Mr. C. tells us Hence c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion and minding discourse about it But how from any thing said before That Christ is the head of the visible Church that visible Professors though not sincere are united to Christ as visible head this follows That Parents profession unites the child to Christ so as to give him right to baptism is a riddle to me If it were formed into an Argument thus If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism But the visible professors c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas nor is there any proof in that which follows For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution None of the texts produced no nor any other do shew that the parents act of professing faith did entitle the child to circumcision much less to baptism Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision though he and his house feared God was a devout man gave much alms to the poor and prayed to God alway Acts. 10.2 Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onely from the command as I have often poved Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church but obliging to duty Deut. 16.16 17 there 's an injunction That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God but this was enjoyned not to parents onely but also to children married or unmarried And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would it proves rather the males act to stand for the females than the parents for the children More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak so the childs act went for the parents However here 's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent Deut. 26.17 18. there 's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church What is said Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God is not said to be done by the parents for the children nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents or Captains Elders Officers or men of Israel It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church but to bind them the more firmly to their duty and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship Yet if they had that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved till the rule about Circumcision and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism and the Church-membership of the Christian Church which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution Goverment but Judiazing notions opposiâ—e to the Gospel What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14 depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat Schol. in locum Diodati new Annot. Grotius c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus the male the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people my Covenant is broken Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose they that expound it as Aben Ezrae apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his It is true Iohn 4.50 51. Matth. 15.22 to 29. Mark 9.12 to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children and so Mark 2.5 the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Foâ—â— nor was it the confession of faith but reality though not known to men which Christ lookd on so that if this be a good reason the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism After many dictates without proof he tels us As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6 yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26 yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such Rom. 11.28 and hence made as a ground of their return v. 15 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church whence that respect of children of God and his church by vertue of that espousall covenant Ezek. 16.8 Even in the children of idolatrous members v. 20 21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed Albeit many unworthy members are giâ—t up in it to hold them and theirs in externall communion Jer. 13.11 untill either the church be divorced from God or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege Answer Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved and incoherent yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis I shal say somwhat to it 1. There 's not aword in the texts alleged that shews what Mr C. here asserts that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to
containing questions and those not touching the argument instead of answers and I leave it to the Students of Divinity in the Universities and else-where who are understanding unbyassed men if there be any yea to any that have studied Logick to judge whether I have not proved a repeal of his pretended Ordinance after I have added some more proof out of the New Testament in the next Section and answered his Letters to me to which I hasten SECT LII It is proved that infants were not reckoned to the visible Church Christian in the primitive times nor are now 1. I Thus argue If no infants were part of the visible Church Christian in the primitive times then what-ever Ordinance there were of their visible church membership before must needs be repealed But the antecedent is true Ergo the consequent The consequent of the major I think will not be denied For supposing there were infants even of Christians and an Ordâ—nance before that the infants of the godly should be visible church members and yet no part or members then it must needs be from the revocation of that Ordinance if there were such a one Now that the antecedent is true I prove thus If in all the days of Christ on earth and the Apostles no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian then not in the primitive times For the primitive times of the Christian Church go no further though I think I might extend my proof somewhat further But the antecedent is true Ergo. That no infant was a part or member of the visible Church Christian in the dayes of Christ and his Apostles on earth is proved by these arguments 1 All visible members of the Church Christian were to be baptised This is often asserted by Mr. B. plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 25. The whole Church must be sanctified by the washing of water pag 342. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so it hath one common baptism And he alledgeth 1 Cor. 12.13 Eph. 5.25 26. Eph. 4.5 out of which this proposition may be proved But no infants were to be baptised This is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 5 c. Therefore no infants were visible members of the Christian Church 2. They were not visible members of the Church Christian who were not of the visible body of Christ. This is proved from Mr. Bs. words plain Script c. pag. 25. The body 1 Cor. 12.13 is the visible Church pag. 342. As the whole Church is one body c. pag 39. What is the Church Is it not the body of Christ The same he confirms pag. 60.318 from 1 Cor. 12.13 which he proves to be meant of the visible Church and it is affirmed by the Apostle Col. 1.24 Ephes. 1.22 23. that the Church is the body of Christ and so the visible Church is his visible body But no infant was of the visible body of Christ. This is proved 1. from 1 Cor. 12.13 all that were of the body were made to drink into one spirit namely in the cup of the Lâ—rds supper Diodati annot in locum hanc rationem confirmat testimonio baptismi caenae dominicae piscat analys 1 Cor. 12.13 Arg. 9. Sacramento baptismi caenae dominicae omnes fideles connectuntur Dicson expos Anal. 1 Cor. 12.13 ut utri usque Sacramenti unus scopus idem etiam esse intelligatur Beza annot in 1 Cor. 12.13 Calicem quoqâ—e Domini in hanc spem bibimus Grot. annot in locum But no infant was made to drink into one spirit for none of them did drink the cup in the Lords supper Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10.17 All that were one body and one bread did partake of that one bread which was broken v. 16. But no infant did partake of that one bread if they did they must do so still be admitted to the Lords supper Ergo. 3. From Ephes. 4.5 The whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. But no infant hath one faith Ergo. 3. They were no members of the visible Church who were left out of the number of the whole Church all the believers the multitude of the disciples in all the places where there is an enumeration of the members of the Church or mention of the whole Church the number of believers or disciples in the new Testament But infants are left out of that number in all places in the new Testament Ergo. The major is evident of it self For as we know who was in the church by their mention so we know who were not by their being left out in those passages which make an enumeration or reckoning of all there being no other way to know who were in or out and if this be not true the speeches are false which mention all the whole the multitude as the full number if they were not so The minor is also proved from those texts where such enumeration is mentioned Acts 1.15 Peter is said to stand up in the mids of the disciples and that the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty and in the verses before are reckoned the Apostles with the women Mary the mother of Jesus and his brethren and they are said to continue in one accord in prayer and supplication Here I conceive is an enumeration of the disciples or church that then was at Jerusalem visible Dr. Lightfoot in his Com. on Acts 15. saith the believers at Jerusalem no doubt were many hundreds if not thousands at this time though we read of no Converts in this book till the next chapter For what fruit or accompt can else be given of all Christs preaching and pains bestowed in that city Let but Joh. 2.23 3.2 4.1 Mar. 3.8 Joh. 7.31 8.30 11.28 45. 12.19 42. and divers other places be well weighed and it will be utterly unimaginable that there should be less believers in Jerusalem now then many hundreds much more unimaginable that these one hundred and twenty were all who were all Galileans and no inhabitants of Jerusalem at all The like is the arguing of the Assembly in their answer to the Dissenters pag. 66. Nevertheless it seems not improbable to me considering the narration all along â—he chapter that v. 4 6. they are said to come together go to mount Olivet and then to return to Jerusalem and their action noted with special notice of some v. 13 14. and then next v 15. that Peter stood up in the mids of the Disciples that this enumeration of 120 is not an enumeration onely of men of note but of all the disciples of Christ then at Jerusalem me thinks the terming of Peter a Galilean Mark 14.70 doth intimate few of the Hierosolymitans were disciples of Christ Christs preaching most in Galilee his directing them to go into Galilee where they should see
him Matth. 26.32 Mark 16.7 the disciples shutâ—inâ— the doors and assembling at evening for fear of the Jews Joh. 20.19 do shew that most of â—he disciples were Galileans few of Jerusalem specially when all the disciples forsook Christ and fled Matth. 26.56 the shepheard being smitten and the sheep scattered v. 31. Hâ—wever the enumeration being of disciples and the women being reckoned with them and not their children nor the actions of prayer c. such as are to bee ascribed â—o infants it is evident that infants were not then countted among the disciples and consequenâ—ly not counted for visible members of the Christian Church Acts 2.1 They are said to be all with one accord in one place The Assembly ubi suprà alledgeth reasons why they all should be meant of the Apostles onely but not cogent For 1. the narration doth not any more limit the words Act. 2.1 by Acts 1.26 then by v. 15. 2. not onely the Apostles but oâ—hers were filled with the holy Ghost women as well as men v. 17. Acts 4.31 6.5 3. though they were Galileâ—ns that spake v. 7. yet it proves not the all v. 1. to be Galileans 4. the mention is of the Apostles v. 14 37 42. not to shew that it was a meeting of the Apostâ—es onely but because they were the leaders and chief actors in that Church And that the meeting was of the whole Church at Jerusalem then is proved from v. 41. thâ—s The meeting was of them to whom the three thousand souls were added But they were added to the Church v. 47. not onely to the Apostles or teachers For then the sense should be that that 3000 should be added to the teachers and so many more teachers added whereas they are said to continue in the Apostles doctrine v. 42. by their profession of it the Apostles teaching anâ— not theâ— And hence I gather that not one infant was reckoned to the Church because the all v. 1. are said to bee together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with one accord or one minde and consent which is not to be said of infants From Acts 2.41 I further argue The Church did then consist of such persons onely as were of like sort with those who were added to it which must be granted except it be said the added and those who were added were of different sorts But of those who were added there was no one infant This is proved from the words v. 42 43. that they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers and fear came upon every soul v. 41. they gladly received the word which cannot be said of infants therefore no infant was reckoned then aâ— a part or member of the visible Church Christian. Again v. â—4 the whole Church is meant by all that believed who are said to be together to have all thingsâ—common sold and imparted their possessions continued with one accord in the temple brake bread from house to house eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart praised God had â—avour with all the people v. 45 46 47. which cannot be said of infants therefore no infants were then reckoned as parts or members of the Christian visible Church Again Acts 4.4 it is said many of them which heard the word believed and the number of the men was about five thousand That this is an enumeration of the whole Church then at Jerusalem is more probable theâ— that it is an enumeration onely of the newly added however the addition being of the same sort of persons with those to whom they were added and no one infant reckoned to the Church but all men that heard the word and believed it is clear that in the number of the christians or disciples infants were not reckoned and consequently no visible church members then V. 23 24. Peter and John are said to go to their own company and to report to them the speech of the chief Priests and Elders and then upon hearing they lift vp their voice with one accord to God v. 31. to pray to be assembled together to be filled with the holy Ghost to speak the word God with boldness and the Church is called v. â—2 the multitude of them who believed to be of one heart and one soul. All which shew that the Church consisted of a company of praying people of a multitude of believers which is not to be said of infants therefore they were no visible church members then Acts 5.11 it is said And great fear came upon all the Church and upon as many as heard these things Here the whole church is mentioned as contradistinguished frâ—m the many that heard these things But no one infant was a member of the Church sith none was capable of the great fear that came upon all the Church from the notice of Ananias and Saphira's death therefore they were not then church-members V. 13 14. They who were magnified by the people who were joyned to the Lord who were of the same sort with believers who were the more added to the Lord multitudes both of men and women were not infants But such were the Church then therefore it did not consist of infants then Acts 6.1 The Church is expressed by the number of Disciples by the multitude of Disciples v. 2. the whole multitude v. 5. the number of the Disciples obedient to the faith v. 7. But none of these were infants as their conventing the speeches to them and other acts shew therefore infants then were not reckoned Christian visible church-members Acts 8.1 The Church at Jerusalem are said to be all scattered abroad except the Apostles v. 3. to consist of men and women haled to prison which is not to be conceived of infants therefore they were not then reckoned as visible church members Acts 15.22 The whole Church is said to send chosen men of their own company But this doth not agree to infants therefore infants were not reckoned as part of the whole Church 1 Cor. 14.23 The whole Church is supposed to come togeter into one place But this is not to be said of infants they were no part of the company that met they were not capable of the end and actions of the meeting therefore they were no part of the whole Church The same may be said of all other like places 4. They were no part of the Christian Church visible to whom the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church did not agree But the things ascribed to the whole Christian Church visible did not agree to infants Ergo. The major is of it self evident as in like manner this is a plain truth that they are no souldiers to whom what is said of the whole Army doth not agree The minor is proved from many places of Scripture Matth. 16.18 Christ saith he will build his Church on this Rock this is meant of the whole Church and the building is meant of building by preaching Ephes. 2.20 4.11 12.
were visible members of the Church universal in that they were of the Church Jewish therefore they are in the Christian properly so called contradistinct to the Jewish Which speech I use as commonly Divines do because though the Jewish Church were Christs Church yet the appellation of Christians being not afore the dayes of the Apostles Acts 11.26 we may fitly say the Church in the wilderness was not the Christian properly so called that is which is gathered out of the nations by the Apostles preaching nor Moses in the Christian Church nor Cornelius in the Jewish Church as Aegypt though in Africa and Persia though in Asia yet are not said to be in Asia the less or Africa propria Mr. B. proceeds Concerning the matter of the third Qu. I assert that it was not onely of the Jewes Commonwealth that infants were members of but of the Church distinct from it This is proved sufficiently in what is said before Answ. As yet I do not finde it proved that the Jewish Church was distinct from the Commonwealth or that there was any member of the Church who was not of the Commonwealth What is said about it sect 43. may be there seen by the Reader Moreover saith Mr. B. 1. Infants were Churchmembers in Abrahams family before Circumcision and after when it was no Commonwealth So they were in Isaacs Jacobs c. Answ. Abrahams family and Isaacs and Jacobs were a Common-wealth although they were but small they had government within themselves Abraham had his trained servants and made war of himself Gen. 14.14 Isaac made a league as a Prince coâ—ordinate Gen. 26.31 so did Jacob Gen. 31.53 These with other acts shew they were an independent Commonwealth 2. Saith Mr. B. The banished captivated scattered Jews that ceased to bee members of their Commonwealth yet ceased not to bee of the Church Answ. They were then of the Commonwealth of the Jews as they were of the Church both de jure and de facto they acknowledging themselves to be of that people and to aâ—here to their laws although somewhat restrained of their liberty as a captivated imprisoned King or subject is head or member of that Republique to which he hath not access 3. Saith Mr. B. The people of the land that became Jews in Hesters time joyned not themselves to their Commonwealth Nor the Sichemites Answ. The contrary is true as concerning the Sichemites is shewed before 4. Saith he Many Proselytes never joyned themselves to their Commonwealth Answ. Those Proselytes were not of the Jewish Church visible members 5. Saith he The children of Abraham by Keturah when they were removed from his family were not unchurched and yet were no members of the Jewes Commonwealth But I shall take up with what is said for this already undertaking more largely to manifest it when I perceive it necessary and useful Answ. Abrahams children by Keturah when out of the Common-wealth of the Hebrews were unchurched at least in respect of the Church of the Hebrews nor do I conceive Mr. Bs. larger manifestation of the contrary will be any thing but more words without proof SECT LV. Infants of the Jewes were not visible Churchmembers by Promise or Precept as Mr. B. teacheth MR. B. proceeds To the 4th Qu. I assert that 1. There was a Law or Precept of God obliging the parents to enter their children into Covenant with God by accepting his favour and re-engaging and devoting them to God and so entering them solemnly Churchmembers And 2. there was a Covenant promise or grant of God by which he offered the Church-membership of some infants and actually conferred it where his offer was accepted I should have mentioned this first and therefore will begin with the proof of this By these terme Covenant promise grant or deed of gift c. we understand that which is common to all these viz. A sâ—gne of Gods will conferring or confirming a right to or in some benefit such as we commonly call a Civil act of Collation as distinct from a mere Physical act of disposal I call it a signe of Gods will de jure because that is the general nature of all his legal moral acts they are all signal determinations de debiro of some due 2. I say conferring or confirming right to some benefit to dâ—fference it from precepts which onely determine what shall be due from us to God and from threatnings which determine what punishment shall be due from God to us Answ. That which Mr. B. asserts here is in opposition to what I said in my 2d Leâ—ter I confess infants were by Gods fact of takiâ—g the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Churchmembers that is of the Congregation of Israel and in my 3d. I explaiâ— my self a promise conferriâ—g infants the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring into Covenant which confers the benefit which were his own words in his first Letter so that if we prove by any other grâ—nt or deed of gift physical or moral which is not a promise of it by which it is conferred or by any Law which is not such a prâ—cept he contradicts not my speech and so disputes not ad idem Which whether he do or no will be perceived by examining what follows Having thus saith he explained the terms I prove the proposition If infants Churchmembership with the priviledges thereof were a benefit conferred which some had right to or in then was there some grant covenant or promise by which this right was conferred But the antecedent is most certain Ergo so is the consequent I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to bee their God and to take them for his people to bee brought so near him and to bee separated from the common and unclean from the world and from the strangers to the covenant of promises that live as without God in the world and without hope Answ. I do not deny it but I deny that this is to be visible Church-members formally or connexively For men may be visible Church-members and yet not have all this benefit and they may have all this benefit who are not visible Churchmembers Hypocrites may be visible Churchmembers yet not be Gods covenanted people to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him c. And some believing Saints that are dumb may have all this and yet not be visible Churchmembers Mr. B. adds If it were asked what benefit had the Circumcision I suppose you would say much every way Answ. I should but I would add that to bee the Circumcision is not all one as to be visible Churchmembers Cornelius and his house were visible Churchmembers yet not the
from whom after the flesh they did proceed specially Abraham Isaac and Jacob the word is for the Fathers Then election must needs be understood of an external grace of the Covenant whereby God chose this nation to himself according to that of Moses Deut. 7.6 unless we are elect in Abraham to salvation and not in Christ. And Abraham Isaac and Jacob are our mediators of reconciliation and when the Apostle saith We are â—ccepted in the beloved Ephes. 1.6 it is to be understood of acceptation in Abraham and we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ but Abraham Isaac and Jacob we are not for their sakes beloved to salvation Answ. 1. That the election Deut. 7.6 must be understood of an external grace of the Covenant needs bettr proof then Mr. Bl. brings For God may be said to choose a nation and yet not choose every one of the nation it being usual as Mr Cobbet observes Just. vindic part 2. ch 2. that things said of a people collectively are meant of the greater or better part distributively 2. The absurdities will press Mr. Bl. as well as me For if as Mr. Bl. saith the election and love be to a meer visible Churchstate and condition we may say by the same reason which he useth We are elected in Abraham to Churchstate and not in Christ he is our mediator of reconciliation we are accepted in Abraham the beloved we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ but Abraham Isaac and Jacob which are absurd We are not beloved for their sakes in the sense in which we are beloved in Christ to visible Churchstate any more then to salvation 3. Though we are not for their sakes or for them beloved to salvation yet the Jews are 4. We are elect in Christ as the first-born among many brethren Rom. 8.29 as the head of many members as the mediator the second Adam by whom the life we are elected to is conveyed in which sense we are said to be accepted or favoured he is the mediator of reconciliation by his bloud we conclude our prayers in and through him as the High Priest of our profession But they that say the Jews are beloved to salvation for the fathers sakes or for Abraham Isaac and Jacob need not nor do mean it in these senses but thus they are beloved to salvation by reason of Gods Covenant to them Exod. 32.13 Levit. 26.42 their fidelity to him Nehem. 9.8 so that Abraham was called the friend of God James 2.23 which are no whit derogatory to the prerogative of Christ in whom alone we are elected reconciled favoured heard as the onely begotten son of God and the alone mediator between God and man What Mr. Bl. desires me to consider that Moses interceded for the whole body of Israel Exod. 32.13 and that God promiseth to remember the whole nation under suffering Levit. 26.42 is nothing for Mr. Bls. purpose For if it were granted that Moses interceded for the whole nation yet it follows not that Gods promise was to every individual of that nation Levit. 26.42 And if it were yet it follows not that it must be so Rom. 11.26 27 28 29. Nor if it were granted though the contrary is to me more probable doth it follow that the election love gifts calling cannot be to salvation but must be into a meer visible Churchstate and condition or as Mr. Bl. terms it external grace of the Covenant sith there is no absurdity that I know of to conceive that at the calling of the Jews every individual Jew shall be a true believer and saved Nor doth my opinion impute any errour to Moses or Paul but Mr. Bl. doth in this as in other things egregiously triffle as one that writes without heed of what he saith My 8th argument is this If the ingraffing both of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief then the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith But the former is true vers 30 31 32. Ergo the later Mr. S. rather flights then answers this argument For he takes no notice of that part of the medium the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief which shews what mercy it was by which they were ingraffed to wit converting and reconciling mercy proper to the elect as the very opposition of the terms shews v. 32. they were before shut up in unbelief by severity now by mercy they are brought to faith and favour but tels me this proposition is unsound on which the argument is built what ever is a fruit of Gods mercy is from election and ingraffing into the invisible Church because that health c. are fruits of Gods mercy But â—t is not true the proposition on which the argument is built is as hee â—â—ith but thus That mercy which doth take away the shutting up in unbelief is converting reconciling mercy from election whose effect is the ingraffing into the visible Church by giving saving faith ergo if the ingraffing c. And this Mr. S. hath not disproved nor do I think can be disproved Mr. Bl. saith He hath answered this before and onely desires mee to give him a Comment on Hos 1.6 9. But first if he have answered this before then his answer is also refelled and it is shewed that the mercy here is more then the priviledge of a visible Churchstate 2. Mr. Bls. desire I shall not reâ—use to yeild to when I finde any argument drawn by him from Hos. 1.6 9. to make void my argument from Rom. 11.30 31 32. But to my additional confirmation of my arguments in my Apology p. 73. that the whole scope and series of the Chapter and the frequent mention from v. 1. to 13. of termes importing election reprobation and their consequents with the Apostles exclamation v. 33. do fully shew the ingraffing to be into the invisible Church by election and giving faith Mr. Bl. replies thus Mr. T. might do well to tell us what ingraffing is by election I take that to be an immanent act in God which is terminated in himself and not on the creature such expressions do not sute with Mr. T. his high pretendings to scholastical learning Answ. Where and when I made high pretendings to scholastical learning if Mr. Bl. had informed mee it might have done mee good to humble mee for such folly but this dealing of Mr. Bl. by â—uips to mis-represent me as an arrogant man hath no better appearance then a shew of a malevolent minde in him towards mee I hope I have so much scholastical learning as to vindicate my own writings from his and others Cavils and sure I am that what â—ver my learning bee Master Bl. hath shewed more of a surcostical bitter spirit in his writings against mee then of scholastical learning in which how much hee is defective I had rather Mr. B and such birds as are of the same feather should tell him
Scripture to hold forth the bâ—st staâ—â— of persons in relation to God and his use yet it follows not the Apostle holds out by them a Gospel priviledge sith they may hold out a Jewish priviledge which is not a Gospel but râ—ther a legal priviledge as the term holy seed doth Ezra 9.2 2. Hâ—w fiâ—ly these terms sute to the exposition I give without holding forth a Gospel priviledge may be seen in my Examen part 3. sect 8. in the first part of tâ—is Review sect 12 13 24 25 26. Mr. S. adds 1. That the term unclean notes the same it doth Acts 10.14 where Cornelius being a Gentile without the pale of the Jewish Church is called common and unclean as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise he was no bastard he was without the Church just in the same phrase with the Apostle here when he saith that children are not unclean he must needs mean they are not of common use or to be excluded from outward priviledges of the Church 2. That unclean is used for legal pollutions and uncleannesses which made men to be separated from the Congregation and excommunicâ—ted from the priviledge of ordinances untill they were washed and sanctified Thus in Levit 5.2 3 4. ch 7.19 14.7 8. Isa. â—2 1 Hag 2.13 with many other places where unclean is opposed to a present suitable capacity for Church priviledges Answ. 1 In all those places Levit. 5.2 3 4 7.19 14.7 8. Hag. 2.13 Isa. 52.1 the uncleanness is not opposed to a Gospâ—l priviledge but a legal or Jewish nor were the unclean out of the Covenant or the people of God even when they were unclean and therefore if â— Cor. 7.14 he should tell them their children were not unclean in that sense he should not tell them of a Gospel priviledge but a Judaical Legal Mosaical priviledge which had been both false for they were uncircumcised Gentiles and therefore were unclean in that sense and vain to tell them of that as a priviledge which was no priviledge but which hee counts nothing of 1 Cor. 7.19 2. Cornelius is not termed unclean as wanting a Gospel priviledge he was in Covenant with God and accepted with him and in the visible Church sith Actsâ—0 â—0 2 But he is termed unclean as one not meeâ— by reason of his uncircumcision for a Jew to go into or eat with Acts 11 3. and therefore if the Apostle should 1 Cor. 7.14 mean it just in the same sense with Acts 10.14 he should tell them their children wâ—re not unclean that is were persons with whom they might eaâ— and converse which understood of infants were ridiculous â—f meant in the â—ense God tearmed Cornelius clean then it is as unfitly applâ—ed to infants who are not clean as Cornelius in that fearing God and working righteousness he waâ— accepted with him Acts. 10.34 35. which is more thâ—n an ouâ—waâ—d Church priviledge and a 〈◊〉 thing then Mr. S. and his â—ellow Paedobaptist conceive the Apostle meant 1 Cor. 7.14 That which Mr. S. brings of the use of the word holy that it exâ—resseth the Hebâ—ew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it ever signifâ—es that which is appropriated to a Divine use and that it is the 〈◊〉 notion of holiness in the Old and New Testament and never taken otherwise and that for proof of it he hath compared aâ—ove â—00 places in the Old â—estaâ—ent â—ccording to the Septuagint and all the N. T. places where the word is generâ—lly taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God how false or insufficient it is to his purpose is so aâ—ply shewed in the first part of 〈◊〉 Review sect 12 â—3 22 23 24 25 26. that I conceivâ—◠〈…〉 this time to add any more In which placeâ— it may be seen what I grant concerning the word generally taken and 〈…〉 more places thâ—n 1 Tim. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. for another use then Mr. S. asserts to bee the proper notion of holy in the Old and N. T. that it notes that which is appropriated to Divine use and is never taken otherwise to shew it to bee taken otherwise as 1 Sam. 21.5 Isai. 13.3 Ezra 9.2 c. But let 's view what hee saith to my allegation of 1 Tim. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. for a different use from his sense From 1 Tim. 4.5 saith Mr. T. is meant onely the lawful use of the creature in opposition to what is to be refused It is a wonder but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth how any man of common understanding finding the word holy and sanctified alwayes used in a religious sense should flye to this place to make an exception Answ. I have so far as I thought needful looked into my former writings and do not finde any place where I say as Mr. S. here saith I do what I yeelded at the Dispute at Bewdley and for what reason is shewed in the first part of this Review sect 27. p. 203. and if Mr. S. took from Mr. B. this which he here so unbrotherly chargeth me with hee might have there found an answer which should have been taken notice oâ— if my answer printed 1652. came to his knowledge afore the publishing his Exercit. 1653. But I never could finde in my Antagonists Mr. B. M. â—l c. any such candor as to construe any thing that came from me since this controversie arose between us in the better part but I think I may say almost in every thing I have done or said that thâ—y mention they pervert my words and deeds and aggravate them in the worser sense when they might have had a good or at least excusable construction As for this thing which Mr. S. here makes an instance of Gods leaving me to blindness when I left truth the true state of it is thus I had said in my Examen part 3. sect 8. p. 73 74 That this may be the sense I gather from the like use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used 1 Tim. 4.5 where the creature of God is said to be sanctified that is lawfully used in opposition to that which is to be refused so here the unbelieving husband is sanctified that is lawfully enjoyed as a husband by or to or in respect of his wife whether believer or unbeliever in this case there is no difference and alledged some words of Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 24. to the same purpose Which when Mr. M. in his Defence p. 155. framed an argument from against me I shewed him his mistake in the first part of this Review sect 13. p. 115. denying the sanctification 1 Cor. 7.14 to bee such a sanctification as that place 1 Tim. 4.5 means but onely make them like thus far that as 1 Tim. 4.5 it signifies lawfully enjoyed so here though in a different manner and from a different reason or cause And for the concession in the Dispute at Bewdley my yeilding Mr. Bs.
experience pastâ—nely a sense is brought in as I have shewed in my Examen par 3. sect 8. in the first part of the Review sect 19 c. in the second part of the Review sect 26. which is neither agreeing with the words nor pertinent or accommodate to the matter of the Apostle speech 3 However the Dr. believe yet it is shewed here and Review par 2. sect 6 that to refer the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14 to past experiences is not natural For the Apostles speech being a reason not of the commodiousness of living together in disparity of Religion for if it had been of iâ— they could have better resolved themselves then the Apostle yea they could have refuted the Apostle and reâ—â—â—ied his reason against him we find it not so by experience but of the lawfulness the reason must be conceived to import right not event and so the speech is not of what hath been which onely mentions experience but of what is de jure or is lawfull and as Piscator rightly Schol. in 1 Cor. 7.14 Sanctificatus est id est usus illius ut sanctus conscientiam uxoris non ladens concessus est And in this manner it is usual to express such sentences in the preter tense yet to be expounded by an Enallage as in the same Chapter the next v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the preter tense yet rightly rendred is not under bondage v. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereiâ— difference v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is short 1 Cor. 8.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is known 1 Cor. 4.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 am justified 1 Cor. 15.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye do stand v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are perished 1 Cor. 16.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opened Tit. 1.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are defiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usually is written Matth. 13.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is given Yet saith the Dr. I may in the 2 d. place ex abundanti add thus much more that the utmost he can pretend to by the enallage whether of the preter for the present or of the preter understood of a past thing yet continued is as commodious foâ— my interpretation as the preter is For if it be in the present then the importance will be that it is a matter of present daily experience if in the past continued then that it is matter both of past and present experience that the unbeliever is thus wrought upon by the believer and brought into the Church by Baptism and this a just ground of hope that so it may be again in any particular instance and so a competent motive that the believing wife should abide with the infidel husband and not depart as long as he will live peaceably with her And this sure was S. Hieroms understanding in the words newly cited the Apostle makes instance produceth example that this hath and doth ordinarily come to pass And to that also agrees the 16th verse For how knowest thou c. Answ. 1. If it be in the present tense the importance will not be that it is a matter of present daily experience unless it be proved the term sanctified notes an iterated event which I conceive and think I have proved to import right or lawfulness so as that the sense is the unbelieving husband is sanctified to or in respect of his wife as Beza Piscator Grotius c. do conceive that is lawfully used which is the onely sense that fits the determination of the Apostle which is not of the conveniency or commodiousness or advantage in living together but of the lawfulness v. 12 13. Nor if it be in the past continued will it fit the Drs. sense For the Drs. sense is as if sanctification were the same with conversion but that is an act transeunt past and not continued and if it include baptism as the Dr. would have it the sense should be The unbelieving husband hath been converted and brought to baptism and continues to be converted and brought to baptism by the conversation of the wiâ—e which cannot be said of the person said to be sanctified Yea there is no less then an implicite contradiction in the words so expounded for then it should be thus meant The unbelieving husband remaining an unbeliever as the Apâ—stles speech supposeth else it were not apposite to the case v. 12 13. is and continues to be wrought upon by the believer and brought into the Church by baptism Yet were this exposition allowed it would no whit avail to the Drs. purpose unless the futurity of the same act were implied in that imagined sense of the Dr. For it is not the event past that is the motive of cohabitation but the hope of that which may be And yet the Dr. tels us in his paraphrase he looks upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a verb of the preter tense and as such onely adapts the sense to it referring it not to future hopes but to past experiences or examples Yeâ— he saith the Apostle produceth example and to that also exactly agrees the 16 th v. For how knowest thou c. which doth not at all mention an example or past experience which could not be not done being once done but onely an uncertain and doubtfull futurity So that in this again the Drs. speeches do enterfere and his speech is most false that the words v. 16. do exactly agree with the meaning of the forepart of the 14th v. as the Dr. expounds it I omit that there is not a word that intimates the bringing into the Church by baptism and iâ— there were it would import a strange experience of a wives bringing her husband into the Church by baptism which cannot be avoided by saying through her perswasion it is done by another For the Text expresly assigns the sanctification what or however it be to the wives individual person if then to her as an agent it is done by her But I have said so much here and Review 2d par sect 26. of this exposition as me thinks should make this exposition of the Dr. to be exploded by the learned Yet he writes further thus As for Mr. T. his instances of Enallage though now I may safely yeeld them all and rather gain then lose by them I shall yet in the last place add my sense that no one of them is any way convincing that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not c. 11.24 for his passion was now so near approaching that it might very fitly be represented as present and so that be the force of the present tense Answ. This instance is convincing that enallage of tense is sometimes used it being used in this place as Piscat scholie in locum Enallage temporis metaphora And the Drs. reason doth no whit weaken the allegation of it for that which notes Paulo post futurum a future near approaching is not without an enallage expressed by the present tense And
to go to him preach to him eat with him as one accepted of God v. 35. So that the cleansing is the taking away of that restraint which was upon the Jewes of converse with the Gentiles Which being considered if unclean Acts 10.14 were to be expounded in the same notion which the Dr. imagines to be 1 Cor. 7.14 not admitted to the Church by Baptism then when God bid Peter count nothing common or unclean he bid him count no Gentile unbaptized and when he said what God hath cleansed it should be whom God hath baptized or admitted by Baptism into the Church And when the Apostle according to the Dr. useth unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 in the notion in which it is used Acts 10.14 he should mean your young children were such as a man might not go into converse with talke with familiarly eat with which certainly being meant of infants as the Dr. conceives is so ridiculus an exposition as a sober man would not put upon any profane Author much less on the sacred writers As for that which the Dr. saith that the notion of not entring to and eating with contained under it this other of not baptizing for sure hee might not baptize those to whom he might not enter it is so frivolous as that it is unfit for a man that takes on him to make Annotations on the New Testament For if this were good reasoning it would follow on the contrary every ones going in to and eating with one were baptizing and sith others then Apostles or preachers were to go into or not they were to baptize or not to baptize and all that men might not go into or eat with as excommunicate persons they must bee unbaptized and by the same reason sith sure a Minister may not admit to the Lords Supper nor a Bishop ordain him for a Priest to whom he might not enter the notion of not entring to and eating with contained under it this other of not communicating and not ordaining and consequently holy contains under it communicating and ordaining and so your young children are not unclean but holy should bee by this very reasoning expounded they are admitted to the Lords Supper and ordained Priests And what he adds And the baptizing Cornelius and not onely entring to him being the end for which Peter received that vision I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism and the holiness on the contrary reception to that priviledge may as well serve to prove unclean hath the notion of one excluded from the Lords Supper or heaven and holy on the contrary the reception to these sith these were the ends of Peters going in as well as baptizing and so to say your young children are holy shall be as much as your young children are admitted to the Lords Supper and to Heaven These conceits of the Dr. go upon two gross mistakes 1. As if unclean were used in a sense suitable to the Ecclesiastical practise in the Christian Church whereas it is used according to the use and conceipt of the Jews peculiarly 2. As if the notion of a word did exâ—end to the Concomitants and ends of the act expressed by it which if true then election regeneration should have the notion of justifying and glorifying preaching the notion of adoption and sanctification But enough of this raw conceit of the Doctor he goeâ— on thus My third reason saith hee being taken from the use of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctifie for washing any part of the body and on occasion of that mentioning a conjecture that the use of holiness for baptism might perhaps intimate that the primitive baptiâ—ms were not always immersions but that sprinkling of some part might be sufficicient he hath a reply to each of these To the former that if this reason were good then the husbands being sanctified by the wife must signifie his being baptized or washed by her to the latter that I have in my writings so oft acknowledged the Baptism of the Jews and Christians to be immersion of the whole body that I ought to be ashamed to say the contrary and that I can hardly believe my self in it To these I answer first to the former 1. That I that affirm sanctifications among the Jews to signifie washings do also know that it hath other significations and that that signification is in each text to bee chosen which seems most agreeable in all those respects which are to be considerable in the pitching on any interpretation consequently that the wives baptizing the husband being a thing absurd and utterly unheard of in the Church of God whether in the Apostles or succeeding ages this sense may not reasonably be affixt to it whereas the baptizing of infants being by the ancients affirmed to be received from the Apostles it is most reasonable to understand the words of this though not of the other and so to apply the observation as it is visible I did to the latter not former part of the verse Answ. This is no answer but a grant that the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be meant of Baptizing sith it is absurd so to expound it and consequently a yeelding the argument from the calling the Jews washings sanctifications to have no force Nor doth he at all help himself by saying it is most reasonable to apply it to the latter part of the v. For there is no reason in it that because the Jewes use the word sanctification for Baptism therefore holy which is another word and in another predicament then sanctified which is in Passion and the other in quality or relation and not sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 is as much as Baptism and because the word sanctifications hath other significations then washings and may not be understood of Baptism in the fore-part of 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore holy no where proved to be as much as baptized is as much as admitted to the Church by Baptism and because the Ancients mention infant Baptism to be received from the Apostles as they do other unwritten traditions of observing Easter Lâ—nt giving infants the Communion c. therefore holy 1 Cor. 7.14 must be without any example in Scripture or Father of that use of the word bee expounded thus admitted in the Church by Baptism But yet the Dr. is loth to confess his errour but adds And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of by and expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman of the perswasion that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptism and not of her ministry in bâ—ptizing wee may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also that by the woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbelieving husband hath been brought to baptism viz. by being brought to faith to which this priviledge belongs Answ. 1. The Dr. brings no example of such a notion of by or of such a use
subdivision and notification of several Sects among the Jewes as there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity but use not new Baptism to discriminate them I am sure contradict the Apostle if they do Answ. How sage the Drs. observations of making Disciples as all one with receiving to discipleship of baptizing after the Jewish pattern c. are is seen before This observation is not denied by the Dr. nor any thing said by him to evacuate the use I intended to make of it to shew that to be a disciple doth not noâ—e the comming to God to enjoy benefits as the Dr. made the notion of a Proselyte to import for then persons should be termed disciples of the Priests which is not so but to learn and so the disciples of Pharisees were those who learned their opinions That which the Dr. saith is not true that by Baptism persons were admitted to discipleship nor that disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces were but a subdivision under Disciples of God or Christ for their disciples were no disciples of God or Christ nor pertinent to the avoiding the use of my observation 'T is true there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity and of them I know none so great as that of the Prelatists who will neither hear the Preacher who preacheth the faith of Christ nor joyn in prayer unless the Common Prayer Book be used nor own them as Presbyters who were not ordained by a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter nor joyn with that society as a Church lawfully constituted where there is not Episcopal government which I take to be a manifestly unjust schism and recusancy I know none that use new Baptism but Paedobaptists who therein contradict Christs institution and the Apostles practise Pistobaptists or baptizers of Believers of age upon their profession of faith use the old Baptism which Christ appointed and the Apostles practised not to discriminate them from others but to do their duty and to supply a defect in infant sprinkling The Dr. saith His second observation is that the Holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs Proselytes but his Disciples that saith he we might not confound the notions of these termes But I answer 1. That those Texts that express the Christians entring into discipleship by comming unto him of which there are good store do in effect call them Proselytes for a Proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediately from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto Answ. 1. I think this not true sith the texts which express the comming to Christ do mean by it believing in him as Joh. 6.35 shews but that is not in effect to call them Proselytes in the Drs. sense nor is the notion of a commer unto and a disciple all one sith a person may come to a person yea to learn and never yet be his disciple And secondly saith the Dr. that if this word whether in it self or in the Verb from whence it â—omes had never been used in the N. T. yet would it not thence follow that we might not confound the notions of Proselytes and Disciples Ans. Nor do I make it any demonstrative argument but probable as it is probable that the Holy Ghost calls not the Christian society the Synagogue nor the preachers of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priests that we may not confound them I have often given a firm reason why infants capable of coming to Christ blessed by him and affirmed to be qualified for the Kingdom of heaven should be denied water to be baptized even this that neither Christ appointed it nor the Apostles baptized them though he did the other to them The Christian Church or Minister might not deny baptism to infants if they were qualified as Cornelius and the Gentiles that came with him were Acts 10.46 47. 11.18 What I said of infants being unqualified for Baptism till by hearing they own Christ as their Master is fully proved in the â—d part of this Review sect 5 c. and it is therefore too too boldly said by the Dr. that it is a begging of the question without the least tender of proof Whether or in what manner the little ones mentioned Deut. 29.10 did enter into Covenant is so fully discussed before Sect. 44 45 61 66 67. chiefly this last that I need here add no more Either in one of those Sections or some where before in this part of the Review I have proved from the Text and Commentators that those that were not with them that day v. 15. were unborn chiefly in that v. 2. Moses called unto all Israel and they are said v. 10. all to stand there that day and therefore I might more justly wonder though it be no wonder that the Dr. thus abuseth me that hee should have the face to say I impose on the Reader He tels me there is no mention of any act of the Fathers engaging them under a curse or oath but onely of Gods oath which he maketh to them v. 12. But he might have seen v. 14. these words Neither do I make with you onely this Covenant and this Oath but with him also that is not here with us thâ—â— day which I know not how it should be meant of any other then the unborn for none but they of Israel were then absent and entering into an oath and curse as they did Nehem. 10.29 And for what hee adds If they had thus adjured or laid oath or curse upon their children yet would this make no difference betwixt their and our entring into Covenant we by the oath of Baptism which iâ— laid on the child by him to be performed when he comes to ability unless he will forfeit all the benefits of his Baptism do in like manner adjure our infants though while they remain such they hear it as little as the Jewish infants did But sure there is a great difference between the solemn adjuration of Moses and all Israel binding their posterity and recorded in the book of the Law and the obscure charge of an ignorant officiating Priest to three Gossips whereof some are so ignorant that they know not what the Christian faith is at a Font which hee terms the oath of Baptism which is seldome either heeded or remembred by any present And whereas he saith my rejecting his inference that by parity of reason infants may be entred into discipleship and baptized to be a denying the conclusion when the premises cannot be denied It is not true for the consequence is plainly denied and the reason is given of that denial and each branch proved in the Book before sect 5 c. And therefore I shall say no more to this section it being pity to use the Drs. words to lose time on such trifling conceits empty of all proof as this Dr. hath dictated for infant Baptism He said better Pract. cat l. 5. § 1. The Apostles
c. and restraining that promise in the Evangelical sense onely to the children of Abraham which were elect by God Nor is there a word Act. 2.39 to make it good in Master Drew's sense For 1. Master Drew proves not that the promise Act. 2.39 must needs be the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed His argument is It must needs relate to a former engagement to the Jews and therefore to that Gen. 17.7 But this is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative it relats to a former engagement therfore to this which Logicians deny to be good proof But saith he I know not what engagement this can have reference to if not unto the promise Gen. 17.7 I answer though he know not and so may be one of those that are blind and yet have eyes which he chargeth on his opposits yet others see other promises namely that to David of raising up Christ to sit on his throne mentioned Acts 2.30 or the promise of the Holy Gost mentioned V. 33. or the promise of blessing mentioned Acts 3.25 Any of which may be the Promise meant Acts 2.39 more probably then that Gen. 17.7 2. Where it is said The promise is to you if we either consider the scope of the Apostle or other parrallel texts Acts 3.26 Acts 13.32 33. the promise is is as much as to say the promise made to David Acts 2.30 or to Abarham Acts 3.25 is fulfilled in raising up Christ or the Promise of the spirit is fulfilled in the shedding forth of its gifts of which Promise mentioned V. 17.18 Piscator and others understand it and that for you that is for your good blessing and your children and all that are afarr off as many as the Lord our God shall call not as M. Drew means there is a promise of being a God to you and every one of your children continually to be fulfilled as soon as ever they are in being 3. It is false which M. Drew presupposeth as if the meaning were the Promise is to you that is the Promise of being your God is to you believers and to your children that is to all your Infant children as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles For 1. that speech is made to the Jews as M. Drews own words seem to import onely and their children and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is false that when it is said the Promise is to you the meaning is to you as believers For neither were they then believers as I prove in my Ample disquisit Sect 5. nor is it certain whether some of them were ever believers the occasion and scope seems to intimate rather that they were considered there as persons who had crucified Christ 3. Neither is it true that the Promise is to their children that is to their infant children as their children M. Gataker discept de bapt Infant vi 〈◊〉 pag. 12. saith thus To the obtaining the promise as well repentance as partaking of baptism at least in this place is exacted so that hence the promise of remission of sins cannot be proved to be made to Infants when they are entered by baptism unless also they repent 4 nor do I know how it can be true which M. Drew sayes in any sense for his purpose that God hath promised to every believing Gentile now to be the God of his seed as he did to Abraham by which he would expound the words Acts 23.9 the promise is to your children For in respect of spiritual blessings accompanying salvation it is not true every believers child is not elect in the Covenant of saving grace a child of the resurrection nor in respect of outward Ecclesiastical privileges Neither did God Promise Circumcision to every child of Abraham not to the males under 8. dayes old nor to the females nor hath it any colour to interpret I will be the God of thy seed that is they shall be circumcised much less that God promised to every Gentile believers child he should be Baptized or have right to Baptism sure not to professed unbelievers to abortives or still born Infants For my part with all M. Drews light I cannot understand how according to M. Drews exposition the promise Gen. 17.7 is inforce and applyable to believers under the Gospel as he saith Nor do I conceive it true which he ads If this stand good then the Command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good to For were it granted that it were true that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles yet there is not a word in that text or any other to prove that therefore every believers Infant child is to be baptized it being false that the Covenant of grace doth of it selfe intitle to Baptism as I have proved in my Examen part 3. S. 1. in my letter to M. Baile or Additions to my Appology Sect. 3. in the Ample disquisition Sect. 5. where also it is proved that though the promise Acts 2.39 be alleged why they should be baptized V. 38. yet not as the reason of their right to Baptism as M. Drew makes it but as a motive encouraging them to it as their duty and in performing of it first to move then to repent and then to be baptized The reason is not as M. Drew makes it The promise is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized and the minister ought to do it to you and your Infants but this the promise is to you and your children therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins nor is there a word in the text or elsewhere to prove that dictate of M. Drew God will own believers children therefore he will have them markt for his even in infancy by baptism more truely saith M. Gataker discept Infant de bapt infant vi Eâ—fâ—c pag. 9. Acts 2.38 39. is nothing found concerning Infants to be baptized In that they are Commanded to repent and to be baptized unto the remission of sins it is altogether like to that saying of the Lord Christ he that believeth and shall be baptized shall attain salvation Matth. 16.16 But M. Drew thinks to take off the exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth priviledge of believers children under the Gospel The first exception is that the promise is of extraordinary gifts of the spirit and he answers This doth not sute with the promise made Gen. 17.7 which was to be performed to Abrahams children and yet they had not those gifts But 1. this Answer goes upon his mistake that the promise Acts 2.39 must be that Gen. 17.7 2. he supposeth that the
promise Acts 2.39 must be understood so as to be made good to Abrahams seed afore Christ But if so it were false in his sense for all Abrahams seed had not the birth priviledge of the first seale not the females any of them nor any of the males till the eight day 2. He saith it cannot be true of extraoâ—dinary gifts sith then all believing Jews must have those gifts which they had not and all believers might pray for them To which I say if the promise be so understood you shall all have sueh gifts I acknowledg it were not true Exam. part 3. Sect 6. But in this sense it may be true even of those gifts the promise of sending the spirit in extraordinary gifts is fulfilled to you and your children and all that are afarr off even as many as the Lord our God shall call that is for their and your benefit in that by those gifts the Apostles were inabled to publish and propagate the Gospel which is a benefit to all that are called The Second exception is that the words as many as the Lord our God shall call expound the Apostle meaning which is this their children should receive the promise if the Lord called them To it he answers 1. that this particle even with that which follows whom the Lord our God shall call has relation to the next foregoing sentence viz. those that are afarr off for the explanation of that not unto this sentence to you and your children so that the Apostle speaks thus The promise is made to you and your children for the present and when the Lord shall call those that are a far off and strangers to the Covenant of promise they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as you and your children are now To which I reply M. Drew gives no reason why the limitation should be ment onely of those afar off and not also of them and their children 2. nor doth he answer the reason given to the contrary that the speech were not true if it be so expounded as that the sense be that God would be a God to those Jews he then spake to though they were not called to the knowledge and belief of Christ and so salvation by another then Christ contrary to the same Apostles words Acts 4 12. To me saith M. Gataker discept debapt Inf. viz. and eâ—fic pag. 253. the Covenant of grace Act· 2.39 seems onely to be with them that have embraced the Gospel Now if the words as many as the Lord our God shall call must limit the words to you and all that are afar off it is incongruous to the use of speaking not to apply it to your children in the middle Yea without the limitation it would not be true that God hath promised to be a God to their or any others children For God is not a God to any but those he calls either outwardly or inwardly at least 3. His Paraphrase when the Lord our God shall call those that are afar off they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as your children are now is an intolerable abuse of adding that of which there is not a word in the text which doth not mention at all the children of them that are afar off though called 2. saith M. Drew if the Appostle had meant to apply the promise onely to those who should be called of God to believe then it had been needless to have made any mention at all of children To which I reply there was great reason why he should mention their children with them because they had wished Matth. 27.25 Christs blood on them and their children To take away the horrour of soule and fear of the curse on them and their children caused by the conscience of their crucifying Christ and imprecation to them and their children and not to assure them of such a poor empty Eclesiastical outward priviledge as paedobaptists imagine to belong to believers infants was that speech of the Apostle intended in like fort as Joseph did in the like Gen. 45.3 4. c. Gen. 50.20 For this end was sutable to the occasion of their question Ver. 36.37 and to the Apostles answer and it seems probable tthe Apostle saith to you and your children but not to all that are afar off and their children because those afar off had not wished Christs blood on them and theirs as the other had done 3. Saith M. Drew it utterly overthrows the Apostles scope which is to shew the Jews shall be bettered rather then worsted by believing in Christ which they would hardly believe should he have left their children who were alwayes till now reckoned in Covenant with them in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world which had been a bad argument to bring in the Jews cold comfort to hear that their children should be made as much aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel by their Fathes embracing the Gospel as the very Pagans Surely this would stave off the Jews from Christ rather then bring them on To which I reply The Apostles scope is plain to direct them what to do being oppressed with the horrour of their sin in crucifying Christ and wishing his blood on them and their children and Ver. 39. is a notice to them to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ. To imagine the Jews then either thought of a priviledge for their children answerable to circumcision or that Peters scope was to satisfy them about it is such a toy as is fit for children rather then men of understanding It had been alike comfort unto the Jews at that time to tell them of their Infants right to baptism as for a man to tell an arraigned malefactor expecting to be condemned and hanged that his little child had a new Coat given him vain words and bug-bears fit to affright children with of a childs being out of the Covenant for defect of tittle to baptism of being in worse case then the Jews in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel debarred a priviledge the deprivation of which would have staved off the Jews from Christ. Children may be in covenant as much as the Jews no whit worsted in their condition in a better condition then barbarious heathen infidels though title to baptism be not aserted to their infants If by the commonwealth of Israel the Jewish civil or Eclesiastical estate be understood those that Peter spake to must expect to be alienated from it if they would be Christians They knew Christ was cast out and might know he had told them it would be so with his disciples If by the Common-wealth of Israel be meant the true Christian Church the defect of Infant-baptism neither expressly nor by consequence made them aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel Such conceits arise from paedobaptists mistaken suppositions Nor can I imagine but that
in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism for repentance is put as a prerequisite 2. The Apostle doth not speak of the promise as Master Church means that he judged that they and their children were rightly judged as visible professors in the promise of propriety in God for they were not then such But that the promise of raising up Christ was fulfilled for them upon their repentance and baptism or their calling and this is made not the reason of right to receive or warrant to the Minister to baptize them but as a motive to their duty of repenting and being baptized and encouragement to hope for remission notwithstanding their crucifying Christ and imprecation on themselvs and theirs Matth. 27.25 SECT VII Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize PAg. 19. Mr. Church brings in an objection thus The judgement of charity that any are in promise is not a sufficient reason for administring baptism to them there must be shews of grace for more certainty To which he thus answers shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are ground for the judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise for else if the Devil should take a humane shape and make a verbal profession though he were known to be a Devil he must be baptized I reply Mr. Church here starts a question by what judgment a Minister is to proceed in admitting a person to baptism Concerning which I suppose it will not be denied 1. That a Minister being but as an officer under Christ in baptizing is to baptize according to his Lords will For that is the property of a servant 2. That the will of the Lord is most manifest in the institution or appointment of Christ which is without question declared by the words of Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. explained by the Apostles and other approved Ministers thereof command and practice mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles 3. That true believers and disciples of Christ are appointed to be baptized and that they have true right before God 4. That such believers and disciples as are appointed to be baptized are Disciples of all nations not of Angelical but humane nature and therefore we have no warrant to baptize either good Angels or Devils taking humane shape and making shews of repentance or faith if known to be Divils or Angels All the difference is with what judgment and upon what evidence a Minister is to baptize I conceive 1. upon extraordinary revelation from God a Minister is to baptize an Infant declared to be a Disciple as I say in my Examen p. 4. S. 3. 2. According to ordinary rule he ought to baptize none but Disciples by profession which profession ought to be free sober serious and intelligent For discerning of which he is to use ministerial prudence though he be not able to search the heart and after the use of ministeral prudence therein he is prudently to judge of the truth of his faith and discipleship Wherein he ought to judge according to the rule of charity 1 Cor. 3.17 which believeth all things hopeth all things and yet heed what Solomon saith Prov. 14.15 The simple believeth every word but the prudent man looketh well to his going And our Lord Christ Luke 12.43 having said as it was conceived of a Minister Who then is that faithfull and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season it is requisite that the judgment of a Minister upon which he baptizeth should have both ingredients prudents charity charity alone is not sufficient For 1. If Charity be used without prudence there may be a mockery of the Ordinance and it profaned 2. If the rule be a judgment of charity alone then supposing the Minister be defective in his charity the person is to be debarred who is otherwise fit to be baptized But about this I conceive there is little or no difference between me and the paedobaptists Mr. M. in one place to wit in his defence pag. 78. intimates that I am conceived to incline to the looser way of baptizing any that would make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. And in another place pag. 233. he maks it all my pleading that because we cannot know that all Infants of believers have the inward grace we may not therefore baptize them From the former I vindicated my self in my Apology Sect. 17. and from the latter Sect. 10. But the difference is what qualification it is that may be evidence to a Minister whereby to judge prudently a person to be capable of baptism They that hold all Infants are to be baptized that are offered they make no scruple nor do they make much scruple that hold all Infants that are in a chosen nation which I have refuted Exam. part 3. Sect. 13. others baptize onely the children of inchurched members of which I shall speake in Examining Mr. Cobbets conclusions There are that from the Generality of promises and election running through the Loyns of believers will have all the children of believers to be in Covenant and elect in the parcels though not in the lump and Mâ— Church his opinion comes near it that we have ground from a judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise to baptize them But against this I argue 1. That is to be the rule of judging a persons baptizability which is made the condition of a person to be baptized in the holy Scripture But no where in it is this made the condition of being baptized that he be elect and in the Covenant 2. The Scripture doth no where say that the election of God runs for the most part through the Loyns of believers And though there are promise of blessing to the righteous and their seed yet these are indefinite both for the kinde of blessing and the person and these promises are made onely to the truly righteous and not to them who are only such in appearance Wherfore there can be no certainty for a judgment of prudence to rest upon to determin of any whether they are elect or not in the Covenant of grace or not spiritually considering that God hath declared Rom. 9.6 7 8 18 24. That he ties not himself to believers children Now all judgment is to be suspended of that which is not revealed The secret things belong to the Lord our God Deut. 29.29 3. For Infants of believers there is no ground for a judgment of charity because they do nothing to shew whether they are in the Covenant or no. And if it be revealed by God that they are all or some in Covenant then we know it by a judgment of faith believing Gods revelation and so it is not a probable judgment of charity but a certain judgment of verity
a bird in a net seeking some evation from this objection though all in vain He tels us they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake Acts 2.8 11. and not all Jews for they were of divers languages and that they were adulti But what is this to the avoyding the objection that notwithstanding it is said the promise is to you yet they were not intitled to baptism without repentance He then discourseth that repentance was in them onely in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostle accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them For in that distance from his preaching and their baptizing so many could not have repentance visible by its fruits and discernable and thence would gather if such hainous sinners were baptized upon probability of repentance therefore Infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance To which I reply 1. It is expressly said ver 41. they that gladly received the word were baptized therefore there were visible fruits of repentance and faith discerned by the Apostles and other Disciples who were many and could confer with them in that space of time and baptize them in that day though their conversion was easily discernable without distinct conference with each 2. His argument is not worth a rush notwithstanding Cyprians words to back it to prove Infant-baptism For it goes upon this frivolous supposition that Infants because they have no actual sin may be baptized though they shew no repentance much rather then hainous and great transgressors upon probability of repentance As if lesser sinners might be baptized upon no testimony of repentance because greater sinners are baptized upon probability of repentance which if true the more civil and orderly persons though pharisaically minded as if they needed no repentance have much more right to baptism then publicans confessing their sins because but probably penitent 3. All this is nothing to answer the objection but to strengthen it that notwithstanding the promise was to them yet they were not to be baptized till their repentance either in facto esse or in fieri either visible in fruits or at least probably conceived of which neither is to be said of Infants Yet Mr. Church is not ashamed to conclude thus Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Appostle for baptism whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired and that if any disable the reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their converts wheras he that disables the inference from being rightly judged in the promise to right of baptism doth vindicate the Apostle from weakness which paedobaptists do by their exposition and inference thence blemish him with and cast the blame of weakness onely on Mr. Church and such inconsiderate expounders and disputers as he is I had not thought to have said so much of so poor a piece as that book is yet lest any say it is not answered I add SECT IX Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to be of the visible Church Christian. HIs second Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized To which I say His words are ambiguous it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the visible or invisible Church of all infants of Christians or some but conceiving it meant of all and of the visible Church of Christians I deny the Antecedent And for his ten Arguments not one proveth it The Medium of the first is the Antecedent of the former Argument to which I have answered before denying that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God expressed Gen. 17.7 in those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But I deny the consequence also that if it were true that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the visible Church nor is it proved by that which he allegeth For they onely are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel which are strangers from the covenant Ephes. 2.12 For if it did prove that all that are strangers from the covenant of Promise are aliens from the visible Church of Christians yet it proves not that all who are in the covenant are in the visible Church but the very truth is neither the one nor the other is proved from that place for this only is asserted there that the Ephesians who were Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands no Proselytes were in the time of their infidelity Idol-service then without the policy of Israel and the covenants of Promise but it doth not follow that every one that was then uncircumcised in the flesh and out of the policy of Israel meaning the outward policy was stranger from the Promise of Propriety in God meaning of it of saving Propriety for Cornelius Acts 10. was a stranger from the policy of Israel being no citizen but unclean as being a Gentile uncircumcised yet then he feared God God heard his prayers accepted his alms c. much less now that every one that is rightly judged to be in the Promise of Propriety in God is of the visible Church or every one that is rightly judged of the visible Church is rightly judged to have the Promise of Propriety in God His next Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his children In the old world some were called the sons of God as children of his people Gen. 6.2 3. And the infants of the Israelites were called by him his children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21. and their lawfull seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age untill the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they shall be converted and of the Jews when they shall be grafted in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his handmaid therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Answ. Not one of these Texts proves the Church-membership of Christians infants The term Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3. is attributed to persons before the Floud and those not infants but such as took them wives of all that they chose which could not be said of infants nor are they said to be Sons of God because children of believers but because they professed the true worship of God Dei filios professione Christ. Cartwright Eborac Annot. in locum Such as descending from Seth and Enoch professed the true worship of the true God New Annot. I omit the opinions of Josephus Aquila and many of the Ancients recited by Mr. Gataker against Pfochenius cap. 13. and
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
this was the reason why even the Jewes circumcised what ever their interest in the promise should be were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come But this though true and such as shewes a manifâ—st difference between ciâ—cumcision and baptism in their use and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet sith thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance nor is thereby any reason given of râ—pentance being required by Peter afore baptism Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jewes then of their unripe children onely he tels of their practice in New England that when any are received to fellowship with them though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches are admitted upon their former church-ingagement yet desirous to be fixed Members they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed not so of their children not sui juris nor capable of personal satisfaction so it was with them Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way But setting aside the question whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient the defilement being alike in both 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles but openly opposite to Christ and the christian church Nor was that which those Jewes perplexed did propound that they might be of their church as a purer church but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-priviledges but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences which was an act of doctrine not of jurisdiction 2. If it had been so yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jewes to baptism then formerly nor that he did it because they were to be incoâ—porated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism nor is the argument infringed that if covenant-interest intitle to baptism of it self without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child yea in priority to the child who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest then it should much more intitle the Father to baptism without repentance Idem qua idem semper facit idem so that after so many shifts absurdities unproved dictates vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jewes afore baptism against the connexion between covenant-interest and right to baptism Master Cobbet goes on thus nor must that needs follow that because it 's said they were added to the church that therefore they were not of the church before but after Peter spake those words v. 39. the promise is to you c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized as after that mentioned of their receiving the Word gladly and yet will our opposites conclude that therefore they were not of the church nor in the covenant before they were baptized but came into that estate by baptism If baptism were the form of the church or that which they so much urge wholly failed that a person must be first discipled and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized Ans. Either I understand not the force of words or else it is a cleer argument Acts 2.41 And there were added in that day souls about three thousand v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church and these were of the Jewes therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day and that addition For what is addition to a company but a joyning or bringing one more to them then was before even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned And this argument seems so plain to me that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus they are not said to be added till after Peters speech v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly of which there is no cause to doubt sith the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then v. 41. shew it the argument is good after Peters words it is said then and that day were added therefore they were not before of the church Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church it being one means of addition to the church and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church but that there may be a church without baptism nor the onely way of adding to the church for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it yet this I say that neither is a church regular nor the addition as it should be without baptism And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate meaning in covenant by Gods promise to him and in church-estate that is so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it Master Cobbet proceeds thus Nor is that cogent which is urged against the childrens right in the promise and unto baptism that they should be so priviledged when they came to be effectually called and to be turned from their sins as if this were quoad homines their onely rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof or at least the onely way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches courâ— For besides that it was not so of old in applying of circumcision as Gods appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right even with us
blanck childrens federal interest precious parental priviledge cavenant right and such like gibberish according to the Paedobaptists supositions about the imagined covenant to father and child right of infants to the first seal thereby and this a great priviledge without which no revealed grounds ordinary of hope and life this is the substance of the tale that if Peter had told them their infants were not to be baptized who before were circumcised he had added more grief to the spirits of the Jewes pressed with the sense of their wish against their children Matth. 27.25 and therefore he is to be conceived Acts 2.39 to have told them of their infants right to baptism Now surely in my apprehension if Peter had told them such a tale as Master Cobbet imagins he did even then when so great perplexity of spirit was upon them by reason of the horrid sin of crucifying Christ and their imprecation on them and their children they being then indisposed to laughter must in all likelyhood have been much moved either with grief or anger against such a Doctor as would mock them with such a receipt as was no more to their disease then the promise of a feather to weare is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the collick For what comfort could this be to them concerning themselves who expected the heaviest wrath due to them for their sin or concerning their children on whom they wished a most heavy curse to be told of a priviledge for them and their children which as it was to them before was painfull in the use so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation to be continued in an other rite which of it self was but washing with cold water and in the fruit of it before God yielded no benefit without faith and repentance and in the church yielded at best but a title of church-membership by which they had no benefit but what they might have without it noâ— would stand them in any stead for church-communion without their actual believing It is clear Acts 2.39 is an encouragement to the duties and expectation of the good mentioned v. 38. Now what encouragement is it to repent to be told that the promise was already to them in external right and administration and to their infants though not as yet penitent or believers such a motive might rather have tended to keep them in impenitency being in so good case already in the estate they were in And for baptism into the Name of Christ such a motive tended rather to disswade them from it as might fill their mindes with high conceits of their and their childrens covenant-right even by vertue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ or joyning to the christian church And for the good of remission of sins before God which they needed what assurance could they have of it by telling them of their and their childrens having the promise already as Jews without personal faith and repentance in external right and administration before men As for the falsity of the speech as expounded by Master Cobbet it is shewed before what he would burden his opposites with as if denyeng infant-baptism they counted them as Pagans strangers from the Covenant without hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12.13 is a meer Calumny For setting aside their talk of initiatory seal and external covenant which they cannot say assure life to the infants of believers without election we assure as much by the covenant of grace justification by Christs bloud and sanctification by his Spirit which is effectual calling and they can in trueth assure no more nor any other way though to uphold their credit and to win the affections of credulous parents they befool them with idle talk of a covenant which the Scripture never mentions and of sealing that covenant by baptism which the Scripture is silent of The texts Ezek. 16.21 20. Deut 30.6 will be examined afterwards Why he bids see Deut. 29.29 I know not unless it be that we may discern his weakness in alledging the Scriptures impertinently sith it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong that they may heare them and do them in infancy The second consideration is in brief this that the Apostles who as yet preached not for the abolishing of Mosaical rites but were indulgent to the Jewes Acts 21.20 22 23 24. would not give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham it self whereof circumcision was a visible seal as the places quoted in Gen. 17.11 13. and Acts 7.8 declare To which I answer By my exposition there is no exclusion of babes from the promise Acts 2.39 though it be restrained to those who are effectually called sith babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election nor doth my exposition exclude the Jewes infants from the Covenant Gen. 17.7 or circumcision or in the least manner meddle with that point Nor do I think the promise Gen. 17.7 to be the same with that Acts 2.39 If it were yet how it may be understood otherwise then Master Cobbet conceives is shewed above The third consideration setting aside his phraseology is this that if Peter should intend to exclude infants from baptism it were to be cross to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15.8 who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his coming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17.7 or Deut. 30.6 or the like or respecting parents or children but to confirm the same Ibid. But how this consequence is made good I cannot conceive but do deny it and expect a proof of it ad Graecas Calendas Master Cobbet concludes the chapter with an answer to the objection that if this were granted of those Jewish children what is this to our childrens federal interest in the daies of the Gospel and he answers 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace is of divine authority and iâ— no humane invention Ans. 1. In the objection the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denyed to be visibly in Abrahams covenant which Master Cobbet alters thus are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abrahams covenant and yet denyed that they are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the covenants being not the same every way and it being certain as in the case of Saul and others a person may be visibly interessed in the covenant of Abraham and yet not in the covenant of grace 2. Infants visible interest in the covenant of Abraham I know no otherwise then by circumcision and this sure the Apostles taught
of no other then the Jewish children 3. The text Acts 2.39 speaks not of visible interest in the covenant of grace by external administration 4. If it did yet it speaks of none other children but Jewish and so not of ours and therefore the tenent may be an humane invention notwithstanding this text and the concession of the objectour 2. Saith Master Cobbet these Jewes are eyed by the Apostles as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians as was baptism and therefore what extent of federal right and priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way Ans. the Jewes were not tyed by the Apostles to partake of baptism without the repentance of each person to be baptized nor is it by the Apostle made a federal right and priviledge but a duty to which the promise did encourage nor is the promise said to be to them or any of their children but the effectually called so that were the conclusion granted Master Cobbet yet his purpose is not gained that the Gentiles infants are to be baptized 3. Saith he to suppose God by Apostolical ratification to allow to children of Jewish parents coming on to Christ c. a larger priviledge then to Gentile parents as came on to Christ c. is to make God a respector of persons Ans. 1. It is not yet proved that the Apostle allowes to children of Jewish parents the priviledge Master Cobbet means 2. the Jewes Acts 2.39 were not considered as coming on to Christ but as guilty of crucifying him and under horrour of conscience for it 3. The priviledge of baptism or the promise in respect of external right and administration as Master Cobbets phrase is could not belong to the Jewes at that present therefore the Apostles speech had been false in Master Cobbets sense For he cannot assert they were then come to Christ but coming on to Christ nor is it certain that many of them ever came to Christ. But the promise is de praesenti in respect of external right and administration which is Master Cobbets sense is false of persons which were not come to Christ except he will have the Apostle assert a right of baptism to them without faith 4. The Jewish parents children had then a larger priviledge then the Gentiles in the first offer of the Gospel as they had larger priviledges before Rom. 9.3 4 5. and they shall have larger priviledges at their calling hereafter if I understand the Apostle Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. And herein God is not such a respector of persons as Peter Acts 10.34 denies him to be so as not to accept a Gentile who feareth him and worketh righteousness as well as a Jew Acts of special grace undue to some persons not to others argue not unjust respect of persons in God but acts of judgment awarding good to one that fears him and works righteousness because of such a Nation and not to another who doeth the same because he is not of that nation contrary to his declarations promises lawes by which he hath bound himself would argue unjust prosopolepsy his declarations promises and lawes being general and so the being of that Nation extirnsecal to the cause Saith he the force of the words seem to carry it that the same promise which was to those Jewes actually in Church and Covenant-estate was intentionally to these afar off which were strangers actually from a like estate whether those of the ten tribes or rather those of the Gentiles and should be actually to them when they came to be called actually into the fellowship of that covenant and Church-estate Now what promise was that verily a promise which carried with it a partial reference unto their children The promise is to you and to your children And the same is unto them afar off whom God shall call Scil. in reference to their children also Ans. There is no colour from the words that Acts 2.39 the promise is meant to be actually to those Jewes and intentionally to those afar off nor doth this conceit agree with Master Cobbets exposition who will have it to be de praesenti to belong to the persons recited and consequently actually to all there named Nor do I know how to make true sense of this his speech For the promise is either said to be in respect of the act of the promiser or of the thing promised In the former sense the meaning of Master Cobbet should be this that God had made the promise to the Jewes already actually but he had not made the promise to those afar off but intended to do it afterwards But this sense agrees not with Master Cobbets and other Paedobaptists conceit who would have the promise to be that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 But that promise was made almost 2000 years before not made to those Jewes then nor to any afar off afterwards that can be shewed In respect of the thing promised whether it be as I say Christ manifested in the flesh for the remission of sins before God it is not true that it was actually then to the Jewes mentioned Acts 2.39 For they were not yet repenting believing persons or it be meant of remission of sins in respect of external right and administration it is not true that the promise was actually then to them in external right they had no right then to claim baptism being not then believers neither had they the promise in external administration de praesenti for they were not actually baptized which I think is the external administration meant I cannot imagine Master Cobbet would be so vain as to conceive Peter told them they were circumcised but Peter exhorts them to be baptized and therefore the promise was no more actually to the Jewes then present then to those afar off Nor is it true that the Jewes present were then actually in Church and Covenant-estate if it be meant of the Christian Church and Covenant of grace in Christ for they were not repenting believers and if it be meant of the Jewish Church and Covenant-estate which they had as descended from Abraham by natural descent and by reason of circumcision so the Gentiles were never ealled or to be called actually into that fellowship of that Covenant and Church-estate but rather out of it Nor if they had been called into it had that Church and Covenant-estate at all conduced to their interest into the Christian Church and Covenant of grace but rather to the contrary And for the promise it is true there is a reference to their children but not because they were believers children or their children but by vertue of Gods call and it is true the promise is to Gentiles childâ—en and Jewes when called of God and no otherwise and consequently no Birth-priviledge to either intitling to baptism And thus is that magnified chapter of Master Cobbet abundantly answered SECT XXIII Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39
not declaring what it is but what it is like in respect of the use Besides Circumcision is an action but Seal is in the Predicament of relation as being a sign or a figure in the Predicament of quality or an aggregate compound of a material substance having a figure for signification But the genus is in the same Predicament with the species and so is not Seal with Circumcision Ergo. For doth Seal of the righteousness of faith agree to all Circumcision nor difference it from the Spirit of God nor according to the Paedobaptists Hypothesis from the Pass-over Baptism or the Lords Supper Mr. Blake adds So that their extraordinary Sacraments are expresly affirmed to be the same with ours by the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.3 They eat all the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink so are their appointed established Sacraments Circumcision and the Pass-over Answer 1. The extraordinary Sacraments are said to note the same thing with ours not expresly affirmed to be the same with ours 2 It is no where said in Scripture that Circumcision and the Pass-over did note the same thing with our Sacraments much less that they are the same Sacraments with ours Mr. Blake adds Will Mr. T. with his old friend Bellarmine lib. 1. cap. 17. de Saramentis in genere and Mr. Blackwood in his Reply to the tenth Objection deny that Circumcision was an universal seal of faith but was onely an individual seal of the undividual faith of Abraham and so all falls to the ground which is spoken from that Text of the use of Circumcision to the Jews All that is there spoken having reference onely to Abraham in person Answer Mr. Blake tells me of an old friend of mine whom I never knew and have hitherto made him mine adversary although perhaps we may agree in some things and I think Mr. Blake and he agree in more than I do with him It seems not to me to be Bellar. opinion or Mr. Blackwoods that circumcision was onely an individual Seal of the faith of Abraham but Bellarmines opinion is that his circumcision did testifie not his individual faith but his individual privilege to be father of the faithfull which Mr. Blake agrees with him in when he saith This priority of receiving the faith and the sign and seal is proper to Abraham· And then he is as much his old friend as mine Mr. Blackwood in his Reply to the second part of the Vind. of the Birth-privilege pag. 47. saith thus So that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness which Abraham had not in persona propria but in persona relativa it sealed unto him not his own personal righteousness which he had long before but the righteousness of all believers In which I dissent from him conceiving it sealed both however his opinion seems to be otherwise than Mr. Blake represents it For my self I do not make it any seal of faith either universal or individual nor know I well what sense to make of either but this is my opinion that Abrahams individual Circumcision and no others is made Rom. 4.11 12. the seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham as the father of believers and to all believers of all Nations as his seed Now to this opinion of mine I finde nothing opposite but against another point that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith and of the Covenant to him onely which I disclaim and therefore let his arguments pass without gain-saying onely I request the Reader to take notice that Mr. Blake hath many ways mis-represented my opinion in this Ch. but hath not at all overthrown the mixture in the Covenant Gen. 17. which I assert but where he sets down my opinion rightly saith pag. 181. To this I readily agree nor hath at all so much as brought one reason to shew that my distinction shews not my turn for which I bring it which he undertook to do but leaves that thing and runs out in calumnies of me and proving that which I deny not SECT XXVII The four first Chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving Infant-baptism the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. Infants of Believers being Abraham's seed and in Covenant is shewed I Think it necessary for many Reasons afore I review the dispute about Mr. Ms. second conclusion to consider what Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham hath said in the four first Chapters of his Exercitation 1. He forestalls his Reader with things palpably false that there is nothing in all the New Testament against the baptizing of Infants not one hint from any express word dropt from Christ or his Apostles not one phrase which though never so much strained doth forbid such an act The contrary whereof is abundantly proved in the second Part of this Review Sect. 5. c. nor can any Paedobaptist finde so much against infant-communion Bell-baptism baptizing of dead persons Baptism of Midwives the Cross in Baptism and many other Prelatical and Popish usages as there is in the New Testament against infant-baptism 2. That all his Opposites have onely this to say that they can finde no syllabical precept or word of command in terms saying Go baptize Infants or any positive example where it is said in so many words Infants were baptized all that they say besides is to quarrel with and evade their arguments and that this argument is built on this false principle that no direct consequences from Scripture are mandatory the contrary whereof is so manifest out of my Examen part 3. sect 12. Apol. sect 11. which Mr. Sidenham often quotes and therefore cannot be ignorant of unless wilfully and throughout all my writings that a man can hardly conceive but that he shamelesly vented these things against his own knowledg And therefore I need not answer his Reasons to prove the use of consequence Let any Paedobaptist give me one good consequence whereby infant-baptism is proved and I shall yield the consequences of Mr. Baxter and others I finde to be meer fallacies and have and doubt not with divine assistance to shew them to be so That which he saith pag. 6. That where we have a promise laid as the foundation of a duty that is equivalent to any express command for as commands in the Gospel do suppose promises to encourage us to act â—â—em and help us in them so promises made to persons do include commands especially when the duties commanded are annexed to the promises as all New Testament Ordinances are as well as old is ambiguous and in what sense it is true it serves not Mr. Sidenhams turn to prove infant-baptism By foundation of a duty may be understood either a motive to encourage to a duty named as when it is said Him that honoureth me I will honour this promise doth suppose it a duty to honour God and is a motive to encourage to it and so is a foundation in that
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
view his proofs First saith he Rom. 9.1 2 3 4 5. The Apostle aggravating his sorrow for Israel not respective to civil or domestick but higher concernments for the whole body of Israel he reckons up their priviledges the priviledges of all that according to the flesh were Israeâ—ites priviledges formerly enjoyed but now lost nine â—n number Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in Covenant tâ— be of Gods adopted seed under the promises Answ. He might more truely have said here sure is nothing as it was printed to conclude all the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be of Gods adâ—pted seed under the promise of spiritval blessings in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it contained Gospel grace The priviledges could not be oâ— all that according to the flesh were Israelites for of them all as concerning the flesh Christ could not come now were all if any of them priviledges Evangelical from spiritual promises in the Covenant of grace but rather all of them Domestick or civil priviledges which believers of the nations had not Nor were the priviledges to the Israelites at all times but at some times And therefore this text is impertinent to Mr. Bls purpose yea this Scripture and that whâ—ch followes put together are an antithesis to his thesis Secondly saith he Rom. 11. The Apostle speaks of the casting off of Gods people Those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people those that are put out of Covenant were a people in Covenant but the natural issue of Abraham called natural branches v 21. being by right of birth of that Olive are there broken off cast off therefore the natural issue were the seed in Covenant Answ. The conclusion is granted the natural issue of Abrâ—ham who were also the spiritual seed were the seed in Covenant and such were a great part of the Jews in former ages but those broken off were never in the Covenant of grace Nor is it said they were put out of the Covenant of grace or broken off from the Olive in which they were in their persons but in which their progenitors were nor are they said to be natural branches v. 21. because by right of birth of that Olive but by reason of their descent from Abraham they are natural branches of that Olive which at first was by natural as well as spiritual descent from him but never by right of birth It is false if meant of casting off from being his people as it is meant Rom. 11.1 2 that those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people understanding it in their own persons But of this text and this argument more hath been said in the first part of this Review and more will be if the Lord permit in that which follows Thirdly saith he Matth. 8.11 12. whence he thus argues Children of the Kingdome that are to be cast out are in the Kingdome onely upon an inâ—erest of Birth for the fruition of the priviledges of Ordinances and not upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation But the children of the Kingdome were upon our Saviours sentence to be cast out therefore they were in the Kingdome onely on an interest of birth Answ. This argument 1 concludes not Mr. Bls. position that the Covenant exprest Gen. 17.7 in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. 2. It contradicts his own position for if it bee as he here saith thaâ— they were not children of the Kingdome though the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation and yet the Covenant Gen. 17.7 wherein God saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed comprehends such saving grace as creates a spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation as the Apostle Gal. 3.16 17 18 c. expounds it then the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripâ—ure they can be taken therefore this argument overthrowes his own positiâ—n 3. If by being in the Kingdome be meant being visible members of the visible Church Jewish the conclusion is granted but withal it is proved from the same text that they were never in the visible Church Christian but were opposite to it in that they embraced not the Christian Faith but opposed the Lord Jesus Christ and so had no right to baptism though they had circumcision and did eat the passeover 4 It is manifest from the text and agreed upon by interpreters that the Kingdome of Heaven in that place notes the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances For 1 the Kingdome of heaven is that wherein Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then sate down for it is said v. 1 1. they shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven But they were then sate down not in the visible Church onely nor had being in it for the fruition of â—he priviledges of ordinances but in the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven ergo 2. The Kingdome of heaven there is directly opposed to the outer darkness where is weeping and gnashing of teeth v. 12. But that which is directly opposed to the outer darkness in which is weeping and gnashing of teeth is the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaâ—en and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances ergo 3. The scope of the speech of our Saviour is conceived by most interpreters to be to abate the insolency and pride of the Jews who contemned the Gentiles Upon occasion of the Centurions faith v. 10. he tels them though they now despised the Gentiles as not worthy to eat with them yet they should come from East and West and should sit down with the best of their Ancestors in the best highest and happiest place and condition 4. Exâ—ounding it of the visible Church it were not true which our Saviour speaks For the Gentiles did never sit down with them in the visible Church for the fruition of the priviâ—edges of ordinances such as Câ—rcumcision the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper for some of these Abraham Isaac and Jacob did never partake of nor ever shall nor may the Gentiles with them partake of circumcision and the passeover for that had been to have foretold that the Gentiles should have been circumcised with those Fathers which had been to establish Judaiâ—m contrary to the Apostles decree Acts 15. to Pauls
defective in tenderness of conscience fear of God love of truth charity to a brother common modesty after his usual fashion of making out-cries without cause but could not then câ—ear it having not then so well understood his opinion nor his shifting of the terms nor being able to shew it for want of a Notary and time to view his arguments he being also very quick in urging and pressing me to answer without allowing time to weigh his arguments and therefore after much altercation concerning his meaning gave way to his proof of the Law of visible Church-membership unrepealed and neglected to keep him to the proof of the Law of admission unrepealed to mine and the Causes great disadvantage Whether Mr. B. did fraudulently or ignorantly manage the Dispute belongs to God to judge though I must needs say that I did then and do still suspect he was not free from deceit or dolus malus in it finding in a Copy I have of the Dispute That he distinguished then between visible Church membership and admission As for my self had I perceived so clearly as now I do his mind about the kind of visible Church-membership and admission of infants he asserts I should have stuck to this That though infants could have been proved visible Church members according to the Law he pretends unrepealed yet were they not to be admitted by Baptism which is appointed onely for visible Church-members by profession of faith And therefore whereas he saith he contends more for infants visible Church membership then Baptism and makes thaâ— the very heart of the controversie I conceive otherwise and do let him understand that were it not that I know that he hath very much abused me and others in that which follows I should think my tenet not overthrown nor much regard it though his Law of infants visible Church-membership were yeelded and my answer to his arguments omitted But sith things are as they are I resolve to go on The Antecedent saith he hath two parts 1. That by Gods merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church This is as far beyond all doubt as you can expect 1. Mr. T. granted it in his publick Dispute and so he doth in his Apology pag. 66. where he saith I acknowledge that in the visible Church of the Jews the infants were reckoned to the Church yet lest any should be so impudent as to deny it I briefly prove it thus 1. If infants were part of them that entred into Covenant with the Lord God and into his Oath that he might stablish them for a people to himself and he might be to them a God then infants were part of the Church But the former is plain in Deut. 29.10 11 12. to any that will read it Therefore infants were part of the Church Answ. What I did I still grant that infants were part of the Jewish Church and were circumcised but the conclusion Mr. B. infers from Deut. 29.10 11 12. is not that which Mr. B. should prove For it is not all one to say Infants were part of the Church and by Gods mercifull gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church Nor doth Deut. 29.10 11 12. prove either infants were part of the Church or their admission Their entring into Covenant was not by any act of their own but by the Elders or parents who in like manner Covenanted for the unborn v. 15. who could not thereby be visible Church-members being not then existent and therefore the Covenant there made them not visâ—ble Church-members Nor is there any proof of their admission thence they were admitted either after or before the Covenanting was not their admission for admission is the act of some person that hath that trust or office commited to him but their Covenanting was the pâ—rsons own act and if it did admit the infants then it did admit the parents Elders Captains and so they did admit themselves which is absurd and the establishing them for a people to himself is no more then as Piscator rightly Schol. in Deut. 29.13 That he might require from thee the worship of himself by obedience towards his precepts and so may binde thee to himself So the obligation of the people precedes and he might be to thee a God that is may in like manner promise to thee that he will follow thee with his grace and do thee good and so make thee happy So Gods promise followes It was a Covenant neither to make nor admit them visible Church members but to engage them to obedience and to assure them thereupon of protection and blessing and this extended to their posterity v. 15. who could not be then visible Church-members or admitted then as being not existent 2. Saith Mr. B. If infants were engaged to God by the seal of his Covenant Circumcision then they were members of his Church But some infants were so engaged therefore they were Church members this is all undeniable I never yet met with any that denied either Answ Circumcision is not stiled in Scripture the seal of the Covenant but I grant that infants were members in the Jewish Church visible admitted by Circumcision and engaged thereby though not by their own act yet according to Gods injunction and severe exaction to keep the Law and tâ—is is the onely proof of their admission Mr. B. brings out of the old Testament He adds 3 If infants were part of those that were baptized to Moses in the cloud and sea and drank the spiritual drink even of that rock which was Christ then sure they were part of the visible Church But the antecedent is plain 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. They were all baptized c. Answ. I deny the antecedent to be plain 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3. and have proved the contrary to be true in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 21. whither I refer the Reader 4. Saith he the Martyr Stephen calleth that assembly whereof they were members the Church in the Wilderness Acts 7.38 Therefore they were Church members Answ. The conclusion and proof is granted but I observe that the conclusion to be proved is altered from this by Gods merciful gift and appointment some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church into this infants were Church members part of the visible Church The 2d part of his antecedent which he saith is the onely thing I deny and which the whole weight of this argument lieth on is that this merciful gift of God to infants and ordinance of Church membership is not repealed and he saith he hath here the negative and the proof lies not on him yet he will examine my proofs and then prove the negative by a multitude of evident arguments from the Scripture that he hath shewed Scripture not questioned for it and that he may justly expect plain Scripture or argument to prove the repeal of that Law Answ. He hath shewed
But infants are not built by preaching therefore they are not parts of the Church visible 1 Cor. 1 2 The Church is of them who are called to be Saints which is by preaching the Gospel v. 23 24. But infants are not so called Ergo they are not of the visible Church Christian. Acts 2.41 47. 5.14 They who were added to the Church did all hear the word and believe But infants did not so therefore they were not added to the Church and consequently were not visible church-members They were not parts of the Church who did not come together were not gathered together for all the Church did come together with one accord in Solomons Porch Acts 5.11 12. were gathered together by the Apostle Acts 14.27 But infants were no part of them they were not with one accord any of those to whom the Apostle told what God had done with them therefore they were not part of the visible Church They were no part of the Church of God who were none of the flock of God to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers over them by the Holy Ghost to feed them For all these things are attributed to all the flock or Church of God at Ephesus Acts 10.28 But infants were none of the flock to whom the Elders were to attend as made overseers by the Holy Ghost to feed them Nurses were to attend and feed infants not teaching and ruling Elders whose work was in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 therfore infants were none of the flock or Church of God visible at that time They were no part of the Church of God who were not in duty to be sanctified by the Word For the whole Church was in duty to be sanctified by the Word as Mr. B. plain Script c. pag. 342. gathers from Ephs. 5.26 concerning Baptism But no infant is in duty to be so sanctified it were a ridiculous thing to tâ—e Preachers to sanctifie or wash infants by preaching the Word to them therefore they were no part of the Church The Churches had rest and were edified walked were multiplied Acts 9.31 Acts 12.5 Prayer was made of the Church unto God for Peter The Church at Hierusalem Acts 11 22. is said to hear tidings to send Barnabas who with Paul assemble with the Church v. 26. fit persons to convene Acts 21.22 to receive orders 1 Cor. 16.1 With many more such attributes which neither are nor can ordinarily be said of infants no nor any attribute in all the New Testament which is said of the visible Church Christian is said of infants therefore they were not accounted visible members in the first Christian Churches nor are rightly now so taken 5. They who were not reckoned as Christs Disciples were not visible church-members For as Mr. B. rightly saith plain Script c. All church-members are Christs Disciples But infants are no where reckoned as Christs Disciples This is proved 1. from the places in all the Acts of the Apostles and elsewhere where there is mention of Christs Disciples there are such things declared of them as do exclude infants from the number of them I omit Acts 1.15 6.1 2 5 7. before mentioned Acts 11.26 29. It is said that Barnabas and Saul a whole year assembled themselves with the Church and taught much people and the Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch And upon the prediction of a dearth it is said Then the Disciples every man according to his ability determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea which they also did and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul From whence this is apparent that the Church the Disciples the Christians were then Synonyma or terms importing the same pâ—â—sons so that he who was not a Disciple was not of the Church nor a Christian. But no infant was then reckoned as a Disciple This is proved from what is said of every Disciple v. 29. they determined to send and did send which none will say infants did Ergo infants were not then reckoned among Disciples Christians or members of the visible Church Christian. Acts 14.20 21 22. it is said that the Disciples stood round about Paul that he and Barnabas taught many or made many Disciples and that they confirmed the souls of the Disciples exhorting them to continue in the faith From whence it is manifest that the Disciples then were such as stood round about Paul that they were taught or made Disciples by teaching or preaching the Gospel that they were in the faith capable of confirmation and exhortation But such were not infants Ergo they were not then reckoned as Disciples and consequenâ—â—y not church-members Acts 8.3 made havock of the Church Acts 9.1 against the Disciples v. 13. the Saints at Hierusalem v. 19. the Disciples at Damascus v. 25. the Disciples v. 26. joyning to the Church is joyning to the Disciples v. 35. the Brethren v. 31. the Churches v. 38. the Disciples heard v. 41. called the Saints Acts. 15.1 it is said they taught the Brethren v. 3. being brought on their way by the Church they caused great joy unto all the Brethren v. 4. they were received of the Church v. 10. the Disciples are they whose hearts were purified by faith the whole Church v. 22. are the Brethren v. 23. who send greeting to the Brethren v. 30. they were the multitude gathered together v. 32. they exhorted the Brethren v. 33. were let go in peace from the Brethren v. 36. let us visit our Brethren v. 40. recommended by the Brethren v. 41. confirming the Churches Acts 10.2 well reported of by the Brethren v. 5. And so were the Churches established in the faith and increased in number daily v. 40. and when they had seen the Brethren they comforted them Acts 17.10 14. the Brethren sent away Paul Which passages do shew that these terms were then of the same extent and synonymous the Church the Disciples the Brethren the Believers the Saints But infants were none of the Church the Disciples the Brethren the Believers the Saints as all the passages where they are mentioned shew therefore infants were not then visible church members Acts 18.18 Paul took leave of the Brethren v. 22. he saluted the Church v. 23. strengthened all the Disciples which strengthening was by teaching and exhorting as Acts 14. â—2 shews Which infants were not capable of therefore they were not Disciples V. 27. the Brethren wrote exhorting the Disciples to receive Apollos who helped them much who believed through grace Acts 19.1 2. Paul finds certain Disciples who were Believers v. 9. separates the Disciples v. 30. the Disciples would not suffer Paul to enter in unto the people Acts 20.7 Upon the first day of the week when the Disciples came together to break bread Paul preached unto them at Troas Which shews plainly that the Disciples did use to break bread on the first day of the week and that those who were Disciples did
break bread which cannot be said of infants therefore they were not Disciples and consequently not visible church-members 2. The same is proved by those arguments which are in the second Part of this Review sect 10. to prove infants not Disciples appointed to be baptized Matth. 28.19 and by the answers to the allegatâ—ons of Mr. Cotton Mr. B. and others Sect. 11 12 c. to prove them Disciples 6. If in the distributions of the members of the Church then infants are not comprehended then infants were not visible church-members this must needs be granted or exception must be taken to those distributions But in the distributions of the Church where all sorts of members are expressed infants are not comprehended Ergo. The minor is proved from the distributions according to the sex Acts 5.14 8.12 men and women among whom was no infant for in the former place they are termed Believers in the latter they are said to believe Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God and the Name of Jesus Christ which is not to be said of infants 1 Cor. 12.13 they are distributed into Jews or Gentiles or Greeks bond or free but none an infant as is proved before in that all were baptized and did drink the Lords cup. The like is Gal. 3.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus and that is by faith v. 16. and therefore no infant meant Col. 3.11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew circumcision nor uncircumcision Barbarian Scythian bond nor free but Christ is all and in all that is by faith which is not to be said of infants To which I may adde that in Tertullians time the children of believers were not accounted actually members of the visible Church because he terms them in his book De anima c. 39. Designatos sanctitatis intended to be holy that is to be bred up to profess the faith and so to be baptized Which is the more apparent in that Hierome expresseth the same as from Tertullians boâ—k de monogamia in his Epistle to Paulinus tom 3 d. edit Basil. That the children of believers are termed holy because they are as it were Candidates of the faith And Erasmus in his Scholie on that Epistle saith Therefore they which are born of Christians are called holy also before Baptism because they do as it were seek and expect Baptism Which shews they were not counted actually church-members but such as were designed to be believers and so as it were seekers for Faith and Baptism and consequently church-members onely in expectation 2. I argue from the common received definitions of the visible Church Artic. 19. of the Church of England The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull men In the answer of the Assembly to the reasons of the seven dissenting brâ—thren p 48. of the Edition 1644. the first praecognitum is this The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to profess the saith of Christ unto the unity thereof From which union there ariseth unto every one such a relation unto and dependance upon the catholick Church as parts have to the whole Dr. John Rainold 2 d. concl The Church of Christ betokeneth a company called out from among the multitude of other men to life everlasting through faith in Christ Jesus Ball trial of Separ pag. 296. ch 13. The Church is a society of the faithfull Hudson vindic c. 1. p. 12. The universal Church is the whole company of visible believers throughout the whole world ch 6. sect 3 127. The Church visible is called entitive not because of the inward grace which is essential to an invisible member but from the reception and embracing the Christian catholick faith which is essential to a visible believer Mr. B. himself plain Script c. part 1. ch 26. The common definition of the Church affirmeth them to be a people called 〈◊〉 of the world Hence I argue All that are of the visible Church Christian are faithfull called out of the world by the preaching of the word to profess the faith of Christ visible believers receiving and embracing the Christian catholick faith This is proved from the definitions of the Church and positions received And it is clear in reason the Church being an aggregate as a flock of sheep a heap of stones as it follows therefore every part of the flock is a sheep every part of the heap a stone so every part of the Church a believer But no infant is such Ergo. In this very manner doth Guliel Apollonii considerat controv cap. 1. pag. 8. argue Thus almost all the famous reformed Divines do affirâ— the matter of a visible Church to be men outwardly called professing the faith of Christ. For they define it a company of men called out by an outward calling or preaching of the word and communication of Sacraments to the worship of God and to celebrate Ecclesiastical society among themselves To this Mr. M. in his Defence part 3. sect 3. pag. 113. saith I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the infants of such professors as the visible Church among the Jews did include their infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members Answ. Mr. M. should have shewed who and in what words of their definitions Protestant Writers include the infants of professors That some of them especially of late have asserted infants of believers to be a part of the visible Church I grant But I think Mr. M. cannot make it good that the Elder Protestant Writers did include them in their definitions of the visible Church I have produced some of the later who have so framed their definitions as that infants must be excluded And if any do include them they erre from the Scripture which never accounted them visible Christian Church members as is proved before And Sect. 51. of this Part of the Review doth sufficiently shew the Christian Church visible to have another call and constitution from the Jewish and that no person is a member of the Christian Church visible by natural generation of a believer but by profession of faith Wherefore Mr. M. saith I adde also Baptism now as well as Circumcision of old is a real though implicite profession of the Christian faith Answ. That circumcision was a profession of the Christian faith either explicite in Elder proselites or implicit in infants circumcision doth not appear The Apostles speech Gal. 5.2 3. and the tenet of the Jewish doctors Acts 15.1 5. is to the contrary Baptism after a verbal profession of faith by the baptised being his act is a real though implicit profession of the christian faith it being used by the baptised to declare his putting on Christ and so a signe of
be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant yea the Apostle concludes and proves Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. That all the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not comprehended in that promise and therefore the visible Churchmembership Christian of infants of Gentile believers câ—n have no shew of proof from the promise Gen. 17.7 and precept v. 9.10 9. Saith Mr. B. I think it is not to bee made light of as to this maâ—ter that in the great promise Gen. 12.3 the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth all the families of the earth shall be blessed as the Heb. Samar Arabic or all the kindreds as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or all the tribes as the Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised and so a Gospel blessing Ergo the Syriac adds and in thy seed and the Arab. hath by thee And the Apostle fully testifieth that So that as tribes kindreds families do most certainly comprehend the infants and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ. Answ. The blessing Gen. 12.3 is not visible Churchmembership which may be without justification but justification as the Apostle expresly expounds it Gal. 3.8 which may be without visible Church-membership Nations there doth not comprehend every member of a nation nor every one of a tribe or kindred as it is Acts 3.25 but the elect and believers of each nation tribe or kindred as the Apostle doth both v. 7. 9. shew terming them that are blessed those that are of faith Therefore though the Scripture be not to be made light of yet Mr. Bs. inference from thence is most vain the promise being not of visible Churchmembership nor to nations families kindreds entirely nor to infants of unbelievers or believers as such but to so many of all nations kindreds and families as are believers or elect Whereby Mr. B. may see how infants can be excluded these families and this promise without apparent violence to the Text. 10. Saith he Note that as infant Churchmembership is here clearly implied in infant Circumcision so they are two distinct things and as the sign is here commanded de novo so the thing signified I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant is commanded with it though not de novo as a thing now beginning as the sign did So that here is in Circumcision not onely a command to do the circumcising outward act but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant and so withal for the parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God and devote them to him as his separated peculiar people So that here are two distinct duties concurrent â—he one external newly instituted the other internal not newly instituted And therefore the former may cease and yet the later stand and it 's no proof that the later Covenant engagement of infants to God is ceased because the sign of Circumcision is ceased no more then it proves that such Covenant engagement did then begin when Circumcision did begin or that women were not Churchmembers separated engaged dedicated to God in infancy because they were not circumcised And no more then you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were uncircumcised for 40 years So that here you have a a command for entring infants as Churchmembers And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3 Gen. 17. Answ. I do indeed but not such as Mr. B. should produce a promise of infants visible Churchmembership and a precept of their entring unrepealed there being no such promise of believers infants visible Churchmembership or precept of admission as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision which Mr. B. will not sure say is unrepealed As for his discourse of a duty of engaging separating to God and dedicating which is internal and not instituted de novo it is neither in Gen. 12. nor Gen. 17. nor if it were is it any thing to the purpose For neither doth such an internal duty make or admit or enter an infant into the visible Church either Jewish or Christian. According to Mr. B. himself infants are visible Churchmembers afore it yea without it nor is the admission or entering into the Church visible by it but by an outward sign as he himself determines part 1. ch 4. of Baptism And this sure is now Baptism which Mr. B. I presume will not now allow to parents for then they should be Ministers of the Seals which he counts one of my six errours I never denied an internal duty of faith prayer vowing c. for the engaging and dedicating infants to God prayer for them is practised by me in publick but I deny that this makes them visible Churchmembers or admissable by Baptism He adds And when I consider the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah I think it far more probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy then that she was entred afterwards at age or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her Answ. What in the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah Mr. B. observes which should make it in any degree probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy I know not There are such things related Gen. 31. of Laban her brother and Rachel his daughters Idols as me thinks should move Mr. B. to conceive that either in that house there was no Church of God or at best a very impure one though it is likely their idolatry and wickedness was not so great as that of the the Canaanites which made them more desirable and eligible wives for Isaac and Jacob then the daughters of the Canaanites whom Esau chose Mr. B. adds And as here are before mentioned standing Covenants so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be further then to Abrahams natural seed not onely in the express promise of the blessing to all the nations or families on earth of which before but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is common to Abraham with other true believers For Gen. 22.16 17 18. it 's thus alledged because thou hast done this thing c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice And Gen. 26.3 4 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac and the same reason assigned because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my commandments my statutes and my laws How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing I am not determining but taking the words as I find them in general I may conclude that they are here given as a cause or reason of it some
a sufficient reason for infant baptism as will be shewed in the sequel The first thing I except against this Exposition that when it is said Gen. 12.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he takes it for granted it is to bee understood actively as if the meaning were that Abraham should be a blessing to others whereas as Pareus in his Com saith it may be an amplification of the things going before thou shalt bee altogether and very blessed in which sense we use often the abstract for the contract as a man very honest is called honesty Yea the LXX render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt be blessed Piscat schol Vel esto in benedictionâ— hoc est benedictus Diodati annot Blessed every way as if all blessings were gathered together in thee or a pattern of a compleat blessing 2. That he takes iâ— as iâ— what is said must bee applicable to all believers that they shall be blessings in their generations But this is not proved from the text which onely speaks of Abraham being a blessing and though it is true Heb. 6.14 the promise of blessâ—ng to Abraham is made a promise of which all believers are heyrs v. 17. yet is it plain from many passages in that Chapter v 9 11 12 15 18 19. that it is meant that they are heirs of the promise of blessing to themselves in enjoying salvation as Abraham did not of imparting blessing to others 3. That he takes it as if it must follow that if Abraham were a blessing to others it must bee in that spiritual blessings according to election were in some proportion entailed to the postâ—rity and neighbourhood of all true believers But Pareus thus Some expound it actively thou shalt be a blessing that is thou shalt bless others my blessing shall not bee shut up in thee alone but out of thee it shall flow also to others Blessing shall so stick in thee wheresoever thou comest that by thy ministry others may also come to a blessing Nor do the exposition of some Hebrews seem to bee refused that Abraham shall be a publike example of all sort of blessing in the world so that all that wish well to themselves or oâ—hers may wish for the happiness of Abraham Or as the new annot in Gen. 12.2 shalt be a blessing That is more then thou shalt have a blessing for in this blessing is virtually comprised the happiness of both worlds and of all that are truely blessed in all ages whereof though God be the onely Author Abraham is honoured to bee a principal means under him to bring it to pass in being the progenitour of the promised seed and setting such an example of beliefe as might qualifie him to be stiled father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 12. The world shall receive by thy seed which is Christ the blessing which it lost in Adam Mr. C. himselfe denies not to bee included in this promise that of Abraham and his seed the Lord CHRIST should come but saith if it bee restrained onely to this then it will follow that all those of the Line of CHRIST were blessings to the World as well as hee To which I reply 1. if the sense given be included as he grants then his sense is not necessary nor can any thing be proved by it 2. Though the speech in the sense given bee restrained yet the absurdity followes not sith the being a blessing by begetting Christ is not so invested in any as in Abraham who is made the first Trustee as it were of this blessing by the Covenant or Charter granted to him 4. I except that in the promise In thee or in thy seed shall all the families or Nations of the earth bee blessed Mr. Carter conceives thee and thy seed to comprehend every believer Whereas the Apostle expounds Acts 3.25 in thy seed of Christ onely and in thee Galath 3.8 9. of Abraham onely with whom as the pattern oâ— believing and beeing blessed they which bee of the faith are blessed I deny not that by Abrahams seed believers are meant Gen. 17.7 and Gen. 15.5 and that the Apostle Rom. 4.18 Gal. 3.29 and elsewhere so expounds it But no where do I finde the promises Gen. 1â— 3 18.18 22.18 expounded so as that in thy seed should noâ—e every believer and the sense in which Mr. Carter takes it as if in every believer all the families of the earth should bee blessed it is derogatory from Abrahams peculiar priviledge one way understood another from Christs and not much short of blasphemy 5. That hee makes families and nations of the earth to bee different in the promises mentioned as appears by his words and that chiefly and in the first place to their families and not onely so but also to nations whereas the holy Ghost makes no such difference For as the same promise which is expressed by families Gen. 12.3 is expressed by nations Gen. 18.18 so in the new Testament the promise Gen. 12.3 where the word is rendred families is expressed Gal. 3.8 by nations and the term which is Gen. 22.18 all the nations of the earth is Acts 3.25 all the kindreds or families of the earth as Mr. C. would have it 6. Mr. C. seems by families to whom believers should be a blessing children as when hee saith God will ordinarily cast children elect upon elect parents and by nations neighbourhoods as when hee saith the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together whereas families in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the LXX Gen. 12.3 that is tribes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 3.25 notes more then posterity or housholds even whole tribes and kinreds that draw their line from one great Ancestour and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a whole people of one language though in their dwellings so remote as to have no entercourse one with another I will not trouble my self to enquire what difference there is between the words in Hebrew and Greek which are translated families tribes kindreds nations This I am sure they contain greater and more ample numbers of men then those who live together under one roof or one town and if from thence the extent of the Covenant be inferred to posterity of believers and their neighbours and so the seal of the Covenant as Mr. C. doth because believers are promised to bee a blessing to posterity and neighbours it will follow from the termes families and nations that they are blessings to whole parishes townes cities and nations and they are to be baptised and parochial city national Churches to bee set up again against which Mr. C. with his brethren have so much hitherto contended 7. By Mr. Cs. exposition whereas the promises are that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in a believer this is brought to so narrow a compass as that it is restrained to posterity and neighbourhood 8. The manner how in believers their posterity
personal profession but deny 1. That thâ—â— promise Gen. 17.7 I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed is a tacit and implicit profession or makes of it self parties in Covenant externally 2. That infants born of covenanted parents are in covenant with God because they are born of such parents as are in covenant with God Gen. 17.7 What is said Deut. 4.37 Deut. 10.15 is meant onely of the people of Israel as the very words brought out of Egypt as it is this day shew nor is there a word in those verses of their being in covenant with God because born of such parents but of Gods special choise of that people It is false which he saith that the Apostle Acts 2.39 speaks in the very terms and words of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 It is true rather that hee speaks in never a term or word there used It is as false that the Apostle commanded any other to be baptized Acts 2.38 then whom he commanded to repent Did he not presume that Anabaptists as hee terms us were very Blockheads hee would not not presume that wee should believe his vain dictates when the very copulative term shews the same are spoken to in one and the other command and the words being an answer to the question v. 37. shew they are directed to those who spake v. 37. And the word you used in the precept of Baptizing contains the same with those who were to receive remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost and are distinct from their children v. 39. and therefore cannot be meant of their children much less of their infant children whom it had been ridiculous for Peter to have commanded to be baptized How pertinent the answer had been as I expounded it is often shewed before though their children crucified not the Lord Jesus nor were concerned either in the evil of their parents who crucified the Lord of glory nor in the good of their repentance more then stones yet I know no Anabaptists whose grounds infer that the Jews children who crucified Christ were not visibly in Covenant with their parents not capable of actual hearing the word mourning for and repenting of their sins as Zach. 12.10 Matth. 3.8 9 10. nor concerned either in the evil of their parents nor in the good of their repentance more then stones nor do I conceive it true that the opposites of infant Baptism say that Covenant promises are no more made to children then to stones but that these are vile calumnies of Mr. Rutherford unfit for such a man as he is taken to be How Isa. 2.2 3. 19.24 25. Psal. 22.27 Revel 11.15 Isa. 60.1 2 3 4. Mal. 1.11 Psal. 2.8 9. 72.7 8 9 10. are to be understood of persons adult onely and yet infants not cut off from the Covenant is shewed Review part 2. sect 9. and elsewhere It is not contrary to Acts 2.39 to say that Covenant promises are not to the children of Believers and yet it hath been fulfilled that the Gentiles and Heathen are become the Lords people What he saith out of Exod. 20.6 Psal. 37 26. 112.2 Deut. 28 is answered here sect 64.70 71. It is not true that Paul Rom. 11.16 saith the same of the Jews root and branches Fathers and children which he saith 1 Cor. 7.14 of the unbelieving yoke fellowes sanctification in the yoke fellow and their childrens holiness Nor is it true that the same Covenant which was made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was made with the Corinthians 2 Cor. 6.16 or any of the texts he cites there being none of them that promise that God would bee a God to them and their seed His allegations from Heb. 7.22 Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. are shewed to bee frivolous here sect 66. and elsewhere What he talks of a Father having no warrant to offer the Covenant of grace to one Pagan more then another if children be not in covenant is vain the offer of the Covenant of grace being nothing else but the preaching of the Gospel which is to be to all Mark 16.15 whether in Covenant or no. The allegation that the promise Gen. 17.7 is made onely to the elect Rom. 9.8 is a plain proof of this position that the natural children of Abraham and consequently Believers children now except elected have not that promise made to them and therefore are not in covenant by Gods act of promise to them which doctrine Mr. Rutherford himself taught in his Apologetical exercit 2. c. 2. p. 306. when he said The elect alone are said in Scriptures federate sons and heirs of promise Rom. 9.8 And to Christ alone the Prince and leading heir are the promises made Gal. 3.16 Psal. 89.26 27. in him to his seed and children given to him of the Father Heb. 2.13 Nor can he here deny that the sons of the promise are the chosen of God in whom the word takes effect Which if true then it is most false that a Believers seed not chosen is in covenant with God by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 and his allegation of it and Acts 2. â—9 and other places for baptism of believers infants whether elect or not as having that promise made by God to them is manifestly impertinent Nevertheless we need not say that there are none covenanted with God but the chosen under the New Testament or that there is no such thing as an external visible covenanting with God under the New Testament but say that no infant doth visibly externally covenant with God so as thereby to be entitled to Baptism sith no persons are to bee baptized by Christs appointment but such as in their own persons do profess the saith The priviledges mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 Mr. Rutherford himself appropriates to the Jews Due right of Presbyteries ch 4. sect 5. pag. 192. What he saith pag. 77 78 79 80. is all answered before chiefly in answer to Mr. Blake Review par 2. sect 9 or here sect 46 47 48. or in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal And if it were not yet the Reader may discern its impertinency sith the thing hee endeavours to prove is an external visible covenanting in the New Testament which can be onely on mans part and being in covenant thereupon and right to Baptism and is not denied whereas his position he should prove is that the Covenant choise on Gods part is extended to the seed of Believers as such in the New Testament p. 73. His words pag. 80. They cannot be baptized but as in covenant with God are true if meant of being in covenant by their profession externally but so infants are excluded if of Gods covenanting or promise are false and so are those other words We are the same way in covenant as the Jews were and our visible Church now and the visible Church then are of the same constitution I call not the Covenant Gen. 17. civil but mixt containing some promises civil some spiritual or rather
real saving holiness intentional as Rom. 11.26 the Jews uncalled are holy designati sanctitati ac per hoc etiam saluti conceive they have as good proof for it as the Dr. for his 5. Baptism is not proved to be the lowest degree imaginable of relative holiness in the Christian Church nor the lowest degree of visible profession For 1. there is a lower degree by freedome from Idol pollutions such as Tertullian mentions c. 39. de animá 2. There is a degree of holiness by vow or prayer such as Hannah devoted Samuel by 1 Sam. 1.11 which Josephus Antiq l. 5. c. 11. terms consecrating or sanctifying to God as the Greek version terms Numb 6.2 3. the separating of the Nazarite by vow a sanctifying and the Apostle prayer in the use of food a sanctifying it 1 Tim. 4.5 3. There is a lower degree of visible profession in the catechumeni not yet baptized then Baptism is 4. There is a lower degree of sanctification of them according to Augustine l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. cited before by the Dr. here p. 63 64. when â—e said Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari whence the Dr. himself saith there that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands of which we sometimes read in the Ancients as hath elsewhere been shewed 6. Nor is it proved that a person may not have the higher degree of holiness in the Cnurch without Baptism Sure a person may be converted regenerated afore Baptism and so holy And it is yet a question whether all the Apostles and Prophets in the Church were baptized though I doubt not they were and that regularly they should be yet the very questioning it shews the argument not to hold irrefragably that he that is not baptized hath no part of relative holiness in the Church of God or that all superiour degrees of Apostle Prophet c. in the Christian Church are founded in that Lastly it is apparent that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is not Baptism in that it is from the birth and so afore Baptism and from the parent not from the Minister may be though the child be never baptized is derived from the lawfulness of marriage society not from the belief of one or both parents and therefore not Baptism as the Dr. so far as I know without any example ancient or modern makes it He adds My second followes from the notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 10.14 for those that must not be received into the Church as on the other side Gods cleansing is Gods reputing him fit to bee partaker of this priviledge whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptism are exprest by holy and unclean To this he answers by acknowledging the conclusion viz. the fitness of the expression All his exception is against my premise the notion of unclean Act. 10. which saith hee signifies there not onely one out of the Church but also one that a Jew might not go into or eat with To this I reply that my conclusion being granted I may safely part with that which inferred it as when I am arrived at my journeys end I have no further need or use of my horse or guide that brought me thither Let it be remembred that holy and unclean fitly express those that are received or not received to baptism and then I am sure I have not offended against the propriety of the words by concluding from this text that in the Apostles time the believers children were received to Baptism And if I have as little offended against the rational importance of the words in that place as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have then I hope I am perfectly innocent in inducing my conclusion As for the use of the phrase Act. 10. though now I need not contend yet I may add that the notion of not entring to and eating with containing under it this other of not baptizing for sure he might not baptize those to whom he might not enter and the baptizing Cornelius and not onely the entring to him being the end for which Peter received that vision I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism and the holiness on the contrary reception to that priviledge Answ. 1. I granted the fitness of the expression onely conditionally if the holy Ghost had so thought good but denied the holy Ghost did so and therefore he may offend against the propriety of the words notwithstanding my concession and hath as much need of his horse to get to his journeys end as if I had not yeelded so much 2. How much he hath offended against the rational importance of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14 is shewed before 3. Were the fitness of the expression absolutely granted yet with the Drs. leave I conceive he needs to contend about the use of the phrase in his sense or else he will not be able to infer any thing for his purpose sith it is not the fitness of an expression but the use of words which must direct us in our expositions as being vis norma loquendi 4. That the use of it Acts 10.14 is not for the Drs. purpose is manifest For 1. the Dr. thus expounds common or unclean by not received to Baptism now if this were the notion of unclean Acâ—s 10.14 then when Peter saith I have never eaten any thing common or unclean hee meanes hee never eat any thing nor received into the Church by Baptism and when v. 15. it is said what God hath cleansed that call thou not common the meaning is what God hath baptized reject thou not from Baptism which is too ridiculous an exposition to be urged 2. If it be said that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or covered sense doth import it neither is that true For 1. it is certain that in the latent meaning the Apostle discerned by the vision that which is common or unclean to be meant v. 28. of one of another nation and the eating keeping company or going to which is also gathered from Acts 11.3 where the thing objected was that he went in to the uncircumcised and did eat with them So that from hence it is manifest that the proper notion of unclean is in that place according to the subsense which the vision aimed at one that being uncircumcised might not be gone into to talk with familiarly and and eat with though he were one that feared God Which cannot bee meant of want of baptism for so the clean to wit the unbelieving Jews were unclean they were not baptized with Christian baptism but of exclusion from familiar society and converse 2. On the other side by Acts 10.15 What God hath cleansed that call thou not common Peter v. 28. shews he understood allowance
Talmud Gemara Maimonides 8. How uncertain are their determinations even to those that read them how cross one to another appears somewhat by what is said before 9. Their intimations of this custome are but obscure and their declarations in sundry of the points in difference with so little evidence that such as Dr. H. and Mr. Selden dâ—ffer about them 10. The indications in Scripture Joh. 3.5 10. are not such but that as hath been shewed it may well be doubted whether they point at the custome of baptizing for initiating into Covenant or another usage at the birth of infants 11. The matter it self speaketh not at all to us who know not the usage 12. The Dr. himselâ— saith p. 8. here It is highly unreasonable that an institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should be judged of by any other rule but either the words wherein the institution is set down or by the records of the practise whether of Christ or the Apostles therefore it is highly unreasonable that the controversie of infant Baptism should be judged by Jewish writers 13. If Christs sole authority and practise of his Apostles be sufficient Direâ—â—ory for Christians in the use of Batism as the Dr. saith here he doth very ill to make the Jewish custome not known but by Jewish writers of dubious credit the pattern of it and to expound Christs institution by it as if the Dial were to be set by the clock and not the clock by the Dial and all the Drs. pains about the Jewish custome of baptising is superfluous and so oneâ—ous to the reader and his way of probation of infant Baptism which he counts more perfect then other ways is found to be most imperfect and of no validity but meerly delusory I added 4. The institution and practise would have been conformable to it The Dr. tels me And so I say and have made it cleur that it was as far as to the controversie in hand we are or can bee concerned in it To which I return 1. That if the Jewish custome were the pattern whence Christ copied out Baptism it was so in all things or else it was not the pattern no man calls that the pattern which having many particuiars in it is followed but in one 2. The Dr. hath not made it appear by any testimony of Scripture or Father but onely by his own confident speeches that ever Christ copied out his institution of Baptism from the Jewish custome or if he did it is most evident both from the Commission Matth. 28.19 and from all the practise in the New Testament if he altered it in any thing he altered it in this thing though the Dr. would face us down He hath made clear by nothing but his own sayings that the institution and practise of Christ and his Apostles have been conformable to it as far as to the controversie in hand he is or can bee concerned in it Yet he hath so much ingenuity as to add But saith Mr. T. the contrary appears adding one main instance of the inconformity and 14. lesser disparities The main disparity saith he is in their baptizing no infants of the Gentile at their first conversions whereas the Jews baptized onely the Gentiles infants at their first proselyting not the infants of those who were baptized in infancy For the former of these he offers no manner of proof beyond his own affirmation and therefore it is sufficient to deny it aâ— he knowes we do and evidently begs the question in assuming and not offering any proof to the contrary Answ. This is refuted so fully by all the fore going Sections of that Book of mine to which he answers and the confessions of my Antagonists and the story of the New Testament all along besides what is said in this part of the Review sect 52.94 that I think the Dr. hardly could say this without reluctancy of conscience That he denied that at their first conversions no infants of the Gentiles were baptized by the Apostles I did not know yea I had reason from his own words Letter of resolut qu. 4. § 21â— to conceive he did not deny it forasmuch as if any place did evince the baptizing of infants of Gentiles at their first conversion they must be those places Acts 16.33 1 Cor. 1.16 Yet the Dr. saith the mention in Scripture of the Apostles baptizing a whole houshold at once Acts 16.33 is not of it self demonstrative or convincing because that wider phrase may possibly be restrained to those that heard and believed in that family and it is not certain of either of these the Goâ—lers or Stephanus houshold that they had any so young as infants in their family therefore it is confessed that no concluding argument can be deduced thence If he deny it now he affirms the contrary and so is to prove it which that he either hath done or ever will I do not imagine A negative argument from Divine testimony in this case is demonstrative till the contrary be made good The Dr. adds For the second that of the Jewish practise he pretends no more then what hee had before cited by reference but now sets down in words viz. the affirmation of Mr. Selden But I have already shewed how groundless that affirmation of Mr. S. was as to the native Jews children who were still baptized after the giving of the Law And the same I now add for the children of those Proselytes who had been baptized in infancy there appears not the least proof of this from the Jewish writers who are the onely competent witnesses in it Answ. If there were no more proof brought then what hath been that the Jews baptizing the infants at first Proselytism and the Apostles no infants at first conversion it were proved that the Apostles practise of baptism was not conformable to the Jewish custome And for the other point Mr. Seldens affirmation is in the judgement of such as knew both as good as Dr. Hammonds negation I confess I have not those Jewish writers he refers to nor some Books of Mr. Selden de successione in bona defuncti c. 26. lib. 1. de successione in Pontificatu cap. 2. in which by his reference I guess he hath more â—ully handled this point yet do I imagin that knowing the accurateness of the writer any Reader will conceive that he had clear evidence for what he wrote or else he would not have so often and so plainly avouched it that the children of Proselytes after the first baptizing were not baptized but onely circumcised according to the Jewish custome But the Dr. saith But for the contrary I propose these two testinies taken notice of by Mr. S. himself de Synedr c. 3. out of Gemara Babylon He wants the right of a Proselyte for ever unless he be baptized and circumcised Here Baptism and Circumcision are joyned together as equally necessary to a Proselyte and that for ever And Circumcision there is no doubt was to be
sect 5 c. what from Fathers in this and some othâ—r of my writings that which Christ prescribed is indispensably to be used to baptize inâ—â— the Name of the Father Son and Holy but all the question is about these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost whether Christ have prescribed them to be indispensably used so as thaâ— if any say I baptize thee in the name of Christ or the Lord Jesus or be thou baptized or aâ— the Greeks use it Let this servant of Christ bee baptized into the Name of Father Son and Spirit or This pâ—rson is baptized by â—e into the profession and owning of the Father of Christ the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent and the Comforter whom he sent as his Lord and Master this be not agreeable to Câ—rists prescription I conceive it is and that neither did Christ prescribe those very words the Dr. seâ—s down but the thing of which Grotius â—nnâ—t in Matth. â—8 19 may be seen where the Dr. may see that to be baptized into the Name is not all one with bapâ—izing with the express naming of each oâ— these but another thing and how the ancients varied in their expressions and how Irenâ—us lib. 3 c. 20. saith In nomine Christi subauditur qui unxiâ— ipse qui unctus est ipsa unctio in qâ—a â—nctuâ— eâ—â— Nor the Apostles when they prescribed Baptism into the name of Christ without mentioning the other persons Acts 2.38 10.8 8.16 Luâ—â—bard l. 4. sent dist 3. â—ui baptizat in nomine Christi baptizâ—t in nomine â—rinâ—tatis quae ibi intelligitur and this Ambrose before spake iâ— lib. 1. de sâ—ir sanct c. 3. â—iscat schol in Matth. 28.19 But it is not to be thought that in these words Christ commands Misters oâ— Pastors of the Church that in baptizing they should pronounce these words baptize thee into the Name of the Father c. Fatherâ—c â—c which may be done although those wordâ— be not â—ronounced in baptizing And therefore thaâ— which I â—aid needed not bee somewhat stâ—â—nge in the Dr. And for the words of the Drs. Practicâ—l catech l 6. § 2. the words do shew what I said the Dr. confessed to have been no misâ—â—eporting of his words who did not say he affirmed the putting under water used by the primitive Church to be appointed by Christ exclusiâ—ely to sprinkling but tâ—at by Christs appointment the baptized was to be dâ—pt in waâ—eâ— i.e. according to the primitive ancient custome to bee put under waâ—er and said expresly be allowed of sprinkling and yet varied from the Jâ—wish pattern which requirâ—d immersion and from Christs appointment which though he propounded dâ—sâ—junctively yet I knew it could â—ot â—e so understood and from the primitive custome and yet in another thing nâ—t so prescribed will have it to be indispensably used which shews his variableness SECT XCVII Matth. 28.19 Infants are excluded from being subjects of Baptism notwithstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions TO what Dr. H. Defence of infants Baptism ch 2. sect 1. saith I reply 1. That his writing for the Common Prayer Book is evidence of ascribing more then was meet to the Canons of Prelates sith thâ— Common Prayer Book stood as well by the Prelates Canons as the Act of Parliament and those that are for the one are for the most part for the other 2. It appears to me that he hath offended much against the Sacrament of Baptism in his Defence of infant Baptism the use of sureties sprinkling in stead of Baptism according to the Common Prayer Book all which are mentioned before 3. This to me is a signe that the Dr. ascribes too much to the Canon which enjoyned subscription and conformity to the Common Prayer Book in that he hath opposed as much I think as any man of his rank the reformation of these and such other faults as were in it 4. If there were a Catechesis in the term allegation then my use of it proves not my signification that the Dr. did produce Matth. 28.19 as a proof of his posâ—tion yet when I consider how the Dr. Letter of resol q. 4. sect 14 25. doth make the Jewish baptism the pattern whence the Christian is copied out and saith Christian baptism hath nothing in the Copy to exclude Christians children which copy is set down in the N. T. i e. in the words of institution and these words § 25. are no other then those Matth. 28.19 which he endeavours to prove not onely not to exclude but also to include Christians children as he speaks § 121. Christs baptism being founded in the Jews custome of baptizing of Proselytes and the custome among them being known to be this to baptize the Proselytes and their children the indefinite command of baptizing all nations was all that was needfull to comprehend the children also of those that received the faith of Christ. I do still conceive he did allege Matth. 28.19 as a proof of his position though not by it self yet with his imagined pattern of the Jewish custome and that though he would not openly yet by his contending so much for the equivalency of Disciple and Proselyte and the extent of the term Proselyte and his acknowledgement of these words to be the copy in the N.T. he did tacitely yeeld that if those words Matth. 28.19 include not infants under the discipled then there is something in the N. T. which excludes infants from Baptism Nor is he at all relieved by what he saith that whatever were the notion of Discipling there yet â—ee could not deem infants thereby excluded from Baptism whom by another medium viz. the Apostolical practice hee supposed to be admitted to it by Christs institution for that very medium is to prove it to have been Christs institution and Matth. 28.19 comprehends the words of institution and is the copy of the original and therefore it 's tacitely implied that if infants be noâ— proved to bee included Matth. 28.19 there is something against infant Baptism in the N. T. nor is it true that in that which is not included is not presently excluded for in all such institutions or appointments what is not included iâ— presently excluâ—ed Our Lord argues Matth. 19.5 6. two shall bee one flesh therefore more then two are excluded the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.23 thus Châ—ist appointed the Lords Supper therefore no otherwise wine is appointed therefore water is excluded eating is prescribed therefore reservation is excluded let the self-examiner eat therefore infants excluded the Dr. himself baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost prescribed Mat. 2â— 19 therefore that from indispensably to be used If the Dr. would look on such a despicable piece he might see this further proved in that Book a part whereof hee answers Review part 2. sect 5. â—f not he may finde enough in Jewels Sermon at Pauls Cross 1560. and in all sorts of Protestant
Ergo. 3. Dr Haâ—mond saith Leâ—â—er of resol q. 4. § â—5 To make disciples Joh. 4.1 and baptise is all one wiâ—h disciple baptising Matth. 2â— 19 But in this according to the Dr. there is not any kinde of direction to that matter of receiving and admitting infants or not infants therefore Joh. 4.1 is no mention of their baptizing infants and so no infanâ—s baptized by them 2. If Christ had instituted infant Baptism doubtless hee would have apâ—ointed it and the Disciples practised it on those mentioned Matth. 19.13 14 15. Mark 10 1â— 14 15 16. Luk 1â— 15 16 17. But he did not appoint nor they practise baptism on tâ—em for it is said Matth. 9.15 that when he had put his hands on them he dâ—parted thence which shews no more was done to â—hem then was before set down whereof none was their baptizing Ergo 4. It is false that direction to baptise infants was sufficiently notified to the Apostles by Christ. For 1. the common practise of the Jews could not notifie it to them Câ—rist â—o where appointing them to baptize according to the Jewish manner nor did they For they baptized râ—ther aâ—ter Johns mannâ—â— Joh. 4.1 but that was not as the 〈◊〉 as appeares by their excepting against and rejecting his Baptism Lukâ— 30. 2. The vulgar notion â—f Baptism did not noâ—ifie it 〈…〉 notion of baptism did not express one sort or other yea â—hey used to baptize other things Mark 7 3 4. besides persons 2. If the vulâ—ar notion of Baptism did notifie infant Baptism then it did notifie iâ— Maâ—th 28 19. where it is expressed But the Dr. saith those words are not any kinde of direâ—â—ion to that matter of receiving and admitting infants or noâ— infants Ergo. 3. The special direction of Christ did not notifie iâ— if iâ— diâ— let it be shewed To say the Gospels express not at all the words of the first institution of â—aptism nor do set that down is against the Dr. For it is an high presumption in any man to assert such a special direction of Christ as neither the Gospels nor other sacred writings set down and if this may bee done Apocriphal traditions may bee vented as Papists and others have done telling us all that CHRIST did and said is not written John 20.30 Besides Christ gave no other special direction to the Apostles towards the Jewes about Baptism afore that was done which wee read John 4.1 then hee did to them towards the Gentiles Matth. 28.19 For that was a copy of the Pattern But he did not there appoint infant Baptism as the Dr. acknowledgeth Ergo. From all which I infer that Christ gave no other direction about Baptism then what is expressed Matth. 28.19 and that there hee gave directions about inâ—ants bapâ—izing or not baptizing and that the presrciption there is to bee indispensably used not onely about the form of words in baptism but also about the persons whâ—m we may baptize and that infants are excluded shall bee proved in that which followes Nor is this a pralusory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Dr. termes it but such a just dissertation as toucheth the main of the cause and shewes the Doctors usurpation on Christs prerogative in defending such Baptism as is otherwise then Christ appointed nor hath he brought one proof for what he saith hee hath made evident that Matth. 28 1â— was not the institution of Baptism nor any intimation on either side whether infants should he baptized or not but contradicted himself and manifestly perverted the Scripture Sect. 2. The Dr. saith to my exception that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendred make Disciples yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well paraphâ—ased by receive into Discipleship all Nations baptizing them For by this the making Disciples is made the same with receiving into Discipleship or receiving Disciples and Baptism the ceremony of receiving into Discipleship which is as truly the act of the baptized thereby professing or avouching his Discipleship thus Here is another subtilty of a refined nature making a difference betwixt making Disciples and receiving into Discipleship or receiving Discipâ—es As if these two were not perfectly synonymous and by me evidently used as such I shall not dispute of words when the matter is clear and when it is equally to my purpose which phrase is used whether making or receiving Disciples Answ. Either phrase would not have been equally to the Doctors purpose making Disciples not being applicable to infants aâ— perhaps it may be thought receiving Disciples may but whether either serve the Doctors turn or no and however the Dr. use them or censure my diâ—â—inction of them yet I take his confounding them to bee a gross mistake and such as perverts the text and should have been proved by him afore he thus used it And against it I thus argue 1. Those termes are not perfeâ—â—ly synonymous whereof the one imports that which may bee without the other this I think none will deny But making Disciples may bee without receiving them This is manifest For a person is not a Disciple afore he is made but he is made a Disciple before he is received therefore the one may bee without the other 2. The agents may be divers in making and receiving Disciples a woman may make a Disciple but not receive him 3. The meanes is different the making Disciples is by teaching as shall bee shewed in that which followes and is an act of diligence the receiving iâ— admission by authority 4. Making imports an action receiving rather a passion 5. Making Disciples doth presuppose a privation of it yâ—a perhapâ— averseness from it receiving presupposeth a habit attained and a willing offer 6. The making Disciples may be to another but receiving Disciples is to bee ascribed to the master to whom they aâ—e Dâ—sciples as to himself receiving them 7. Dr. Hammond acknowledgeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to import the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jâ—hn 4.1 Letter of resol q. 4. § 25. but John 4.1 it cannot bee rendered receive Discipleâ— therefore neiâ—her Matth 28 19. 8. Neiâ—her Matth. 28.19 nor any where else hath any translâ—tor I knew rendered receive Disciples but many make Disciples and make it as the Dr. the phrase parallel to John 4.1 and therefore it is singular and absurd to render it here receive Disciples Secondly saitâ— he When hee affirms of Baptism which I make the ceremony of the Apostles receiving them that 't is as trueâ—y the 〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized this is no subâ—ilty but gross and visible enough For certainly Baptism in the active sense as it is plain I understand it in that place where I paraphrase Go and make Disciples and Baptize is not the act of the baptized but of the Baptist The comming to Baptism indeed and the undertaking the vow and making the profession is the act of the baptized either personally or by his proxy which in reputation of Law and in acceptation of the Church
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is
to the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world and that he might be known was to be baptized of him We can therefore easily imagine that the Jews that believed â—ohn and came to his Baptism did not bring infant children with them to save them from predicted evils because wee reade that they tâ—at were baptized of him confessed their sins Matth. 3.5.6 justified God Luk 7.29 Nor was Baptism appointed to them as to Proselytes infants nor do wee reade that John Baptist gave any inkling of his minde to have infants brought And it iâ— a signe to me that the Dr. is confident that hee can leade men in a string who adventures to â—uggest such things as he confesseth the Scripture affirms nothing of it and tradition as little as far as he knows and neither affirms nor beleives any thing in it and onely upon a supposition that infanâ— câ—ildren would have been brought 〈◊〉 Noahs Ark if men had beleived Noah and Johns Baptism was as Noahs Ark stiled the Kingdome of heaven whereas Johns and Christs Baptism are not made answerable to Noahs Ark in respect of the bare outward baptism nor is it stiled the Kingdome of heaven but the answer or interrogation of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and the preaching beleiving of the Gospel throughout the world Mar. 1.14 15. which they who were baptized were to entertain and not infants and therefore not to be baptized till they did And wee may with better reason then the Dr. gives of his fancy conceive Gods providence rather ordered there should be no infants in Noahs Ark that we might not fancy infants baptism thence then that we should as this Dr. or doatard supposeth Yet again saith he Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Maâ— 10. Fâ—rst 't is there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely and sure that phrase comprehends the lambs also the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men by the addition of their actual to original sin And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also Answ. Because we reade of no such thing done or appointed to be done nor do we know that baptism was appointed to bee a remedy of original sin though some of the Ancients talk so besides the Scripture The Dr. adds And 2. for their preaching it is just as as Johns was to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction that vindicative act of God kingdome v. 7. that all that shâ—uld give ear and heed them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life and the ruine being impendent to the young as well as old even the whole nation why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their Parents care in bringing them to baptism and timely ingaging them to flye from the wrath to come as soon as they should come to understanding injoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity Answ. It was fit they should enjoy the benefit of others charity in their Prayers and supply of â—uch things as were meet for them of which sort the Apostâ—es Baptism was not nor did they understand it was Christs minde that they were senâ— to baptize them for then they had baptized them and not rebuked those that brought them to Christ Matth. 19.13 Nor by bringing them to Baptism were children rescued from the wrath to come but by reformation and new life Thirdly saith he after their preaching though there be no mention of baâ—tizing and so it was not fit to be produced to our present bâ—siness yet other things are appointed to be done wherein infants were concerned as well as others as healing of diseases c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized why should it not to their receiving cures Answ. Because that they might be baptized it was necessary they should be made disciples by preaching not so that they might be cured of diseases Nay I may add saith the Dr. How should the dead in that place who sure were as uncapable of understanding as the tenderest infants be capable of being raised by those Apostles which yet is there affirmed of them v. 8. Answ. And I may add that after this rate of reason if mere capacity of outward Baptism and the charge of Christ to the Apostles to do acts of power on any thing without making it a disciple by preaching to it as the Dr. here fancieth of infants fit it for Baptism then the dead are to be baptized which was practised of old and the giving them the Eucharist as appears by the prohibition of it in the third Synod of Carthage Canon 6. and Balsamous note thereon But the Dr. it seems thought it â—t in this reply to me to write what came next to hand whether it were fit to be produced to the present business oâ— not of which sort also is that which he talks in answer to my third reason of preaching to the nations and receiving all that come in to the discipleship whether on their own legs or in others arms whole families at once the parents and upon their undertaking their infant children also which perhaps the Dr. might write early in the morning or late at night between sleeping and waking it is so like a dream The Dr. goes on thus His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so saith he is used Matth 13.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last translators and can no otherwise be rendred then made a disciple by teaching so Acts 14.21 it is said Haviâ—g preached the Gospel to that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having taught or made many disciples For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient that iâ— signifies to receive ad discipulatum as into a School of spiritual inâ—truction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple and such he is made 〈◊〉 by any motive or means either comes or iâ— brought into the school this indeed in order to teaching in the Master and to learning in the Scholler and the one so to teach as that the other learn but this subâ—equâ—nt to his being made a disciple the youth wee know enters into the School is admitted into the Colledge and University before â—e learns a word there the instruction or learning is still lookt upon as futurâ— at his entring into discipleship Answ. How vainly doth the Dr. talk of his former sufficient saying when he neither formerly nor now giveâ— one instance in the New Testament or any other Author wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much to receive ad discipulatum nor any Translator or Lexicographer that so renders it Matth. 28.19 or elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disciple Matth. 28.19 is confest
Apostles be indeed the meanes by which we may discern how they understood Christâ— precept and those two places cited by Mr. T. from Matth. 13. and Acts 14. do no way belong to that they tell us not whether they received infants to Baptism or not yet I may very well ward my self from any inconvenience which this use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places can threaten it being already vindicated from all necessity that it should be confirmed to grown men and not communicated to infants also Answ. How well the Dr. hath vindicated the use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all necessity that it should be confined to grown men may appear from that which goes before in which it may be seen that he hath neither brought one place to shew that ever it was applied to an infant nor answered one objection to the contrary And me thinks he here overthrowes himself He had said before that Acts 14 â—1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more then haâ—ing received or initiated i. e. I suppose by this rite of Baptism made and baptized many disciples yet he saith here those two places cited â—y Mr. â— from Matth. 13. and Acts 14. do no way belong to that they tell us not whether they received infants to Baptism or not how then can they be extendedâ—o â—o them How is the word vindicated from all necessity that it should be confined to grown men Are not these cross caperâ— Again if these texts telâ— us not whether they received infants to Baptism or not it is because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant of infants or because it imports precedent instruction or Christs precept Matth. 28.19 was not meant of infants or the Apostles practise was not to baptize infants or the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more then receiving or initiating by baptism or some other reason what ever it be it will overthrow the Drs. supposition that the discipling Matth. 28.19 did not exclude infants I would further ask whether the Dr. imagins that the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disciple be as much as to baptize If he say it is then I would know how he can acquit the words Joh. 4.1 where he confesseth that making disciples is the same with discipling Matth. 28.19 and then the meaning must be he baptized and baptized and Matth. 28.19 baptize baptizing from inept â—autology If he say it is more then it is false that Acts 14.21 it signifies no more and if it signifie more let him tell us what it is except teaching that we may practise it according to the command Matth. 28.19 If that be it let him shew how that 's extended to infants if he cannot then the Apostles practise expressed Acts 14.21 is to be so understood and the Apostles practise being indeed the meanes to discern how they understood Câ—rists precept by that we may discern that the Apostles understood the discipling Matth. 28.19 of no other then making disciples by preaching the Gospel to each and thereby teaching them and consequently infants are excluded which I was to demonstrate I added a sixth proof thus A disciple and a believer appear to be the same by comparing Matth. 28.19 with Mark 16.15 16. For as the way of making disciples is more fully expressed by preaching the Gospel so the Disciple to be baptized is expressed by the believer which is put before bapâ—ism To this saith the Dr. I answer â— That that passage in St. Mark He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be saved and he that beleiveth not shall be damned and so on to the end of the Gospel is as even now I intimated added by that Evangelist to the words as they are set down in Matthew and so being an addition cannot bee looked on as exactly parallel to the words in Matthew Go and disciple all nations baptizing them And this we also know is ordinary for one Evangelist to set down more fully what is omitted or more shortly set down in the other and S. Mark that in other things was willing to abbreviate Sâ— Matthew doth now visibly inlarge And so the comparison cannot regularly be made betwixt these â—wo Evangelists words something being abbreviated in Mark which was more at large in Matthew and something more conciâ—ely set down in Matthew and more largely in Mark. And then what necessity is there that Mark not mentioning discipling but believing and Matthew men ioning discipling but not belâ—eving the discipled and believers should be deemed the same 'T is true indeed of grown men none can in reason be admitted disciples which are not also believers the ground of which I have set down in the resol of the quaerep 199. but of infant children this is not true for those though they cannot come may yet be brought and though not upon their own confession yet by the susception of others made capable of the Churches charity and so may be disciples without actual or personal belief Answ. Though the words are not exactly parallel yet they being of the same matter at the same time the one interpret the other and then any man may easily perceive discipling all nations to be the same with preaching the Gospel to every creature and thereby making disciples and baptizing them that is disciples to answer to â—e that believes and is baptized and accordingly all along the Acts of the Apostles disciples and believers are the same and before Baptism believing is required and they that were baptized were first sâ—id to believe and so generally Commentatours expound the words as synonymous nor doth the Scripture make one qualification to Baptism for infants and another for grown men nor any where term infants disciples and if none of grown men can in reason be admitted disciples which are not also believers conâ—ent to be disciples of Christ then infants by their susception and bringing are not made nor to be admitted disciplâ—s of Christ without actâ—al or personal belief there being no such distinction of disciples in Christs words nor any such appointment of baptizing disciples by such bringing or susception but in such actions there is great sin oâ— rashness in those that undertake of prophaneness in those that briâ—g and admit nor is there any true charity but errour arrogance and folly in the Church which shall thus presume to put one kinde of disciples â—ancied by themselves in stead of another appointâ—d by Christ who is the onely institutor of Baptism and so the onely râ—gulator of it and â—he term disciple in grown men being the same with believer nor any other termed a disciple but a believer it is clear none are discipled and conseqâ—ently none are to be baptized according to Matth. 28 19. but actual and personal believers But the Dr. hath not yet done but adds Nay 2dly if Mr. T. his argument had power to infer it 't were that which I might safely avouch that infants may be comprehended
is in my apprehension an act of plerophory of faith through the resurrection of Christ from the dead the same or near that demand of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 34. Not such a low act which comes so many degrees â—hâ—râ— of saving â—aith as the Drs. enquiry or address as to an Oracle for future instruction by a mans own presenting himself or his child to the Church for Baptism is which is so childish a conceit as I should think should harâ—ly have comen into the head of such a man did it not hâ—ppen to him as to men that talk with chilâ—ren to talk as a child But he adds more of the 〈…〉 when he saith And this farther illustrated as by the manner of children brought by parents to school without either knowledge of letters oâ— choise or so much as wâ—sh â—f instruction so by the manner of Christs disciples being received of him particularly of Philip Joh. 1.44 who was called and received into discipleship as soon as ever Christ met with him i. e. before he was at all instructed by him and so also by the story of the Jews Exod. 19.8 who undertook to obey all the commandements of God which hee should give which yet were not then but after given them v. 20. which are clear evidencâ—s that those may be received into discipleship which have not yet had precedent instruction Against this all that he hath to pretend is set down by him in these words Let putting to school be as early as the Dr. will imagine yet none is put to school till he doth know his teacher and so none is Christs disciple in Scripture language till he know Jesus to bee Châ—ist and take him for his Lord which infants being not capable of they are not disciples not to be baptized according to Christs appointment To this I answer 1. That the example which I had used of children being brought to school by the care of their parents was designed to shew no more then this that they may be delivered up to be schollers who as yet know nothing of what they are to learn nor have actual willingness to acquire knowledge and consequently that entrance into discipleship refers onely to subsequent supposes not any precedent instruction And this is competently evidenced by that example though it were supposed of the child that goes to school that he knowes his teacher this bare knowledge of the person of his teacher being none of the documents which hee comes to learn but the good letters that are profest and taught in the school nor indeed is it imaginable why a blind child which is brought to school or put to an instructer and so cannot bee deemed to know the master before assuetude hath acquainted him with him should not yet bee said with as full propriety of speech to come to school as he that useth his own eyes as well as feet to direct him thither Answ. No child is ever entred a scholler without some such document as this you must hearken to your master which is some precedent instruction and though he be a blind or a lame child or both he that puts him to school gives him some item who is his master and to what end he is brought to him whereof none is done to an infant and though these be not the documents which he comes to school to learn yet they are documents which he is taught afore he comes to school The Dr. adds 2ly It is as true that children that are brought to school do not alwayes know their masters before their entrance no not by the most superficial knowledge many are brought to publike schools who never so much as saw their masters till they are by their parents delivered up into their power and discipline if this bee not plain enough then change the similitude from the Schoolmaster to the parent or guardian or the very nurse every one of these are to feed and nourish and as he shall be capable to instruct the child and so doth Christ in a spiritual sense whosoever is intrusted by being brought to him in baptism And we know God and nature doth thus bring a child to the parent to the nurse or guardian when the child knowes none of these nor understands any more of all these transaction then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there And so still this evidenceth the vanity of this answer concerning the childs knowing his teacher Answ. It doth indeed evidence the vanity of this Drs. answer who being to shew how the words of Christ Matth. 28.19 do not exclude infants from baptism sith they are first to be made disciples afore they are to be baptized whom he appoints to be baptized having first turned the prâ—cept of making disciâ—les inâ—o receiving of persons to be discipled and making them disciples by preaching the Gospel to them into preaching it to others who may bring them to school and being urged with this that none are brought to school till he know his teacher hath no better shift then here he useth to avoid it For hee it that some are brought to school that have not a superficial knowledge of their master as having never seen him yet they are not broughâ— till they be told they are to go to a mastâ—r nor entred into the school which was the Drs. notion of making Disciples Matth. 28.19 till he have some knowledge who is to be his teacher As for his other shift by changing the similitude it is worse for thereby he quits the cause the precept being not Matth. 28.19 set to nurse but make disciples and therefore though it be true that a father guardian or nurse are to receive a child that knows none of them and are to feed nouâ—ish and instruct it as it is câ—pable and it is a good office to bring an infant to such persons to such ends yet is it neither agreeable to use nor reason but rather the part of a frantique man out of his wiâ—s to bring an infant to be admitted into a school to be taught or matriculated in the University nor doth Christ appoint such to be admitted as disciples to him nor is it true which this Dr. saith that Christ doth in a spiritual sense feed nourish and instruct whosoever is intrusted by being brought to him in baptism nor do I think but that the infant knowes more the nurâ—e and the bringing of it to that end then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there So that hitherto the Dr. hath not avoided this objection that though iâ— were granted him which yet is not true that making disciples Matth. 28. â—0 is no more then receive to discipleship or to school yet infants are excluded who are by none received to dâ—scipleship or entred into schools But the Dr. hath one more liâ—t at this block which thus lies in his way But then saith he 3dly This so imperfect superficial knowledge of the teacher
sine Baptismo compeâ—ere salutem ex illa maximè pronuntiatione Domini qui ait nisi natus ex aqua quis erit non habet vitam c. However Ambrose and Augustine determine of the salvation of grown persons without Baptism if they believe desire to be baptized be Martyrs yet both they and many more held both Baptism and the Lords Supper to be necessary for infants unto salvation by an Apostolick tradition as M. Perkins Demonst. of the probleme in the point of Baptism proves though perhaps they could not reasonably grant the one and deny the other That Calvin was a mâ—n well versed in Antiquity for his time it 's not denied nor that he was a man well acquainted in the Scriptures yet that in neither he was in this point in the right is so fully demonstrated before that I may safely say Calvin was not therein Calvin as he is in his opposition of the Papists And if Mr. M. or his friend think it not meet to be tied to Calvins judgâ—ment in the point of the Sabbath and Lords day and Usury notwithstanding his skill in Antiquity and Scripture the same in equity is to be allowed to us about the point of Baptism I like Mr. Ms. acknowledgement with Riveâ— that tradition is in most points uncertain and therefore he that will build sure must build on the Scripture and therefore we must necessarily come to arguments from the Scriptures which if they evince not the thing we shall in vain call to Tradition If Mr. M. had not fiâ—st in his Sermon forestalâ—ed his hearers and readers with the pretence oâ— the Churches possession for 1500. years and upwards and Dr. Hammond resolved all his proof of infant Baptism into his exposition of 1 â—or 7.14 which he had no way to make good but by Tertullian and some of the Ancienâ—s I had spared this labour of shewing tâ—eir and and the Ancienâ—s mistakes Thaâ— Doctrine and practise of Baptism of Infants â—hich Austin saith to be according to the sentence of the Gospel is rejectâ—d by Proâ—estants who iâ— they would in this as in other things they have done 〈◊〉 according to Scripture and all their own principles must baptize no infants till they be made believers till then they do but prevaricate and profane the holy Ordinance of Baptism SECT XCIX Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled I Return now to Mr. Cragg Part 1. sect 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths outvying the number of the lines in which he is a false accuser In the first he misâ—recites my words which were not that the Epistle affirms that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork but thus As false it is thâ—t the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named which were true For though it was not in those words said by me that the Epistle did so affirm yet it is true 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practised Anabaptism me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers or that they baptized them or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them 2. The very words of the Epistle are the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork then Phipher c. there you have the spring and rise of it and therefore in my words there is no untruth but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech and slâ—nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation and the first â—uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers The 2d thing he chargeth on me as untruth was not expressed as Mr. Cr. inâ—inuates that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists but thus the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism which cannot be denied to be true unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing or the baptized no believers or that they call it not Anabaptism It is also false that he saith of me that my judgement and practise is that all that will be saved must be baptized again when they become actual believers and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can The 3d. untruth as he calls it is that baptising of believers without infants or excluding infants had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and he notes that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism which is another thing had its spring thence But he neither shews what other thing Anabaptism is nor doth he prove it to be an untruth but by rendring my own instances against it invâ—lid But therein he dâ—tâ— buâ— abuâ—e me who alledged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth nor is there any thing said by him but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defence and is aâ—swered before here sectâ—â— â—â— 98. The 4th untruth he châ—rgeth me with is that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ and he thâ—â—ks to â—vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19 But he saith â—othing but whâ—t is â—â—â—ully refuted before Review part 2. sect 5 c. part 3. sect 97. and elsewhere so that I neeâ— say no more here to it The 5th untruth he imagines is that infant Baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denied by the Anâ—ipaedobaptists the proof lies upon them But by his â—â—ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists to prove they did baptize infants sith they claim a right to it which muâ—â— be proved by precepâ— oâ— example of the doing it validityâ—o â—o shâ—w infant Baptism not to be according to Gods will sith in meer positive instituted worship wherein â—od hath set down what he will have done he will have it so done and no otherwise It is proâ—ed bâ—fore Review part 2. sect 5. c. part 3. sect 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age de facto are vain there being no intimation of any such reasonâ— in the History of the Apostles Acts Yea the story is against his surmises for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities and in them they went from house to house Acts 16.15 34. 20.20 Hierusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins which cannot be meant of infants Though infants be a parâ— of a Nation yet Mat. â—8 19 Is. 2.2 by nations no infant is meant nor Luk 19.19 is inâ—ant Baptism intimated The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act.
which directs in this 4. If a probable judgment of charity that a person is elect and in covenant be the rule to direct in baptizing then suppose a salvage in new England or elsewhere seeming to be affected in the the time of preaching should be judged in charity to an elect person in covenant he ought to be baptized by the Minister so judging afore he owns Christ by profession It is promised that the Israelits shall be graffed in again and all Israel saved Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and we may charitably judg it will be shortly shall we baptize any of them or their Infants upon this charitable judgment of their election and being in Covenant afore profession 5. If a charitable judgement of election and being in covenant had been the rule to baptize then sure John the Baptist and the baptizers appointed had somewhere propounded that question or made inquiry into that thing but it was not so they required repentance Acts 2.38 inquired into the faith of the baptized 6. if this had been the direction baptize those that are elect or in Covenant had been a blind derection unfit for men to follow and so our Lord should have imperfectly instructed his Apostls and others or rather have mocked them putting them to do a business not feasiable by them But this is not to be said of Christ especially the rule being so plain to baptize believers and Disciples by profession As for Mr. Chuch his conceit that shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing onely as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the paties to be baptized are in the promise I deny it For the rule is not baptize persons in the Covenant but Disciples or believers of all nations To that of the Devils making a verbal profession I have answered before That which he saith that the judgment of charity meaning that they were in Covenant was the rule by which John Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing is not true for they baptized upon their profession which they certainly knew And though they had no infallable knowledge of the individuals election or being in Covenant but baptized hypocrits not a few yet they had an infallible knowledge of individuals confessing sins brofessing repentancc and faith for they heard them and this was their rule not the conjectural knowledg of a persons interest in the Covenant or election of grace SECT VIII Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance MR. Church brings in a Second objection which is in effect what I allege Exam. pag. 62. a right to Evangelical promises is not the adequat reason of baptism for the Jews were in the promise Acts 2.38 39. yet not baptized without preceeding repentance To which he answers thus A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace as in those of riper years or by the meaning a species in the promise without restriction of which the parties to be baptized are individuals as the Infants of visible professors are is a sufficient reason for baptism To which I reply If visible right ro the promise by shews of grace be a sufficient reason for baptism then the rule I set down for admitting to baptism is yeilded to be aright But for the new made rule of Mr. Church it is but an humane ivention without Scripture warrans He supposeth the Infants of visible professors to be in the promise without restruction and the promise I conceive he means is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 But it is most false that that promise is made to any meer visible professors but to Abraham not to any true believers natural seed much less to any meer visible professors natural seed but onely to Aâ—rahams seed who are onely elect and true believers of the Gentils according to the spiritual part of it as is proved before Yet were it granted that not onely the Species but also the individuals were named expressly in the Covenant I should deny they were to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they were known Disciples and believers The Jewish people are in covenant Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and yet not to be baptized till they believe and Peter Acts 2.38 39. requires repentance for baptism of whom he sayth the promise is to you But he tels me The learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an Infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it I answer whatever others do yet I disclaim that confession I have granted sundry times as Examen part Sect 15. part 3. Sect. 3. that regenerate justified adopted persons born into the world who have the inward grace are not to be debarred baptism if it be known by special revelation for they are then known Disciples and believers But I never said this of an Infant in Covenant For an Infant may be in Covenant even then when he is unregenerate being in covenant nothing no more then having the promise made to him which may be afore he is born and therefore I should not yeld that of being in covenant which I would do of actual regeneration But Mr. Church makes some shew of answering the argument from Acts 2.38 39. He tels us those Jews rejecting and crucifying Christ and Atheistically mocking â—at Gospel truths ceased to have a visible right to the promise untill they regained it by repentance Answer Mr. Church pag. 18. saith being in the promise is the reason rendred by the appostle for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38 39. therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized pag. 20. Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism Doth not thus plainly assert that the Jews then were righly judged by Peter to be in the promise and their right thereby to batism How then is it true which here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise till they raigned repentance But it is not once onely that this Author is off and on saying and unsaying at a little distance Here he requires a visible right in the promise regained by repentance a little before he saith the species being named without restriction in the promise as a sufficient reason of baptism However I take his confession that notwithstanding what he said pag. 5.6 7. from Acts 2.38.39 of the promise to them and their children and thence inferring their Infants tittle to baptism as being the children of visible professors to whom God had promised to be a God and to their seed yet here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance which the Apostle supposeth they then had not even then when he said The promise is to you and your children For he exhorteth to it as a thing to be done But Mr. Church flutters like