sacraments but whether an argument can be drawn to bind conscience in the use of the one from a command in the use of the other without a precept in the New Testament Mr. Blake concludes this section thus The third exception is It is uncertain whether these rules be sufficient whether there be no need of any more It is certain then that Mr. T. cannot make it appear that they are insufficient in case he could he would not have left them at any uncertainty I shall judge
21. Tit. 3. 4 5. Eph. 4. 4 5. 5. That infant-baptism is not the performance of the duty of being baptized according to Christs appointment 6. That in a regular and orderly way persons notwithstanding their pretended infant-baptism are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper till they be baptized upon profession of their faith in Christ Acts 2. 41 42 1 Cor. 10. 2 3 4. 12. 13. These things I may hereafter have opportunity to debate more fully As for that which Mr. B. saith pag. 10 11. It doth no whit overthrow this necessity which I assert but rather confirm it For Gods freeing us from the great burden of Jewishrites makes it the rather necessary for us to obey Christs appointment in those few Sacraments he hath ordained which Mr. B. truly saith As they are duties they are great and so in themselves considered and not onely in respect of the consequences of them And he saith truly pag. 11. All Christs commands must be obeyed both great and small so far as we know them Yea Mr. B. Scripture proof pag. 342. saith Baptism with Water is Heb. 6. 2. reckoned among the foundations or principles which are of standing use and therefore it is so it self Nor is his interpretation right that the things ascribed to Baptism are ascribed to it without the external washing In all these places Rom. 6. 3 4. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 27. Ephes. 5. 26 27. 1 Peter 3. 21. the outward use of Water is expressed though the things ascribed to it do presuppose something more as he himself allegeth them pag. 342. which is the meaning of that speech 1 Pet 3. 21. Not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh that is not it onely but the answer of a good conscience towards God joyned with it And whereas Mr. B. tell us that we shall never be able to justifie it if we lay out the hundredth part or perhaps the thousand part of our time study talk or zeal upon this question I confess this may be true at some times in some persons but if other tenets be clear and other duties not neglected and this becomes a doubt of conscience and fals into frequent practice so as that it concerns them much for themselves people and little ones to be resolved in it else they shall sin either by omitting a duty or by doing a thing with gain-saying or doubting conscience it is justifiable though they bestow more than a hundredth part of their time and study upon it And especially if the person be a Minister called to be a Guide to the People and by special providence and solemn covenant led forth to vindicate the truth in such a time when otherwise it is likely to be suppressed and the Assertors of it oppressed In these and such like cases it may be unjustifiable if a person do not spend more than the hundredth part of his time about this question else neither the Hussites will be justified in spending so much time in opposing the half-Communion nor the Protestants in opposing Transubstantiation nor the Non-Conformists in opposing the Ceremonies of Bishops Mr. Tho. Goodwin preface to Mr. Cottons Dialogue for infant baptism saith truly The due application of baptism to all those persons Christ would have it administred unto cannot but be apprehended by all that have any insight into the Controversies of these times to be of very high importance Not that I like their Carriage that neglect other necessary things and spend all their time study talk and zeal about this such hypocrisy I should declaim against with him remembring what our Saviour said in a like case Matth. 23. 23. These things ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone As for M. Bs. third Proposition concerning the grounds on which the point of infant baptism stands that they are of great moment because what he saith rests on the heap of consequences he infers from the denial of infant baptism of which there is scarse any one true and the shewing them to be but vain surmises depends on the dispute it self I shall therefore respite the vindicating the truth from them till I come to examine in this Review the arguments from Scripture urged on both sides after which shall come in those from humane testimony and reason unto which I now apply my self SECT V. The first argument from the institution Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. and the practice in the New Testament against Infant baptism is urged MR. B. saith pag. 8. he will prove 1. That it is the will of God that some infants should be baptized 2. that it is the will of God that all infants of believers ordinarily should be baptized This latter doth better state the question which is about the practice of those reformed Churches that baptize infants whose doctrine is that it is the privilege of a believers child Yet Mr. B. and M. Baillee for some advantage chuse to undertake the proof of the former whereas the true state of it is as in my Examen s. 2. and Mr. Ms. Sermon Whether the infants of believers are to be baptized with Christs baptism of Water by the lawful Minister according to ordinary rule I hold the Negative Mr. Marshall Dr. Homes Mr. Geree Mr. Blake Mr. Baillee Mr. Cobbet Mr. Baxter c. hold the Affirmative My dispute is to this purpose The ordinary rule for baptizing is Christs institution John the Baptists and the Apostles appointment and practice But neither according Christs institution nor according to John Baptists or the Apostles command or practice or any other approved example in Scripture is the baptizing of infants of believers Therefore the baptizing of infants of believers by a lawfull Minister is not according to ordinary rule The Major is confessed by all sorts specially Protestants and Anti-Prelatists Mr. Bs. words are cited by me in my Praecursor s. 16. and the force of his reason is shewed here before s. 4. to contain this Proposition What in baptism we have no warrant for by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of baptism Mat. 28. we are not to do and much more to like purpose may be gathered from other passages of his page 302 303. and Mr. M. in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. is very punctuall for Gods command to be observed in his worship The 28 Article of the Church of England against reservation of the Bread c. hath these words The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved carried about lifted up or worshipped whereby it is apparent that reservation of the bread is condemned because it is not by Christs Ordinance though Mr. Perkins in his right way of dying well confess it to be antient Bellarmine himself tom 3. cont de sacr bapt l. 1. c. 8. Sacramentum non pendet nisi à Divina institutione Chamier tom 4. panstr cath lib. 5. cap. 14. sect 55.
sure not to every house yea sometimes they were restrained as Paul from preaching in Asia Bithynia Acts 16. 6 7. nor was there ever by the Apostles or any other the Gospel preached so successfully as that there was ever one whole nation I mean totaliter tota comprehending every individual humane person of that nation discipled thereby so as that every one of the nation not one excepted did upon hearing the Gospel freely or of their own accord soberly or in their right wits seriously or not in jest understandingly or knowing what they spake become disciples of Jesus confessing him to be the Christ the Son of the living God But Mr. Blake goes on Vindic. foederis pag. 195. And as it is against the letter of the text so it is plainly against our Saviours scope and end in giving this Commission Mr. T. Examen page 130. saith This enlargement unto all nations in this place was in opposition to the restriction Mat. 10. 5. now in that nation to which there they were limited the whole of the nation was in covenant all the Land was the Land of Immanuel Isa. 8. 8. And consequently so it was to be in other nations by vertue of this happy inlargement or else the opposition is utterly taken away the meaning of the words clouded and the Apostles at a losse for understanding of them for having spent their pains before in a nation all disciples and now having a commission for the discipling of all nations how shall they understand the words unlesse the whole of the nation where they come are to be discipled Answ. The nation in which the Apostles according to the commission Mat. 10. 5. 6. before spent their pains were the people of Israel and to say that nation were all disciples understanding it of disciples of Christ and of every person of that nation is to say the snow is black For the contrary is manifest by expresse Scripture John 1. 11. 7. 5 48. 9. 28 29. 10. 20. 12. 37 38. But saith he The whole of the nation was in Covenant I grant that the whole of the nation were in the Covenants at Horeb Exodus 19. and in the plains of Moab by Moses his edicts from God Deu. 29. But what is this to prove that the Apostles spent their pains in a nation all disciples every person or persons even the infants of that nation were disciples of Christ. Were all of the Jewish nation when the Apostles preached to them disciples of Christ because in Moses his time many hundreds of years before all were engaged in the covenants at Horeb and the plains of Moab by Moses authority It is but a new non-sense gibberish to make these terms synonimous to be disciples of Christ and to be in covenant according to the manner of the Jewes being in covenant And the reason of Mr. Blake is as frivolous All the Land was the Land of Immanuel Isaiah 8. 8. therefore The whole of the nation were in covenant that nation were all disciples of Christ. For first it is plain that the Land of Immanuel there is not the people but the ground or earth they inhabited because it is that The breadth of which the King of Assyria did fill with his wings that is his forces and did pass through 2. How doth Mr. Blake prove that it was called The Land of Immanuel because the whole of the nation was in Covenant It might be called Immanuels land when the Assyrians Chaldaeans and other strangers inhabited it Israel being expelled because of Gods title to it and the people might and shall be in covenant when they shall not be in the Land 3. But it is in my apprehension a meer whimzy to infer the whole of the nation was in covenant in Isaiahs days therefore the nation of the Jewes were all disciples of Christ when the Apostles spent their pains in preaching according to the commission Mat. 10. 5 6. 4. There is no less dotage in the rest of his frivolous speech that it is plainly against out Saviours scope and end in giving the commission Mat. 28. 19. to understand make disciples in I said of all nations that if the whole of the nation be not in covenant in other nations as in the Land of Immanuel by vertue of this happy enlargement the opposition is utterly taken away the meaning of the words clouded and the Apostles at a losse for the understanding of them All which are but vain words The meaning is plain enough as I conceive it was understood so by the Apostles and hath been so by Expositors as I have shewed even by the chiefest of the Paedobaptists without any such construction as Mr. Blake makes Mr. Blake goes on thus And hereto accord the prophecies of the Scripture for the calling of the nations of the Gentiles God shall enlarge Iaphet and he shall dwell in the tents of Sem Gen. 9. 27. Sem was wholly in covenant not by pieces and parcells but universally in covenant Iaphet is to come in succession into covenant in like latitude Psal. 28. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession It is not some among the nations of the heathen that are to be the inheritance of Christ but the heathen To which agrees Revel 11. 15. The Kingdomes of the Earth shall become the Kingdomes of the Lord and of his Christ Immanuel of old had one now he shall have more Kingdomes And they become his no other way than by discipling Gods Ministers are his men of War for subduing and captivating them 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. and Kingdoms are promised them not some in a Kingdom Alexander would not sit down with such a conquest neither would Jesus Christ. If to possess some in a Kingdome be to possess a Kingdom then Antichrist of long time hath had his Kingdom All Kings shall bow down before him all Nations shall serve him Psal. 72. 11. All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee O Lord and shall glorify thy name Psal. 86. 9. Thou shalt call a nation which thou knowest not and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee Isaiah 55. 5. There God calls the nation and the nation doth answer Gods call In that day Israel shall be a third with Egypt and with Assyria even a blessing in the midst of the Land whom the Lord shall blesse saying Blessed be Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my hands and Israel my inheritance There Egypt and Assyria are in equipage with Israel all three sister-Churches Israel without any preheminence either Israel then was not a nation of Disciples a nation wholly within covenant or else there are to be national Churches the whole of the nation to be discipled and brought into Covenant Answ. Mr. Blake saith The prophecies of Scripture accord hereto that Mat. 28. 19. they were to make all in a nation disciples
true Exam. pag. 101. I said the yoke Acts 15. 10. was Circumcision as Mr. M. himself declared pag. 39. of his Sermon and all the legal Ceremonies and the reason why I used that expression was because I alleged Mr. Ms. words But that I meant not Circumcision in act or as acted on the flesh to be the yoke but Circumcision in command as commanded and imposed on the conscience appears by the words following if it be a privilege to be free from Circumcision it is a privilege to be free from any Ordinance in the room and use of it it was the Ordinance then I made the yoke And my minde is expressed thus pag. 135. The putting the yoke of Circumcision is not actual Circumcision in their flesh for that they were able to bear for many Ages but the necessity of it on mens consciences to salvation In my Antidote sect 6. I deny it to be actual Circumcision but somtimes call it the doctrine or opinion of the necessity of it In my Book of Scandalizing I call it the Ordinances of the Jews In my Praecursor pag. 10. the doctrines and commands but most plainly I express my self in my Praecursor pag. 74. in my Answer to the 27th absurdity Mr. B. chargeth me with pag. 208. of his Plain Scripture Proof c. where I make it the yoke of Doctrine or the command of Circumcision and shew that not onely Grotius but also Pareus Piscator Diadati the new Annot. so expressed it This then is my constant judgment 1. That the Yoke Acts 15. 10. is not actual Circumcision or Circumcision in act that is as acted on the flesh which alone serves for Mr. Bs. turn to prove infants Disciples for no more would they have done to infants 2. That the putting the yoke is teaching the necessity of it or the command of God still binding their consciences of which act the infants were not subjects recipient 3. That the yoke as from the false Teachers was the Doctrine or command of Circumcision and other Precepts of the Law which sundry learned men in their notes on Matth. 11. 29. gather to be meant by the yoke comparing these places with 1 John 5. 3. what is Matth. 11. 29. called Christs yoke is 1 John 5. 3. called his Commandments and doctrinal commands or as the expression is Matth. 15. 9. Doctrines commands are called Burdens Matth. 23. Luke 11. 46. Rev. 2. 24. As it is taken passively that is to be received by the person yoked or taught is the opinion of the necessity of these unto salvation or as Mr. B. himself after cals it the judgment of it 4. That by the Disciples are meant the converted Christians of the Gentiles called the Brethren v. 1. those that from the Gentiles turn to God v. 19. The brethren of the Gentiles v. 23. Mr. Blake Vindic. Foederis pag. 208. Complaint is made Acts 15. 10. that those that urged the necessity of Circumcision put a yoke on the necks of the Disciples which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear they urged it upon all in visible profession and not upon regenerate ones alone 5. That by their necks is meant not their flesh or skin but their consciences Let 's now see what Mr. B. brings to prove the yoke Acts 15. 10. to be actual Circumcision or in act that is acted on their flesh and not the doctrine or command of Circumcision or that the putting the yoke was in their flesh by cutting off the skin not in their consciences by teaching 1. Saith he The Text saith so three times over that it was Circumcision as necessary and engaging to Moses Law that was that yoke v. 1. They taught the brethren Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved and v. 5. They taught it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses and v. 24. saying Ye must be circumcised and keep the Law Answ. There 's not a word in either of the three Verses that says so expresly or by any good consequence that the yoke v. 10. is Circumcision actual or in act that is acted or to be acted on the flesh Mr. B. me thinks if he could have made any good inference from thence for his Conclusion should have formed it being not ignorant that in my Antidote I bring these very verses and words to prove the contrary 2. Saith he It appears evidently from the same v. 10. the yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear that which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear was the yoke there meant but it was Circumcision as necessary and engaging to keep the Law and not the Doctrine of the false Apostles which their fathers and they were not able to bear therefore c. The major is in the Text the minor is plain 1. In that there is no mention in the Scripture of the Fathers being so burdened with that false doctrine but that there is mention enough of their being burdened with the Law and Circumcision as engaging to it 2. It was true and good Doctrine before Christ which these false Apostles taught viz. that except they were circumcised and kept the Law they could not be saved I mean as to the Jews it was true for I will not now meddle with that great controversie whether the Gentiles were bound to keep Moses Law I know not what Grotius Franzius c. say on one side and Cloppen burgius and many more on the other Answer This passage I also allege against Mr. Bs. opinion in my Antidote sect 6. to prove that it is not Circumcision in act but in command or doctrine that is there meant by the yoke But that we may determine the thing it is to be considered 1. Who We and our Father are 2. In what part or respect and how it was intolerable Doubtless by we the Apostle means the modern Jews and by our Fathers the Jewes of former times The intolerableness was not to their flesh as Diodati speaks for the labour in observing it for though it be true that it was very irksom to observe Circumcision and the Rites of Moses Law yet Circumcision was possible to be born especially by an infant though in the end and intent of the circumcisers it was done as necessary and engaging to keep Moses Law yet the infants being not sensible thereof it was not intolerable to them And the Apostle Paul Phil. 3. 6. speaks of himself as touching the righteousness of the Law blameless But it was intolerable to their mindes and consciences by reason of the imperfection of it to quiet the conscience and the condemnation it bound to for not keeping it in saith Diodati locum And therefore it was the Command and Doctrine that was intolerable to persons on whose consciences the Law was imposed not the acting Circumcision or Circumcision acted which alone was put on infants and consequently the yoke is not
childe by lineal descent of such a father 2. Outward Prerogatives that accompany such a birth as his words are Vindic. Foed cap. 40. whereas the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement takes it in the worser part not as importing a descent from the father but from the mother and that mother a bond woman and therefore the children servants or bond slaves by reason of their being born after the flesh I will use the words of Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus Die Dominica April 26. 1620. sect 18. Contrà verò Ismael etsi patre libero attamen matre servanatus est porro partus ventrem sequitur nascendi ergo conditione servus fuit tales scilicet sunt qui Deo cultum exhibent servilem fusticiarii where he explains the Apostles words Gal. 4. Against this Mr. Bl. excepts Vindic. Foed cap. 40. 1. That I make the Apostles parallel to look at the Allegory and not at the History when the Text makes it plain that the Apostle looks at the History then and now are both Adverbs of time and relate to Ishmaels jears in person not to the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace Here he is wholly silent and answers in his Apology nothing at all Answ. I conceived in answering the second I had answered this exception But I now answer particularly I conceived he meant by the history those words v. 22. 23. and the forepart of the 29. v. As then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit And by the parallel he meant the later part of the 29. v. And the allegory to be that which answers to Ishmael to wit to seek righteousness by the Law and to Isaac to wit to seek righteousness by faith which may be seen in Bezas and Piscators Diagrams where Beza and Piscator make Ishmael 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer or to be in the same rank as the type with the Justitiaries that seek righteousness by the Law which answers â—o Hagar whose gneration is after the flesh that is justification is by works and are cast out of the family of God excluded from the inheritance of life as Ishmael from Abrahams and Isaac to answer to believers by virtue of the Covenant of the Gospel answering to Sara whose birth is after the Spirit that is whose justification is by faith and so are in Abrahams house and heirs of eternal life Now it is true I do make the history to be in the forepart of the 29 v. and the mystery or allegory in the later not but that I acknowledg there is a history in both parts of the verse as the Adverbs then and now shew But it is not the same history in the later part of the verse which is in the former For then there should be nothing allegorized yea there would be a meer tautology if as Mr. Bâ— speaks then and now both adverbs of time relate to Ishmaâ—s jeers in person then the speech of the Apostle is inept or rather false For then it should be As Ishmael in person then jeered Isaac so now Ishmael in person jeers Isaac which is I say still a gross absurdity But the later part contains another history of what was done in the Apostles time where in the terms born after the flesh and after the spirit are allgorized and applied to other sorts of persons and the term now relates the malignity of men of the covenant of works against those of the covenant of grace as hath been fully proved before against Mr. Blake 2. ' â—M Bl. excepted that I shut out the literal sense both from the history and parallel and bring in an allegorical sense in both when the contrary is evident in the Text for though Ishmael be a Type of one under the covenant of works yet that Ishmael himself was a Justiciary or that he sought righteousness that way and persecuted Isaac under any such notion as a man for Gospel-righteousness Scripture hath no word or so much as any colour ' â— Answ. This exception is the same in effect with the former and in answering this the former was answered in my Postscript sect 5. and now this is answered by answering the former yet I finde a necessity to add something by reason of Mr. Bls. unreasonable importunity I take notice that Ishmael is confessed to be a type of one under the covenant of works and whether he were himself a Justiciary is not material though sure there is some colour for it But this seems to be Mr. Bls. minde that in the parallel Gal. 4. 29. there 's no allegorical sense because Ishmael himself was not a Justitiary which reason rests on this conceit that neither in the forepart nor the later part of v. 29. by he that was born after the flesh is meant any other than Ishmael himself or in person which how it makes the Apostles speech tautological or false is shewed before Mr. Bl. goes on To this he answers he shuts not out the literal sense from the History but from the parallel and that is so far from being contrary to the Text that it is expresly sayd These things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Allegory I desire the Reader to take notice what kinde of interpretation Mr. T. will put on this Text and who will have him pass for an eminent Scripture interpreter when Mr. B. is a man in his high censure defective in it Then and now are both Adverbs of time and we must have a literal then and a mystical now one of them to answer the History and the other the Allegory if my interpretation be thus gross I desire the Reader to disclaim it either the Hâ—story must be wholly looked at in the parallel or else the Allegory there is that harmony between the Apostles then and now that will not admit such divorce and separation Answ. What I sayd of Mr. Bs. interpretations of Scripture in my Praecursor sect 3. appears by this writing to be right and will appear more hereafter Did he measure himself suâ— modulo ac pedâ— he would be more cautelous than he is in expounding Scripture and if he did take warning by my words the Church of God would have cause to thank me for them however he or Mr. Bl. take them I am sorry that the Reader and my self are troubled about such stâ—rtings rather than arguings which Mr. Bl. here and elsewhere useth which sure do ill become him who should at the years he is now of rather weigh things than lightly pass ever them with satyrical quips instead of arguments He may take notice that I make no mystical Now Gal. 4. 29. but in both parts the Adverbs of time are literal and yet the terms he that is born after the flesh and he that is born after the spirit are without any absuâ—dity meant allegorically as I have both sayd and demonstrated 3. Sayth Mr. Bl. I
his life-time and settled a little before his Ascension hath nothing in the patern whence it is copied out nothing in the copy it self as it is set down in the New Testament i. e. in the words of the institution or in his or the Apostles practice which doth any way exclude the Christians children from being part of that indefinite number that ought to be baptized or for whom baptism was instituted by Christ. That there is nothing exclusive of them in the patern the Jewish custom of baptism hath been sufficiently evidenced by the several branches of that already insisted on Answ. I like the Doctors ingenuity in his waving the imperfect ways of proving infant baptism he mentions and doubt not to shew his own to be no better than those he relinquisheth The substance of his proof is this as I conceive The Jews were wont when they admitted Proselytes to baptize them and their children and this is discernible to be the patern of Christian baptism and that Christs institution was but a copy according to that patern and therefore infants to be baptized the Apostles and the first Churches practise shewing it to be so Concerning which I say 1. It seems baptism was a custome of all nations as well as the Jews Grot. Annot. in Matth. 3. 6. conceives that for as much as strangers washed not circumcised were obliged by those Laws onely which God had given to all mankinde it is easie to be understood that baptism was among old institutions arising as I think after the great deluge in memory of the world purged Whence that famous speech among the Greeks The sea washeth away all the evils of men Surely we read even in the Epistle of of Peter that baptism is answerable to the deluge And Annot. in Matth. 28. 19. yea with prosane nations it was of old used that they who would be initiated were first washed all over their body no doubt testifying thereby their purpose of innocency 2. By the passages cited by the same Author in Matth 28. 19. Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Augustin allegeth those nations custome for their practise nor do I know that ever Dr. Hammond or any other hath alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers that might evince that the custome of baptizing or baptizing infants was derived from the Jews initiating proselytes by baptisme but some passages in the Fathers shew rather that they took it as instead of Circumcision Mr. Selden de Syned Ebrae Lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 40 41. mentions some who have conceived that the Iewish baptism in initiating Proselytes was in imitation of Christs example though he do not beleive it and that Schickardus conceives they added a certain Baptism to Circumcision to difference them from Samaritans which I allege to shew that notwithstanding the Doctors supposition that the whole fabrick of baptism is discernible to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the Jews yet many will conceive it needs more proof than the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers I for my part conceive that there was a custom of baptizing proselytes afore Christs incarnation among the later Jews but that either it should begin from Jacobs injunction to his houshold Gen. 35 2. or Gods Command Exod. 19. 10. for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving the Law though the Jewish Doctors allege these for it I do not conceive those places speaking of washing Jews by nature not proselytes whereas the Jews baptized not Jews by nature as Selden l. 2 cap 4. de Jure nat ac Gent. juxta discipl Ebrae Sayth but by profession nor do I conceive Mr. Seldens exposition in his Book de Syned l. 1. cap. 3. that the sea was some vessel or receptacle of waters wherein they washed their bodies before the giving of the Law Exod. 19. 10. but the read sea For as the drinking of the rock is a relation of an accident of Gods providence for them signifying to them the Lords supper so their passing through the sea declares not what they were injoyned to do but what God did for them that under the cloud they passed through the sea to signify to them the same thing that baptism doth to us our safe passage to life by Christ nor do I think Dr. Hammonds exposiâ—ion sect 7. pag. 181. right that they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea v. 2 i. e. were by these two great solemnities the cloud that gave them light by night and a guard by day and the sea that was a wall to defend them and a devouriâ—g deep to their enemies received and initiated into Gods Cove 〈…〉 der the conduct of Moses as since they are wont to be iniâ—â—â—â—ed by baptism For when it is said our Fathers were baptized it is not meaâ—t were baptized as siâ—ce Proselytes were baptized among the Jews but as Christians were baptized even as when he sayth v. 3. and they did all eat the same spiritual meat it is meant they did all eat the same spiritual meat with us Christians that is they had Christ signified to them by the Manna they did eat as we eat Christ spiritually in the Lords Supper There 's no more an allusion to a custom of the Jews in the one then in the other bu a narration of what happened to them by Gods providence which the Apostle interprets as signs to them of the same thing that baptism and the Lords supper are to us Christians And therefore I conceive that the Scripture doth not make the customary use of baptizing Proselytes by the Jews as a thing from God or eyed by Christ as his pattern but that the custom of baptizing proselytes was a tradition of the Elders as the baptisms mentioned Mark 7. 3 4. and many other things they held Nor do I think it true that the customary use of the Jews in baptizing proselytes and their children was the pattern of Christs institution of baptism and the Apostles and first Churches practise For according to the custom of the Jews set down out of Maimony and other Jewish Rabbins by Mr. Selden l. 2. de Jure natur ac gent. c. cap. 4 lib. 1. de syned Ebr. cap. 3. John Baptist and Christs Apostles should have baptized no native Jews but onely Gentiles that embraced the faith for after the baptism Exod. 19. 10. the Jews did not baptize Jews but onely proselytes Whereas not onely John Baptist but also the Apostles both before and after the ascension of Christ did baptize Jews as well as Gentiles upon their profession of repentance and faith in Christ as being agreeable to Christs institution Matth. 28. 19. 2. Christ would not have avouched the baptism of John to be from Heaven and not from men if it had been in imitation of and conformity to the Jewish custom 3. It is likely some where or other some intimation would have been given of that custom as the Directory
for Christians in the use of baptism 4. The institution and practise would have been conformable to it But the contrary appears 1. In their baptizing no infants of the Gentiles at their first conversion whereas the Iews baptized onely the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting not the infants of those who were baptized in infancy Selden l. 2. de Iure nat c. cap. 4. sed vero non aliter atque Israelitae ipsi filii proselytorum circumcidendi tantum erant nec quemadmodum parentes sive illi sive filiae baptizandae Nunquam enim solennis proselyti baptismus ille iterandus erat nec in ipso qui primo baptizatus tamet si apostata factus in ritus Iudaicos rediret nec in posteris So that if it be true that the Jewish baptism of Proselytes is the pattern of the Christian then no infant of Christian race is now to be baptized but such as were born when the first Gentile Ancestors were converted Yea the Jews were so far from baptizing any infants of proselytes born after theâ—r first convesion and baptism that they resolved as may be seen in Selden ubi supra and Dr. Hammond himself allegeth sect 109. if a woman great with childe become a proselyte and be baptized her childe needs not baptism when t is born So that whereas the Doctor brings the Iewish custom as a pattern for Christian baptism so as that it may be reasonably thought to belong to all that among the Jews were usually baptized his own arguing will prove that no infant of Christians now descerded from Christian Ancestors or born of parents formerly infidels after the parents were baptized should be baptized because it is against the Jewish custom of baptizing any childe of a Gâ—ntile infidel born after the parents were become proselytes and baptized But secondly besides this first and main thing wherein the Doctors patern is incorgruous to Christian baptism there are many more disparities which shew that the Iewish baptism of prâ—selytes was not the patern of Christan baptism As v. g. 1. The baptism of males must be also with Circumcision and an offering 2. There must be a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voyd Dr. Hammond sect 114. Among the Iews saith the Gemara Babylâ— the infants used to be baptized upon the profession or confession of the house of judgment the consistory and the Gloss saith the Triumviri are set over baptism and are necessary to it and so they become to him a father and Maimonides he must be baptized before the Triumviri 3. It was not to be on the Sabbath or feast day or in the night 4. The body must be washed not in a made receptacle of waters as a vessel or font but a natural one as a river pool well 5. No part of the body but must be washed if any scab or blood hardned or filth fâ—â—ck on the body so as that water could not come to the whole supersicies it was not accounted right baptism yet they allowed garments which separated not the water from the body 6. While the proselytes stood in the water the precepts of Moses were recited by the three Israelites skilfull in the Law and he was to take on him the observation of them all not one excepted or else not accounted a Proselyte 7. A woman proselyte was placed in the water unto the neck by women which baptized her while the three Israelites stood after the manner observing the baptism yet they were to turn away their faces and go away when the woman came out of the water 8. Elder Gentiles were made proselytes according to their own choice younger as males before thirteen years and a day old females before twelve and a day old according to the minde of their father or the court to which they were subject were admitted to Judaism The same right was of a natural foole Yet if a person under years when baptized did after as soon as he came to age renounce Judaism then he lost what privilege he had by baptism either by assent of the parent or the court 9. The baptism did give them interest in the policy of the Iews as other Israelites except some things peculiarly reserved to natural Israelites 10. Yet a servant without his Masters consent was not made free 11. A blessing was to be used at baptism but unless he were made free not by the servant but by the master 12. A young one as an infant whether taken or found the Israelite that possessed it might baptize it either into the state of an ingenuous person or freed person or a servant 13. They taught that a person baptized was so born again that lying with his own natural sister was no incest 14 If the person be privily baptized though before two yet he was not counted a Proselyte All which may be seen in Selden l. 2. de jure nat Gent. juxta discipl Ebr. cap. 2 3. 4. lib. 1. de Syned Ebr. cap. 3. So that if the baptism of Proselytes among the Iews be the patern of Christian baptism baptizing of women must be by women no one single Bishop or Presbyter must baptize but three at least there must be no private baptism no baptizing in Fonts or Basons no baptism without the whole body be washed and so as that no filth or scab hinder the water from coming to the skin there should be no infants baptized but at the first conversion of the parent no Iew should be baptized none baptized in the night on the Sabbath or other Feast-day In most of which Christ Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles varied from the Iews and therefore they took not their baptism for their patern and if they did not make the Jews baptism their patern in baptizing neither are we to do so but to follow the rule of Christs institution and the Apostles practice and not the Iews use which is not delivered in Scripture and much of it according to the superstition and dotages of their Rabbins and was not a meet religious Sacrament but a kinde of mixt rite partly religious and partly civil intitling to Civil as well as Ecclesiastical right and done by persons Civil rather than Ecclesiastical and so of a far different nature and use from the Christian baptism I think Dr. Hammond were he a Bishop would censure such baptizing as the Iews used as irregular and then he may well bear with Antipaedobaptists though they reject his new conceit of making the Iewish baptism our patern and thereupon grounding the baptizing of infants Himself in his Practical Catechism lib. 6. Sect. 2. allows of sprinkling though the Iewish custome was dipping yea they so precisely require it that it was not counted baptism except the whole body were washed and yet the Doctor confesseth that by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dipt in water i. e. according to the primitive ancient custom to be put under water