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
before onely to priviledges of ordinances is not true Nor is it true that in my speech recited by him pag. 312. is taken for granted 1. that the whole visible body of Christian nations are truly ingraffed into the Church invisible iâ— by whole body be meant all the parts oâ— every part 2. Nor is it true that it is taken for granted by me that in after ages the same body though not the same persons may be cast off and yet no particular person rejected without this explication that no particular person who was an elect person or true believer is rejected But against this 2d imagined grant of mine Mr. Bl. thus argues The 2d must be examined this Church thus cut off either continues in the invisible body as before or else is degenerate by the death of those numerical persons that made up a body invisible and succession of others that are no more then vâ—sible members If it continue in the invisible body till the time of breaking off then Mr. T. is not holpen with his distinction of a consistent and a fluent being nor with hiâ— similitude of Euphrates for so a Church invisible is still broken off and rejected and falling away is maintained If it be degenerate then 1. they fall off themselves and are not broken off by God their own sin thâ—n should be noted nor Gods act as their punishment But their breaking off or rejection is the act of God laying waste his Vineyard Isa 5. taking away his Kingdome Matth. 21 43. removing the Candlestick Ephes. 2.5 it should be Revel 2.5 All noting the act of God punishing upon the peoples act of sinning which is of the Church not invisible but visible 2. For the similitude of Cyrus his turning of Euphrates that he turned the same River that God created this will not serve Mr. T. his purpose for Euphrates continues a River of the same kind and nature as it was at the first creation and the Church in his expression is changed from the invisible body of Christ to a visible company of bare professors The Church had changed her own channel 3. Mr. T. indeed grants the question for he confesses that the Church is visible that God breaks off and whatsoever it had been now it hath no more then a visible interest so that a visible Church falls off and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible Sect. 4. M Bl. adds these words That wild assertion pag. 19. That the branches were broken off from election and true faith and the invisible Church in which they were with this limitation understanding it not of the same singular persons but the same people or nation is a thread that runs through almost the whole and enough I suppose is spoken to it And when he shall shew me an invisible nation of which he speaks from which there may be a breach I will either yeeld â—p all or he shall hear more Till then I shall look on his words as such a unworthy the pen of such a Writer an invisible nation it must be a visible nation cannot be cut off from the Church invisible Answ. Speak out man let me know the worst you can say I expect no favour from you having found neither charity nor equity in your writings against mee The assertion is such as will endure your strongest battery what you say here is merre wrangling like a Sophister perverting my words when they are truly repeated though thy are very plain The Argument is quite from the matter The Conclusion is that the Church cut off is not the invisâ—ble Church but visible which is not contradictory to my assertiâ—n who never asserted that the Church cut ofâ— was the invisible Church but often asserted the contrary alwayes making the Olive tree the invisible Church to abide the same though some branches were broken off others were ingraffed as in the first part of this Review Section 9. page 83. with this explication page 66. yet not as a rock that abides the same but as a river which is in flux and I often deny in express termes as pag. 22 74. that my meaning was that the Church of God is broken off from the invisible Church but this I say that the Nation of the Jews of which the body or most part in some ages were in the invisible Church as branches in the Olive in a continued succession in the time of the Apostle that people to wit the most part of that nation were broken off from the invisible Church or Olive tree in which that people in the individual persons of a former age did stand Which thing having been so often and so plainly expressed by mee in that book which Mr. Bl. takes on him to answer it is an extremely shamefull abuse hee offers mee in going about to refute that as my assertion which is disclaimed by mee Now this being premised and the term this Church as it should be being changed into this people or nation that is a great or the greatest part of them I answer they are broken off from the invisible Church in that the numerical persons that made up the invisible Church in a former age being dead the successors degenerated from their faith and were neither visible professors nor invisible believers in Christ which not believing was their own act from their own will yet consequent on Gods act of repâ—obation and the breaking off to wit the deprivation of them from the membership and priviledges of his invisible Church was Gods act of punitive justice for their unbelieving And thus the similitude of Cyrus his turning Euphrates serves my purpose to shew how I am free from holding Arminian Apostasie the same people like that river beeing turned from their old channel though not the same persons not as Mr. Bl. falsly chargeth mee that in my expression the Church is changed from the invisible body of Christ to a visible company of bare professours or that the Church had changed her own channel Nor do I grant the question or confess that the Church is visible that God breaks off and whatsoever it had been now it hath no more then a visible interest so that a visible Church falls off and Gentiles are ingraffed into that which is visible but what I say is of the Jewish people who had not so much as a visible interest when God brake them off or they fell off and the Gentiles are ingraffed into the invisible Church in their stead Nor need I shew an invisible nation broken off it being neither true that I spake of an invisible nation nor that a visible nation cannot bee cut off from the Church invisible but these are Mr. Bls. dotages for want of heeding mine and his own words as I conceive through hast to insert some thing against me in that book ere it was printed Which is so far from being enough to answer me that aâ— Solomon said of him that answered a matter afore he heard it so it
of Command or example have gâ—eat force against Lutherans for as much as they use that principle every where that the â—ite which is not in Scripture having no command nor example there is to be rejected yet it is of no force against Catholicks For altâ—ough we find no command expresly that we should baptize infants yet that also is openly enough gathered out of Scriptures as we have shewed above and besides the tradition of the Apostles is of no less authority with us then Scripture for the Apostles spake with the same spirit with which they did write But that this is an Apostolick tradition wee thence know whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture to wit from the testimonies of the ancient Church The words of Becanus were cited rightly by me out of his manual of Controversies l. 1. c. 2. § 24. not § 12. as Mr. B. corrects me without cause and they plainly shew the meaning of those men to be that the Scripture onely proves infant Baptism by that sense of it which is not manifest but by the tradition and practise of the Church I have perused Chamier paustr. Cath. not tom 7. as Mr. B. directs I know none such but tom 1. l. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l 5. c. 9. § 32. But I am not thereby satisfied that either the Ancients took infant Baptism for any other then an unwritten tradition or that it ought to be taken Mr. B. proceds Mr. Rogers hath made you know he is of another judgement Mr Bedford tels me he hath corrected his wordâ— in a later edition How could you allege Dr. Field without considering how you wrong'd your self Is nothing written in Scripture but expresly yea is not that Scripture proof and plain proof which shews plainly from Scripture the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of the practise Dr Prideaux thought Episcopacy provable from Scripture and therefore if hee thought that infant Baptism must bee proved the same way he is sure against you For Dr. Taylour if you have read all his books I hope you will no more reckon him amongst Protestants having so much of the body of Popery in them Mr. Youngs words if they be his are against you in the thing you cite them for There are testimonia minùs aperta and there are testimonia aperta pro fundamto praemissis quae sunt minùs aperta directâ— pro conclusione My audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof must bee bâ—tter repressed then thus if you will satisfie men of reason and conscience Answ. I have made known in my Apology sect 13. how Mr. Rogers shifts but answers not the allegation I made of his words And if M. Bedford have corrected his words I wish it have not been fâ—r the cause sake against his conscience If he and Mr. Rogers can so easily say and unsay who can give credit to men that can thus blow hot and cold wiâ—h the same breath I know no wrong to my self done by alleging Dr. Field Though things be written in Scripture which are not so expresly yet is not that Scripture proof nor plain proof for infant Baptism any more then infant Communion which shews plainly from Scripture Pauls conclusion of original sin Rom 5.12 and Christs Joh. 3.5 which Ancients took falsly for grouâ—ds reasons and causes of the necessity oâ— infant Baptism as they did Joh. 6.53 of infant Communion yet took the use to bee a custome â—f the Church countenanced from Scripture without institution of Christ or practise of the Apostles And that this was Dr. Fields meaning is plain from his words and this seems to have been the common opinion of the Prelates of the Church of England by thâ— words by way of Preface used at the solemnity of Baâ—tism and in sundry places of the Common Prayer book Catechism art 27. of the Church of England And after this manner thought Dr. Prideaux infant Baptism and Episcopacy proveable by Scripture I have not read all Dr. Taylors works nor do I know but that hee is to bee reckoned among Protestants Dr. Youngs words are much for me 1. In that he produceth no precept but that of Circumcision for infant Baptism 2. Thâ—t hee confesseth the practise Apostolical to be somewhat obscurer and therefore addes the cust me of the Church from the times of the first ages which is in effect all one as to resolve the proof of infant Baptism finally into the custome of the whole Church especially when he saith we cannot smite the Anabaptists with plain testimonies Nor can Mr. Bs. distinction of more or less open testimonies help him sith Dr. Young denies that Paedobaptists can smite with open or plain â—estimonies the Anabaptists barking against infant Baptism If Mr. Bs. audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof for infant Baptism be not yet repressed nor men of reason and conscience satisfied I must leave them to the Lord. Enough I think is said about Origens words I go on Dr. Hammond in his Defence of infants Baptism pag. 98. saith thus About the same time the 3d. Century or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very ancient and learned Authour He therefore in his 7th ch of Eccles. Hierarch Edit Morel p. 233. proposeth the question as that which may seem to prophane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of Baptism concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximuâ— his scholiast adding to the same head also that others in their stead pâ—onounce the abrenunciations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. That many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God 2. That we affirm of this the same things which our divine Officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us and again our Divine guides i. e. the Apostles saith Maximus considering this appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner nothing can bee more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this ancient and elegant writer avouched for the baptizing of infants as a sufficient account of that matter against the reproaches and scoffâ— of prophane or heathen men who deemed it unreasonable And so there is a most convincing testimony for that time wherein that Author wrote which must needs be in the 4th Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him but most probably more ancient and so to be placed in this 3d. age Answ. 1. It is to be noted by the Reader that Dr. Hammond doth not so much as pretend the antiquiâ—y of
for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
differences about the title to it between Papists and Protestants and the ablest Protestants themselves 14. How they can make good the regularity of Church-constiâ—ution and the ordination of Elders who have no other baptism but that in infancy 15. How they can be free from the guilt of hardening souls in deadly presumption who avouch the Christianity of infants by natural birth and Infant baptism which is the great plea of ignorant and profane persons on which they rest 16. Whether it be not a signe of injustice and want of love to truth or adherence to a party in them that will read and hear what one party saith for Infant baptism and refuse to read or heâ—r what the opposâ—â—s say though they bring the plain institution of Christ and his Apostles practise for them 17. Whether it be not an unrighteous course to charge the miscariages of persons either dead or strangers on that doctrine or practise which countenanceth not them or to persons who are no way abettors of them becaus of agreement in one opinion 18. Whether division or Schism is not chiefly to be imputed to those who violently oppose inveigh against their Brethren for holding practising that which they conceive themselves bound to do by the plain command of Christ which their opposites do acknowledge 19. Whether such as impose Infan baptism on their Brethren who hold the faith and baptism confessâ—d to be from Christ and deal rigorously with them for not owning iâ— do not as the Papists who impose with cruelty their own addiâ—ions oâ— those who otherwise are not denied to hold thâ— true faith aâ—d practâ—sâ— 20. Whether such pretencâ—s as are made for Infant baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a sufficient plea for baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a suâ—fâ—cient plea for any truly godly person to neglect that baptism which Christ hath so strictly commanded Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 the Apostles constantly practised And sith Mr. Baxter hath with so much earnestness ministred so many interrogatories to me I shall take the boldness to advise him to consider his own ways 1. In giving such a title to his book of Plâ—in Scripture proof of Infants baptism when there is not one text in all his Book which speaks plainly or obscurely for it yea it 's confessed by himself that it is not plainly determined in Scripture p. 3. and is so dark in Scripture that the controversie is become hard p. 301. 2. In his abusing so many texts of Scripture as he haâ—h done chiefly the institution of Bapâ—ism Matth. 28 19. for infant Baptism as if they were disciples appointed there to be baptized which is sufficiently refuted by himself in many places of Baptism p. 299 300. of the right to Sacraments from p. 91 to 96. 3. In coyning a new title to Baptism by the profession of parents or pro parents of which the Scripture is altogether silent 4. In his devising â—n ordinancâ— of infants visible membership in the Christian Church of which there is no foot step in all the Bible 5. In his many years clamorous abuses and some kind of violent persecutions of my self and others of my judgement for not acknowledging these figments of his but promoting reformation of Baptism according to our duty 6. In his unbrotherly printing my answers I made in the dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. without so much as acquainting me with it though living near him 7. In blazing it abroad that he had driven me to gross absurdities which yet he hath not in his answer to the 17. sect of of my praecursor or elsewhere shewed to be so 8. In his light passing over my urging his own words against infant baptism about Christs institution Mat. 28.19 in my praecurs p. 66. in his Praefest morat sect 16. which is noted in the 2d Part of the Review p. 66 67. which sure being from Christs institution deserved better consideration 9. In condemning our rejection of infant Baptism though but an humane tradition on no better grounds then Papists build many of their ceremonies which he condemns in asserting the Covenant of grace to the faithfull and their seed which in disputes against Arminians is commonly denied by Contraremonstrants 10 In his many false accusations of me as a sect master disturber of the Church which he cannot prove in his scornfull expressions in the dispute and his books in his injurious insinuations of me as if I were blinded or hardened occasioned the rise of Quakerism and other errours thereby indirectly creating odium to me and to the truth and which is worst of all weakning my hands in the work of Christ and particularly in taking off my quondam hearers at Bewdley from hearing me or permitting me there to preach in publike None of which nor any of the rest of his evil suggestions of me or the people baptized there or elsewhere I pray God may be laid to his charge I have no more to add but to commend the reading of this and the other parts of the Review to thy care hoping that as the differences between the Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan Israelites and Peter and the circumcised Christians were composed by right inâ—elligence of their actions so it may be in this and that God will awaken the eyes of those who have opposed the truth I assert with devices of an anti-Evangelical Covenant of grace to Believers and their seed a Law and Ordâ—nance of infants visible Church membership no where extant of baptizing infants according to the Jewish pattern of baptizing Proselytes of an additional promise of casting elect children on elect parents ordinarily of a command in force now Gen. 17.9 of Baptisms succession to Circumcision and fetching a rule from it of baptisms conferâ—ing Grace c. will discern their errour and embrace that light which they have hitherto shut out and laying aside their vain disputes about the baptizing of Infants of not Churchmembers profane excommunicate parents or proparents and such like endeavour to restore that one Baptism which with that one faith once delivered to the Saints may bring the Churches of God to a right constitution and holy unity and order and without which a right reformation covenanted will not be and that goâ—ly paâ—ents of tender consciences will take heed of bringing infants to baptism whereby it is profaned and discern that it is their own duty to be baptized in the name of Christ and that the use of baptism is as Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 68 Of right to Sacraments yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized which shâ—ws infants are not baptized sith thâ—y do not that which is essential to baptism and that which is essential must be in all and not to look upon it as their childrens priviledge but as it was by Christ appointed by it engage themselves to follow the Lord JESUS which is the prayer of Thy loving Brother and real
promise gives ground of confidence and comfort that the thing shall be in its due time which is promised but a promise of any mercy in general cannot assure the futurity of visible Churchmembership no not though it were of more then corporal or special mercy and therefore this argument his own words do sufficiently evince to bee onely added to make a number without strength 2. Saith he They may object that it is uncertain what is meant by a thousand generations whether it be the remote or the nearest progeny To which I answer 1. I judge it to be onely to the immediate children of godly or ungodly parents that the promise and threat in this Commandment is made to else there would bee a contradiction between them For if the third generation of a wicked man should have godly parents between then the promise would belong to them and consequently not the threat and so on the other side The meaning seems plainly to me to be this that God will encrease the punishment of the children of ungodly parents according as they succeed their parents remembring the sins of the grand-fathers in punishing their children they being still the children onely of the wicked And that he will multiply mercies on the posterity of the righteous the more still because they had righteous progenitors supposing still that they are the children of such Answ. To interpret a thousand generations or the third and fourth by one onely is such a piece of Arithmetick as I should conceive none but an Ideot or natural fool would use The imagined contradiction is easily avoided by conceiving that it is not a plain promise or threat of what God will constantly do but a declaration of what hee doth often or in some cases which exposition is confirmed from hence in that we see so much variation in Gods dealings as necessitates us so to limit it Though Josiah were a godly Prince yet God would not shew mercy to his sons and though Manasseh repented yet for his sins wrath fell on his posterity and the whole people But let Mr. Bs. interpretation or mine or any others be righter yet the speech must needs have such limitations as wil disable it from yeilding a certain rule whereby the children of all visible professors visible Churchmembership may bee proved and therefore it is frivolously alledged by Mr. B. to that end 2. Saith he But I further answer What if this were not understood must wee therefore reject that which may bee understood There is somewhat doubtfull in the text viz. what mercy it is particularly and to how many generations if ungodly progenitors intervene And there is somewhat beyond doubt in the text that is that God estateth his mercy on the immediate off-spring of his people Now must I throw away that which is past doubt because of that which is doubtfull So we may throw away all the Scriptures Answ. We must not reject that which may be understood nor must we wrest the Scripture to infer from it that which cannot be inferred but omit the allegation of doubtful texts and urge that which is certain That which hee conceives undoubted is I conceive uncertain That God estateth his mercy on the immediate off spring of his people The instance of Josiahâ—s children is sufficient to shâ—w it not to bee universally true That which he acknowledgeth doubtfull is enough to shew that nothing can be from this text certainly inferd for Mr. Bs. purpose and therefore in the close of this Chapter Mr. B. confesseth that which is sucifficient to shew that the visible Churchmembership of all infants of godly parents much less of meer professors cannot bee gathered from Exod. 20.6 I pass on to the next Ch. 22. he saith thus The 17th arg is drawn from Psal. 37.26 His seed is blessed that is the righteous mans seed whence I argue as before If God by his unchanged law and promise have pronounced the seed of the righteous blessed then certainly they are members of his visible Church But hee here pronounceth them blessed therefore c. 1. I have proved before that hee hath so done by no society out of the Church They that say he haâ—h pronounced any other society blessed let them shew it But it is absurd once to imagine that God should pronounce a society blessed and yet take them for none of his visible Church 2. That this promise is an unchangeable promise I take for past doubt till Mr. T. shew me where it is repealed a little better then he hath shewed mee the repeal of infants Church-membership It is made to the righteous and their seed in general and not to the Jews onely it is writâ—en in the Book of Psalms from whence Christ and his Apostles fetch many texts for confirmation of their doctrine And if it had been spoken but to the Jews yea or to one particular person yet if it cannot be proved to bee restrained to them as being from a reason proper to them the Scripture teacheth us to apply it to all the people of God Heb. 12.5 The Apostle applieth that to all believers which was spoken onely to Joshua I will never leave thee nor forsake thee So Heb. 13.6 from Psal. 118. Heb. 10.16 17. Rom. 10.6 Answ. 1. That the speech Psal. 37.26 compared with v. 25. seems rather to be a narration of what the Psalmist found by experience then a promise of God Nevertheless sith there are promises to like purpose elsewhere as Psal. 112.2 Prov. 20.7 I will not deny the speech Psal. 27.36 to imply a promise nor will I say God hath revoked or as Mr. Bs. language is repealed it 2. Nor will I say that this promise was proper to the Jews though I conceive that the promises to posterity have more reference to the Israelites then other people by vertue of the national and legal Covenants made to that people and I think Mr. Bs. reason of no force that it is not made to the Jews onely because it is written in the book of the Psalms for promises proper to them are there as Psal. 89.4 21 c. Psal. 132.11 c. 3. I deny not promises to one particular person may be safely applied oft times to others 4. I deny that when Psal. 37.26 it is said his seed is blessed and Psal. 112.2 the generatiâ—n of the righteous shall be blessed this must be understood of every one of their seed or at all times as in their infancy the speech being true onely of that which happens often though not always Mr. B. himself p. 149. saith Even as when he saith the seed of the righteous are blessed he doth not tie himself to make every one blessed with his special blessing though he do it ordinarily And therefore it is most frivolously alledged to prove an ordinance of every infants visible churchmembership unrepealed though the parent be no righteous person but a visible professour and very vicious even an enemy to godliness 5. There 's
is so little as that in his Letter qu. 4. § 22. he confesseth they come not home distinctly to the baptizing of infants nor do they prove any unreasonableness or uncharitableness in our objections against their baptizing of them whom the Dr. affirms not either Christ or his Apostles to have baptized who had reason and charity enough to have done it if thâ—â— had judged iâ— fit to have been done That Matth. 8 6. is ridiculously applied to little children in age is demonstrate Review part 2. sect 17. Augustins saving credit in altero qui peccavit in altero and his reckoning infants baptized among believers is besides the Book I mean the Scripture and to be judged as no better then a fond conceit The lawfull bâ—ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites is no colour â—o baptize non professors of faith 'T is rightly done that that which contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptising infants is put by him among the more imperfect probations and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14 is already shewed to be That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testifie the receiving our infants to Baptism to bee received from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself is so manifestly false that the very first of the Fathers who makes mention of it Tertullian in his book of Baptism ch 18. disswades it and useth arguments against it and those arguments as well are against the believers infants Baptism as the unbelievers whereby it is evident he opposed the Baptism of any infants whereto might be a dâ—d the case of Nazianzen together with his judgement forementioned as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgement and practice oâ— the universal Church for 1600. years The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholler and the Petrobuciani and Henriciani that sprung from them were opposers of it and therefore the Dr doth very much excâ—ed truth in making it the judgment and practice of the universal Church for 1600 years The term son of the Church used by the Dr. 〈…〉 by â—anonists and others and it is usual to term the Church a Christians mother and by the Church the prelates are usually meant and much advantage made of it to keep Christians under the yoke of Bishops 〈◊〉 But it is no Scripture term in it the Elders Apostle 〈◊〉 â—ermed Fathers 1 Cor 4â— 5 all Christians Brethren and Sister 1 Cor 〈…〉 â—hurch being no other then a company of Bâ—ethen and Sisters it is very unfit to call the Church a Christians Mother and therefore 〈◊〉 willing not to be accounted a son of the Church nor do I acknowledge that the judgement and practise iâ— there were any such of the universal Church for 1600 years letting aside the Apostles of Christ haâ—h any force or authority over me nor do I fear the incurring of Gods displeasure by oppugning or contemning it but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7 tels me that in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and the vain altercations about Easter in the 2d Century and many other mistakes and blemishes even in the Apostles times and much more after together with the prediction of the falling away 1 Tim. 4. â— the exceptions against the seven Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 our Lord Christ himself the imperfections that are in the writings of the first Fathers after the Apâ—stles the exceptions against the histories of the Church the imposing on the Church suppositions Treatises the coâ—rupting of authors I think iâ— the safest way to avoid Gods displâ—asure not â—o rest on the practise or judgement of the universal Church iâ— there were any such after the Apostles but onely on the writâ—ngs of the New Testament it being highly unreasonable as the Dr. saith that â—n institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should bee judged of by any other rule whether the phanâ—es or reasons of men but either the word wherein the institution is set down oâ— the records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture which comes home to the deciding 〈◊〉 câ—ntroversie of faith and manners and 〈…〉 to be obâ—erved and needs not the Drs records besides scripture however conserved or made known to us whether by unwritten tradition or in the writings of Fathers in which there is very much uncertainty but do deter men from adhering to this way as the inlet to many Popish and Prelatical abuses and errours yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths if they be read with judgement and do resolve to review what hath been brought for infant baptism by the Dr. out of other writers besides holy Scripture Sect. 3. the Dr. complains of mee as doing some injury to his Book in leaving out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their chiâ—dren Ans. But by the Drs. leave in this no injury iâ— done him For however he mentioned Letter of Resol qu. 4 sect 5 6. Baptism as a known rite solemnly used among the Jews in the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant yet both the words I allege Review part 2. sect 24. Out of his Letter q. 4. § 24. and all other passages I yet finde in his writings make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants to bee from the Jewish custome of Baptising Proselytes and children as the pattern basis or foundation of it no where the Baptism of native Jewes is made the pattern of Christian baptism though he say § 24. the baptism of the native Jews was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded Yea the Dr. in his practical Catechism l. 6. sect 2. saith that as among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane heathen practises which did not agree to the native Jews so by Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should bee received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times And in his Letter qu. 4. § 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed To which I may add that the proof which the Dr. brings for baptising of infants from Christs appointment is thus expressed qu. 4. § 22. receiving of Disciples was the receiving of Proselytes to the Covenant and faith of Christ a Disciple and a Proselyte being perfectly all one save onely that the latter denotes a comming from other nation c. which shews
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
be baptized and the truth of Mr. Crs. proposition those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive inâ—o Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel have no dependence upon â—aith or profession of faith then Mr. Baxters 20 arguments in his 2d dispute of right to Sacraments against Mr. Blake are falâ—e so that I need no more but to leave Mr. Cr. to be chastized by his magnified Doctor Mr. Baxter about this point and so enough of this section Sect. 4. He terms this an untruth that a person may bee in Covenant who iâ— not yet born or conceived as my iâ—stance of Isaac implies and saith It may bee confuted insito argumento by an argument inbred in the terms for he implies and that right that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant but none who is unborn and unconceived as Isaac Gen. 17.22 is a person But this is false he may be a person though not in present but future existence Those Ephesians who were elâ—cted before the Foundation of the world Eph. 1.4 were persons when elected for they were singular men though not then in actual being but future Mr. Crs. reasoning in this is like the reasoning of Adam Medlicot my neighbour in his book stiled Comfortable doctrine for Adams off-spring p. 99 Who will not have any particularly elected before the foundation of the world because then they were not any where men and p. 96. that none is absolutely elected till he believe because not in Christ and if not in Christ not in election and one is elected before another because in Christ before another And in his Honey found in the Lions Carkass p. 102. Although the purpose of election and reprobation was fully in God before time yet there could be no absolute or real election or reprobation of men and women until they had a real and absolute beeing Surely infants are in Covenant no otherwiâ—e then by Gods promise or mans vow or some such act in their behalf and this may be afore they are in being and consequently they may be in Covenant afore they are in actual being If I do not mistake Mr. Cr. both here Sect. 5. and in the 3d. Part Sect. 9. makes those with whom the Covenant was made Deut. 29.10 to have been in Covenant but doubtless the Covenant there was made with the posterity yet unbegotten v. 14 15. for no other can bee meant by him that was not with them that day all that were born or begotten then of the Congregation of Israel whether by nature or Proselytism being present as the words v. 10 11. shew and the end of the Covenant being to prevent the Apostasie of their posterity v. 18. therefore the unbegoâ—ten were in Covenant Nor is it a good argument A man is in Covenant ergo he is any more then a man is elected therefore he is these termes being termini diminuentes as Logicians speak and the verb est is in these speeches not noting the present existence of the subject of these propositions but of the act of the person who elects or covenants A child unbegotten may be said to be in a copy or a deed and so in covenant in respect of the assuring an estate to him whâ—n hee shall be existent But Mr. Cr. tels me 2ly It is a false suggestion that to have a Covenant made to one is to be in Covenant if by having the covenant made to for the phrase is somewhat strange â—e meant as he can mean nothing else a promise from God to be and be in covenant for a promise may be made to or of one long before he hath any being nor executed or performed till long after his being Then to be elected and â—o be in covenant would be both one then Mary Magdalen and Paul while a persecutor were in covenant nay from eternity to be in covenant would precede outward anâ— inward calling conversion profession and prerogative of birth then which nothing can be more ridiculous Answ. It is so far from being ridiculous that to me it is very plain to be in covenant precedes calling and to be in covenant is to have a covenant made to one and that a person is said to be in covenant with God by Gods promise to be his God though the man be not existent This is in my apprehension that which Paedobaptists mean by being in covenant for they usually say infants are in covenant which sure they mean of Gods promise to them for they prove it from Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 Nor can they mean it of any other being in covenant sith there is no act of any infant or any other for him that can denominate him in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel but Gods promise which is long before the being of those to or for whom it is made Tit. 1.2 Gal. 3.16 17. And thus two Kingdomes are said to be in league and covenant and they that are born many yeers after may be said to be in covenant by vertue thereof This being in covenant may be though the things covenanted be not executed or performed till long after the being in covenant as persons first enter into covenant and then perform And yet to be in covenant and to be elected would not be both one though attributed to the same persons siâ—h there is a different formal conceit of them election being an immanent act covenant a transient that from eternity this in time as to be justified and sanctified are not both one though to the same persons Nor is it any absurdity to say Paul was in coveâ—ant while a persecutor nor that to be in covenant precedes conversion sith iâ— is by vertue of being in covenant that one is converted Heb. 8.10 Rom. 11.26 27. As for being in covenant with God by prerogative of birth I know not of any such in the time of the Gospel Thirtdly saith Mr. Cr. It is of the same leven of untruth that Isaac was in Covenant when he was not yet born which his own quotation Gen. 17.21 proves against him For he saith he will establish a Covenant with Isaac in the future not that he does establish a Covenant in the present Answ. Surely Isaac was a child of the promise Rom. 9.8 9. and Jacob v. 11. afore they were born and â—â—nsequently in the Covenant and when God said he would establish his Covenant with Isaac he meant no other then the Covenant made with Abraham and therefore it was made to him then and he in Covenant though confirmed and performed after Mr. Cr. saith of my speech that a person is not actually received into Covenant till he is born and by some acts of his own engâ—geth himself to be Gods That it is founded upon the basis of this mistake that every Covenant must be expresly and actually mutual between both parties and talks after his foolish fashion as if it were an argument sophistically though