of them For in the Evangelical sense to whom God promiseth to be God he promiseth to justifie them to regenerate them to raise them up to eternall life as appears by our Saviours own reasoning Luke 20.37 38. where he infers from Gods avouching himselfe to be the God of Abraham his living to God rising from the dead to eternal life by the Apostles inference Rom. 4.16 from thence that righteousness is by faith Rom. 9.7 8. determining them to be elect people of God to whom he hath promised to be God Heb. 8 10 c. But God doth not promise to every believers child to justifie regenerate and raise him to eternal life for if he did promise it he would perform it to say he makes a promise to any and to say they have not the efficacie of it is to make God a lyar whereas many children of believers are never justified regenerated nor shall be raised to eternall life He performs it to all true believers and elect persons and to none other therefore none others are meant there by Abrahams seed in the Evangelical sense 8 Lastly the words of John Baptist Matth 3.9 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism saying to them And think not so say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham do evince â— that repenting and believing persons though raised by God of stones without naturall generation are the children of Abraham to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7 2. That it was not their naturall descent from Abraham without repentance and Gospel faith which did entitle them to Gods favour or to his baptism and therefore it follows thence that the children of Abraham to whom the promise is Gen 17.7 are onely the elect or true believers 3. That to be the child of a believer is not a sufficient title to Gods favour or baptism To this purpose Paraeus Com. in Matth. 3.9 He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to fleshly birth but pertain only to believing spiritual posterity For they are not sons of Abraham who according to the flesh are of Abraham but who are according to the spirit Piscat Sch. in Matâ—h 3.9 His sentence is although ye come from Abraham according to the flesh yet ye are not therfore those sons of Abraham to whom pertains the promise of eternall life made to Abraham and his seed For this belongs to them who imitate Abrahams faith and piety Diodati Annot. on Matth. 3 9. And think not do not dally with your selves to think that because you are issued from Abraham according to the flesh you are in Gods favour and free from his judgement for with him the imitation of Abrahams faith and piety is the onâ—ly thing which demonstrates and causeth to be the children of Abraham and not the corporall generation Rom 4.12 Now such children may be brought forth of all Nations yea and out of these stones Neither do you perswade your selves that by your perdition Gods people shall perish for Gods people shall always subsist in these spiritual children of Abraham towards whom Gods covenant and promises shall be verified This then is the constant Doctrine of the New Testament that the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall is made onely to the elect and true believers that they onely are Abrahams seed spirituall and so onely in the covenant of grace by Gods promise and therefore if it be true that they onely who are in covenant which Paedobaptists say when they say the Seal follows the Covenant are to be baptized not any one because he is the child of a believer but the elect and true believers are to be baptized and so their own argument for Infant-baptism overthroweth it SECT XXIX The Allegation of Rom. 9.6 7 8 Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall belongs are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 6. TO my Allegation of Rom 9.6 7 8. in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Mr. Blake undertakes to give an answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. And first having belied me as borrowing from Stapleton the Jesuit and learning to a â—air to follow him though to my remembrance I never read that passage in him which he allegeth nor made any use of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans or any other of his works in that Book of mine he proceeds thus in his scoffing calumniating fashion like a Satyrist rather than a Disputant We have drunk up the Protestants poyson and Mr. T. his great care is to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antidoâ—â— be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt Which is Mr. Blakes manifest calumny as the quotations in my Examen part 3 sect 4. in which he might see that I received it from the most eminent Protestants and alleged but one Papist and he no Jesuit but one of the better note and since the quotations in the foregoing Section do fully prove and it were easie to produce treble the number if need were But I find it in vain to endeavour the satisâ—ying of such eager and through prejudice selfe-blinding Antagonists as Mr. Blake is I could if I liked such Arts as Mr. Blake useth tell Mr Blake he borrows from the Jesuit Bellarmin who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7 is not universall concerning the children of beleivers but hath place onely in the predestinate replies This is said without proof for the words of the Scripture are absolute nor is there any mention of predestination in that whole chapter But Mr Blake promiseth me square dealing in the examining my Argument and sets down my words at length and then in stead of answering it puts divers Quaere's to me yeelding first to me that the Text Gen. 17.7 was in that place Rom. 9.6 7 8 brought into question by the Apostle 1 saith he How Bain and Ameâ— come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants Answer And so aâ—so did I and therefore called them the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants not Remonstrants as Mr. Blake not heeding my words suggests as one not willing to omit any thing whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible 2. saith he Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the Covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise I am sure in his Analysis on this chapter to the Romans of which Mr. T. should not be ignorant little lesse than vapouring of his examination of it in Oxford Apolog. page 131. he spake in another manner even in Mr. T. his own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with
part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized pag. 710. arg 4. we must baptize none that profess not their consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of grace with God in Christ p. 79. arg 5. we must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins the rest have speeches to like purpose in which though he puts in sometimes and their seed yet his proofs do all overthrow that his own addition and tear off his patch which he hath printed to his argumenâ— and as fully militate against his book of baptism as Mr. Blakes tenet so that to me it seems that by Divine providence without his intention una eademque manus vulnus opemque tulit Nor do I think but that if conscientious Christians chiefly Schollers would read over that second disputation they would be satisfied that infants ought not to be baptized but themselves and that Mr. Baxter hath cheated the world by his book of baptism and shewed himself therein an inconsiderate writer But however this fall out it is a great rejoycing to my soul that God hath so long preserved my life and strength though now declining to finish this part of the Review also and to see that part of it printed which is in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument in his book of baptism about his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership and its repeal which some have given out as unanswerable because this answer hath been so long in publishing not considering that besides the not knowing of his minde about it till 1655. I have been necessitated to answer many others and together with my constant labours some other employments extraordinary with domestick distractions necessity of respect to my bodily strength want of help of books in some points of learned men to whom I might have recourse of an amanuensis and chiefly the difficulty of getting it printed by reason of the great charge which this book amounts to and yet is not so readily put off as other smaller writings and such as sute more with the minde of Readers of whom few seem to search after truth impartially especially in controversies of this kinde In this which is done my witness is in heaven how faithfully and sincerely I have dealt which makes me slight the unrighteous censures of those Mr. Blake mentions of Mr. Baxter Mr. Firmin Mr. Gattaker Mr. Ford Mr. Crag and the rest And for Mr. John Goodwin who so much magnifies Mr. Baxters book I wish he and Mr. Horn his second would read this writing which I take to be a sufficient answer with the two fore-parts of this Review to what is said by Mr. Baxter and themselves in the point of Infant-baptism As for the point of Schism or Separation which Mr. Baxter and he charge Anabaptists with I take my self no further concerned then mine own fact which if they can prove to have been unbrotherly or unrighteous I hope God wil so frame my heart as to testifie my repentance if not I advise them to take heed of rash judging and all their followers of following them in that sin If the objection be still set on foot That those that are as they term us Anabaptists do fall into many false opinions prove Quakeâ—s c. I wish them better to examine reports of us then Mr. Farmer Mr. Breton and others have done of me afore they spread them and to look into the state of the societies of their own judgement who if they be not guilty of such fallings I shall rejoyce with them and hope they will learn to pitty and endeavour to restore those who are fallen in the spirit of meekness if they be that they will remember that it should be no more objected to us then to themselves For my own part I hope I shall not abet any such errour nor do I know of any such errours or miscarriages in the Churches to which I have associated which are not opposed and censured by us Nor do I think it equal we should be charged with that errour or miscarriage which we condemn And I make bold to admonish Paedobaptists in the Lord that they take heed of those practises which tend to the disquieting defaming hindering their brethren in the work of Christ because of the supposed errour as they term it of Anabaptism lest they happily fight against God and wrong their brethren remembring that he that doth wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done and there is no respect of persons with God Col. 3.25 And to the end they may search their own consciences and rightly judge of themselves I presume they may do well to lay to heart thâ—se following quâ—stions 1. Whether it be not a manifest perverting of the Gospel of Christ to maintain that the Covenant of Gospel grace is made to each beleever and his seed 2. Whether it be not against the Gospel to maintain that the command of Circumcision Gen. 17. doth any way bind Christian beleevers now in their practise 3. Whether it be nor against the Gospel to entitle pâ—rsons to the Church visible Christian by their natural generation of beleevers 4. Whether it be not a manifest will-worship to practise the positive Rite of Infant-Baptism as Gods worship which is confest to have neither precept nor example in the New Testament 5. Whether it be not a profanation of Baptism to use it otherwise then Christ appointed 6. Whether by justifying Infant Baptism the relinquishâ—ng of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies which have as much of reason tradition authority of the Church as it be not condemned 7. Whether it be not an oppression and exercising of dominion over mens consciences to tie them to acknowledge Sacraments to be in their nature seals of the Covenant of grace which the Scripture terms not so nor can be proved plainly from it and to impose on them the practise of Infant baptism under pain of guilt of sin which Christ never appoâ—ntâ—d 8. Whether it be not manifest hypocrisie to oppose the Cross Surplice c. and to be zealous for Infant baptism 9. Whether they who justifie Infant baptism and oppose baptism of Believers at age confessed to be according to the institution of Christ and primitive practise are not partial in Gods Law and may expect to be made contemptible before all the people 10. Whether they who do so do not break the solemn Covenant of endeavouring reformation according to Gods word 11. How they that say they baptize infants into the Name of Christ who sprinkle or powr onely some water on them without any profession of the infant can be acquitted from saying falsly 12. By what rule those who are acknowledged visible Church-members in infancy câ—n be denied the Lords Supper 13. Whether it be not a signe that Paedobaptism is not according to rule when there are so many
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
quatenùs he may know that Scapula puts quatenùs for the first signification of it What I said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not only a causal particle but also a restrictive is not denied by Mr. C. But he thinks it is not good sense to say according as he is a believer but rather it is to be taken as a reason of the former I confess it would not be good sense to say according that is after the proportion that he is a believer but thus it is good sense to make it to note the reason with restriction and so our Translators do when they render it for so much And this is confirmed in that if it be expounded that salvation did come to his house that is his wife children servants for this only reason or cause because he was a Son of Abraham in that he was a believer it may be gathered thence that a mans whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing To this Mr. C. saith No but as Acts 16.31 upon his believing they shall come in the Gospel-way in the Covenant road and ordinary means of salvation But that this is a false Exposition both places shew That Luke 19.9 must needs be meant otherwise than of the means of salvation with which Zachâ—us might not have been saved For besides that to his being a Son of Abraham not a Son of Abrahams Covenant as Mr. C. speaks though that be true also but a follower of Abrahams Faith salvation is certainly annexed nor had it been so joyous if he had not meant salvation it self it is put out of all doubt that he means salvation it self by verse 10. where he gives this reason why he said salvation was come to him though some murmured at his going in to him for saith he the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost therefore he had both sought and did save Zachaeus who was lost And for the other place it is as frivolous to expound Acts 16.31 of the means of salvation For 1. Pauls Answer is of that of which the Jaylour asked him else he had deluded him by his Answer but the Question was not What may I do to be put in the road ordinary means of salvation the Gospel way But What may I do to escape the wrath due to me 2. That salvation is meant which was consequent on his believing but the ordinary means of salvation was not consequent but antecedent that which followed on his believing in Christ was the certainty of salvation Yea to interpret thus Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved that is thou shalt hear the Word be Baptized c. is so frigid and sapless and interpretation as no considerate man sure no Interpreter besides Mr. C. that I know did ever give a sense of it But Mr. C. tells me Nor is this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self unusuall in Scripture The salvation which Christ and his Apostles preached and those Heb. 2.3 neglected was not barely salvation it self but the promises holding the same forth this was that mercy and riches and salvation also which came to the Gentiles as rejected by the Jewes Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 verses compared So Esay 1 6 8 Gods salvation is his promise or covenant on which their salvation did depend Calvin in locum 2 Sam. 23.5 David speaking of his house or posterity which albeit it were not so orient then yet God had made a covenant with him scil in reference to his house ordered in all things and sure And this scil this covenant with me and my house is all my salvation and all my desire albeit he maketh my house not to grow or flourish in such a sort this covenant then was his salvation objectivè causaliter or instrumentaliter Answ. If this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self were usuall in Scripture yet it could not be the sense Luke 19.9 or Acts 16.31 whether we understand it of the outward means of salvation the Word and Sacraments or of the promise of salvation but must be understood of saving by justification as Tit. 3.5 6 7. For neither is the outward means of salvation nor the promise of salvation consequent upon being a son of Abraham and believing as salvation is in those places 2. Yet in none of the places alleged by Mr C. is salvation put for being in the Gospel way the ordinary means of salvation competent to infants And for the covenant or promise of salvation it self he dares not avoch it to be Gospel that all the infants of inchurched believers have interest in it and therefore if salvation Luke 19.9 were put for the covenant or promise of salvation yet it would not prove that it belongs to every son of Abrahams whole house but Mr C. must limit it to the elect as I do Yet let us consider his Texts that it may appear with how little heed he brings Texts as if he never examined their pertinency but heaped them together whether to the purpose or not They are said to neglect salvation Heb. 2.3 Ergo salvation is taken for the outward means of salvation competent to infants or the covenant of salvation Nay rather salvation is taken for salvation as it was preached and offered not for the means of salvation competent to infants nor for the promise of salvation but for salvation it self neglected in that they did not take hold of it by believing and obeying the doctrine of the Gospel Acts 28.28 salvation is said to be sent to the Gentiles and that they would not hear it But salvation there is the doctrine of salvation not competent to infants who could not hear it Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 is not meant either of the bare outward means of salvation or the covenant of salvation only much less the outward means competent to infants Esâ—y 51.6 8 the term Salvation is not taken for the bare outward means of salvation competent to infants of inchurched believers If Salvation 2 Sam. 23.5 did note outward means of salvation because it is said This covenant is all my salvation desire should note outward means of desire because it is said This covenant is all my desire I grant the convenant is termed his salvation Causaliter or Instrumentaliter and his desire objestivè The covenant everlasting in all things ordered and sure was made with David in reference to his house not in respect of outward covenant interest to the infants of his house it 's a wonder to me that such a man as Mr C. should â—o dote especially after the publishing of Mr Cottons book of the Covenant on that Text but in respect of the great promise of raising Christ out of his loins Acts 2.30 or as it is Luke 1.69 Raising up a Horn of salvation for his people in the house of his servant David and this that is
so as to be the people of God and to enjoy all priviledges of his people in order upon Gods termes to everlasting salvation But 1. not one nor all prove that God did promise to all Gen. 17.7 or any such outward priviledges as he means to wit to be circumcised or right to it and the Passeover nor that all enjoy them 2. The promises of justification adoption eternal life upon Gods termes without the promise of regeneration and effectual calling make noâ— a person to be in the Covenant nor a people holy to the Lord Evangeliâ—ally Now this promise Mr. Bl. hath not proved to be made to all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob and till he doth so he proves nothing against my assertion Exercit. pag. 3 which he pretended fully to oppose but hath failed to do it His 36. ch is answered before sect 29. I pass on to ch 37. which is thus entituled The Covenant in New Testament times takes in parents with their children This he sets himself to make good first by interrogatories and then by Peters words Acts 2.38 39. which is answered before sect 21. A little oâ— his interrogatories To his first if by the grant he mean the Covenant of grace Evangelical I deny it to have been ever made to a beliâ—ver and all his seed nor is it proved by Mr. Bl. If a Covenant of visible Church-membership and initial seal I deny any such Covenant ever made by God to a believer and his seed or the grant thereof to have been held by the Church of God in fee from Abraham to this present hour and therefore need shew no reverse of such a grant To his 2d demand I grant a whole nation may enter into Covenant as Deut 29. nor do I restrain any from engagement of their infants and posterity unborn by an oath and curse to own God But I finde there no promise or grant of visible Church-membership and initial seal to believers and their seed by vertue of such a Covenant His other frivolous questions in that demand are answered often that the difference ariseth fâ—om the different institution of Circumcision which is the rule of administring them not interest in the Covenant if there were such To his 3d. demand I know no scandal ever given or likely to be given to the Jews by not baptizing infants His random talk of sâ—riking out of the Covenant infants is shewed often before to be vain as going on suppositions not proved To his allegâ—tions of Gen. 17.7 Ezek 16.20 1 Cor. 7.14 I have often answered before To his 4th that the reason why in the Apostles dayes and the next age to them no question was moved about the baptizing of infants though infants were circumcised by the Jews is manifest to wit Christ had not appointed infants to be bapâ—ized the Apostles and primitive Christians did not at all use it it was contrary to the end and use of baptism as appointed by Christ they knew not of the Paedobaptists doctrine about the title to baptism from the Covenant and its succession to circumcision But Mr. Bl. further refers me to Mr. Baxters Treatise of Infants Church-membership proving that infants were sometimes Church members pag 26 27. that there is no repeal of this grant vouchsafed of God pag. 27 28. waiting for some fair answer to the former demands Whereto I shall address my self as being very desirous wiâ—h the assistance of the Lord to do my endeavour for the freeing of men from the delusion of that Book wherewith a great number of Paedobaptists have been gulled SECT XLIX The 4th Ch. of Mr. Baxters Part 1. of Plain Scripture-proof c. is examined his conceits about Infants visible Church membership and their admission considered and sundry Animadversions made on that Chapter MR. B. part 1. ch 4. of his Plain Scripture-proof c. writes thus My 2d argument and the chief I shall make use of is this All that ought to be admitted visible Church-members ordinarily ought to be baptized But some Infants ought to be admitted visiblâ— Church-members therefore some Infants ordinarily ought to be baptized Mr. T. hath gone over and over the terms of this Argument so oft as if he could not possibly find out my meaning in them when they are as plain as I well know how to express my self A great while he fain would have denied the major Proposition but at last he is content to deny onely the minor And indeed that is the very heart of the controversie The question between us is noâ— so muâ—h Whether infants may be baptized as Whether they are in the number of Christians and to be added as members to the visible Church If Mr. T. did grant the minor and not deny our children Christianity and to be members of the Church I should for my part think his errour though foul yet of less consequence in denying of Baptism But it is their Church-membership that he denieth and yeeldeth that all that ought to be admiâ—ted members should be baptized Answ. That I did often in the dispuâ—e at Bewdly go over and over the terms of this argument need not seem stâ—aâ—ge when Mr. Thomas Hooker having the book he was to examine before him in Print in a like point saith thus survey of the summe of Church Discipline Part 1. ch 12. When I had read over Mr. Rutherford once and again I was at a stand in mine own thoughts to determine certainly what was his proper intendment by the catholick and visible Church I might well doubt what he meant by the visible Church how he defined iâ— wherein his notion is different from what others have as is shewed before in the 2d part of this Review sect 17. whether he meant the visible Church catholick or particular and if particular whether Jewish or Christian. And for the admission what he meant by it how and by whom it ought to be was doubtfull I perceived in the very entrance of the dispute by his preface and his propounding the question about our baptizing representing it as odious as if it were murder and adultery and after by his denying liberty of repeating to mee refusing to explain his own terms scoffingly putting if off as if it were catechizing of him when I desired him to open some terms to me which he used and when I told him that it was needfull the people should understand us he replyed he came to dispute with me not to instruct them nor would clear them except I could by distinction force him to it I deprehended that he was as I found him bent to catch advantages to insult over me and carry away the same of a victory and not in a brotherly candid way to discuss the point that truth might appear to all the hearers which I hoped from a man so seemingly godly Upon which reasons I confess I was hesitant both about the answering of this and other arguments all along the dispute finding that Mr. B. had
the curse to the issue of Cham. And indeed a Hebrew Doctor would take it ill at that Expositor or Divine whatsoever that should presume to exclude the infant seed of them out of Gods Church And wel they may if in the blessing God be pronounced to be their God Saith Ainsworth in loc under this Sem also himself receiveth a blessing for blessed is the people whose God Jehovah is Psal. 144.15 and eternal life is implied herein for God hath prepared for them a City of whom he is not ashamed to be called their God Heb. 11.16 and Sem is the first man in Scripture that hath expresly this honour Answ. I grant that not onely the person of Shem but his posterity were blessed nor do I deny God was their God nor that their infant seed was in Gods Church But this doth not prove their visible Churchmembership in infancy but rather their invisible Churchmemship for that is imported by the phrase of being their God as Mr. Ainsworths exposition intimates God was God to Jacob in his mothers womb yet he was not then a visible but an invisible Church-member Moreover saith Mr. B. in Gen. 9.27 in Japhets blessing there is much though in few words to this purpose intimatâ—â— First note that the Jewish Church is called the tents of Sem. From whence it appeareth that the Church priviledges of that pâ—ople begun not with or from Abraham but were before And that it is the same Church that was of Shem and of Abraham and after all the additional promises to Abraham the Jewish Church is still denominated the tents of Sem now they were the tents of Sem before Abrahams days And therefore it is clear that it being the same Church must be supposed to have tâ—e same sort of members or materials and therefore infants must be members before Abrahams days as well as after That Church which was Sems tents had infant Churchmembers for the Jewes Church is so called into which Japhet was to pass But the Church both before and after Abraham was Sems tents Ergo. Answ. That the tents of Sem note the Jewish people is not improbable But then it is as certain that they are so called not from what they were in Sems days at least not what they were when Noah prophesied but what they were to be afterwards when they were formed to be a peculiar people and they are Sems tents because they descended from him And this is clear even from what Mr. B. and all grant that what is here said was accomplished in the posterity of Sem Japhet and Cham. And therefore it followes not that if the Jewish people had infants Churchmembers visible it must be so in Sems dayes because they are termed Sems tents sith they are so termed from their discent not from the state of the Church in Sems time Nevertheless if it bee granted that Sems tents are the Church of God in Sems family in his days it will rather prove it to note the invisible Church then the visible For the dwelling in the tents of Sem in Mr. Bs. and their sense whom he follows is by faith and so the tents of Sem must note the invisible Church of true believers of whom God is God as he was of Sem the Israel of God as they are termed Gal. 6.16 not the Jewish Church visible and they were joyned by perswasion and therefore not infants who were to dwell in Sems tents and consequently infants visible Churchmembership is not hence proved And to Mr. Bs. argument I answer by granting the conclusion if by Sems tents be meant the invisible Church if the Jewish people the minor is denied He goes on thus Yet further let it here bee noted that it is into Shems tents that Japhet must pass I suppose that the evidence is better here for that exposition that applieth the word dwell to Japhet then to God and so that this is spoken of the conversion of the Gentiles as many Expositors have cleered at large And so as Ainsworth saith the sense is that Japhet shall be united with the Churches of the Jews the posterity of Sem which was fulfilled when the Gentiles became joint heyrâ— and of the same body and joint partakers of Gods promise in Christ the stop of the partition wall being broken down c. Eph. 3.6 2.14 19. Although it may further imply the graffing of Japhets children into the stock of the Church when Sems posterity should bee cut off c. vid. ult Now if it be Sems tents even the same Church that Japhets children must dwell in then as Sems infants were Church-members so must Japhets and not all his infant seed bee cast or left out So that here is a promise of infant Churchmembership unto the Gentiles in these words Answ. For my part for ought I yet discern Mr. Nicholas Fuller his exposition in his â—d Book of his Miscellanies Theological ch 4. seems more right then that which Mr. B. and many other Expositors follow to wit thus God shall enlaâ—ge the coasts of the posterity of Japhet in Asia Europe and America and God shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is Christ or God manifested in the flesh shall dwell in the tents of Sem that is among the Jews being of their stock as it is John 1.14 and Canaan shall be servant to the Israelites and the posterity of Japhet as the Canaanites Egyptians Carthaginians and other people of Cham have been being conquered by Joshua Alexander the great the Romans and other people Nor do I see how Mr. Bs. interpretation can be right sith when Japhet was perswaded to dwell in Sems tents Chams posterity also were perswaded and Canaan was no more a servant in a spiritual sense no nor so much as Sems tents the Jewish people nor were the Gentiles perswaded to dwell in Sems tents that is in the Jewish Church visible but it was quite dissolved and they a separate Church from them And therefore it is most manifestly false that the children of Japhet must dwell in Sems tents that is the same visible Church Jewish and therefore the inference is wrong there are infant visible members in the Gentile Church Christian yea sith according to Mr. Bs. own exposition the Gentiles were by the perswasion of the Gospel as it is Ephes. 3.6 of the same body none of the Gentiles were of the same body but those who were perswaded by the Gospel which cannot be said of infants and therefore the contrary follow from Mr. Bs. own exposition that infants were not to be visible Christian Churchmembers SECT LX. Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 12. or 17. or 22. WE come next saith Mr. B. to the promise made to Abraham which I shall say the less to because you confess it But again note that whereas your self make the beginning of Gods taking the Jews to be his people and so of infants to be members of the
patiently bear his falshoods wherein he accuseth the truth and servants of the living God and by shewing him his errours and evil dealing have endeavoured to acquit my self as his faithful brother as was meet however he hath been or shall be towards me affected He adds after Sir if you have any thing of moment to say in reply to these which you have not yet in your writings brought forth I shall bee willing to consider of it But if you have not I pray you tell me so in two words and spare the rest of your pains as for me and trouble mee no more with matters of this nature For truly I have no sufficient vacancy from greater works Yea I am constrained to forbear much greater then these R. B. After this he tels me That whereas I preached a Sermon at Bewdley in which I refuted by many arguments infants visible Churchmembership I must be either mutable or hypocritical if I deny such a law and ordinance which I took on me then to refute and desires a Copy of that Sermon that hee may shew the sad mistakes and vanity of those my arguments To which I answer 1. I refuted Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Church-membership as a thing pretended not as a thing real and so am neither mutable nor hypocritical in denying such a law 2. I have no delight in Mr. Bs. writings of this subject unless there were more ingenuity and solidity in them then I yet finde and therefore am willing to gratifie him with no more of my manuscripts in this kinde 3. As for the Copy of my Sermon he hath the matter of it with enlargement in the 50 51 and 52. Section of this Book which when he answers fragili querens illidere dentem offendet solido 4. What I had more to say then I have printed he may perceive by my Books and however Mr. B. conceives yet I conceive that the reformation or confirmation of infant Baptism is a matter of as great moment as the things Mr. B. is intentive on However hee might have answered my Letter without any of this trouble hee hath put himself to But sith hee chose this way I have thought it necessary to make this reply and so to go on to the examining the rest of his Book not yet examined by me at large though there be little which is not answered in this and other parts before SECT LXIIII. My Answer in the Dispute and Sermon to the argument of Mr. B. of Baptism part 1. ch 6. about the non-repeal of infants Churchmembership because neither in justice nor mercy is vindicated PLain Scripture proof c. part 1. ch 6. Mr B. speaks thus My first argument is this If God have repealed this ordinance and revoked this mercifull gift of infants Churchmembership then it is either in mercy or in justice either for their good or for their hurt But he hath neither repealed it in mercy for their good nor in justice for their hurt therefore he hath not at all repealed it I will hide nothing from you that Mr. T. hath said against this argument either in our publick Dispute or in his Sermon The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major proposition he never offered to deny nor indeed is there any ground to deny it It must needs be for the good or hurt of infants that they are put out and so must needs be in mercy or justice For God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end and of no moment but in meer indifferency Answ. In the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. and the Sermon shortly after I did not understand Mr. Bs. opinion as I do now nor did afore the writing of his last Letter conceive of his law and ordinance of visible Churchmembership what it was and where it was to be found nor do I yet conceive clearly what the benefit and priviledge is to infants by their visible Churchmembership which he asserts And therefore if I gave not so clear an answer to this argument as were requisite it is to be imputed partly to the unacquaintedness with it at that time partly to Mr. Bs. artifice who carried himself close in the Dispute for indirect advantage and still is unwilling to shew his mind fully though desired by me in the Letter before set down What is his opinion about the law unrepealed is considered before what he imagines are the priviledges and benefit of his infants visible Churchmembers seems to be intimated in these passages of his Letter in the 4th qu. set down here sect 55. when he saith I suppose you will not deny that it was a benefit to be the covenanted people of God to have the Lord engaged to be their God and to take them for his people to be brought so near him and to be 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 In another passage set down Sect. 56. To be a member of the Church is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God and taken by him for his special people The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society The relation then essentially containeth 1. a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerfull and gracious a Soveraign to such subjects and from such a head to his members As also a right to my station in the body and to the inseparable benefits thereof Which how false they are is in part shewed above He likewise expresseth the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian as if it were a casting out excommunicating by a punitive execution of a curse or law on them ch 5. part 1. of plain Scripture proof c. wherein how he is mistaken is shewed above These things being premised I say that if Mr. B. understand by mercy remunerative mercy and by justice punitive justice as he seems to do I deny the major And to his reasons I answer 1. Simply and of it self the nonâ—visible Churchmembership of infants imports neither hurt nor good to them But by accident in that their visible Church-membership in the Church of the Hebrews obliged them to Circumcision and the yoke of the Law so it imports hurt to them 2. If it did import hurt or good to them yet it might be neither by an act of remunerative mercy nor punitive justice that they are left out oâ— the Church but by an act of meer Soveraignty as it is in election and reprobation and in the disposing of the Gospel where God plâ—aseth 3. God hath his ends in this alteration as to shew his freeness his intent to have his visible Church more spiritual then the Jewish c. though not to shew his
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to conceive otherwise as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen or any Gentile believer or his infant were or could bee by believing and baptism any other then an heathen or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity I do account Mr. Rutherfurd and my self Christians and yet Heathens There 's not a word in the Text that warrants us to say of the children of the ingraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherfurd does of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels Abrahams children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root yet not as a believing Father nor as a believing head of children of servants and strangers under him but as Father of believers after him And in this respect neither Adam nor any other then Abraham is the root and none of Abrahams natural seed are branches or holy intentionally but such as are elect and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification Nor doth the Apostle when he saith the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers make Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root but intimate that God remembers them because of his Covenant made to them his taking the title of their God their obedience to him their prayers and his constancy to them as his ancient friends when all the world were revolted The conceit of Mr. Rutherfurd concerning holiness external federal as if it were any cause or reason of re-ingraffing them or their infants is so frivolous that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it For what is it but a state of outward church priviledges right to the seals c But to imagine so great a work as the re-ingraffing which infers salvation should come from Abrahams Isaac and Jacobs or any other natural believing Fathers visible Churchmembership Circumcision Baptism c. is to derive title to heaven from at best an amissible priviledge which may be interrupted by men What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton Blake Cobbet Baxter Mr. Rutherfurd may see examined in this Review by reading of which hee may discern that they have neither closed the dispute nor managed it so as that their learning is to be rested on SECT LXXXVII The distractions in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith THere having been a dispute aâ— Abergavenny between me and Mr. John Cragge Sept. 5th 1653. and a Sermon preached there whâ—n I was gone thence the next Lords day in opposition to what I taught instead of letting mee have a copy manuscript they were printed with much injury to the truth and my person Whereâ—ore having had experience in Mr. Bs. dealing what advantage the errour of infant Baptism got by such writings I being then in London and meeting with the Book made a reply intituled A Plea for Antipaedobaptists to which Mr. John Cragge hath returned an answer and intituled it The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism He hath prefixed an Epistle to eight ominent Members of the Parliament which â—ate anno 1654. He tels them that the Cause he defends is and ought to be dearer to them then any private interests as whereupon infallibly depends the peace of Church and State He might more truly have said that infallibly the peace of Church and State depends on the reforming of infant Baptism which hath corrupted the Church and State by bringing into the Christian societies a world of ignorant loose and prophane persons who being the major part in all Churches and Commonwealths where Christianity hath been received have persecuted the godly domineered over the consciences and liberties of the Saints and upheld a proud and sensual Clergy to the infinite disturbance of the Eastern and Western Churches for many ages And though I hope better of the men to whom Mr. Cr. ascribes such heroick excellencies that they have or will have more wit or more grace then to account Mr. Crs. cause of infant Baptism dearer to them then any private interests Yet I must confess I cannot but mourn that not onely Parliament men but also Ministers should be so ignorant as to be taken with such silly inâ—â—pid clamours I may truly say rather then arguings as Mr. Cr. Mr. B. and others have mislead them by That which he saith the former sad disasters of Germany and our present distractions both took their spring and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism â—is most false The disasters in Germany which were in the years 1524 1525. did spring from the great burthens and oppressions which were put on the Rusticks by their Princes Bishops Abbots Spondanus expresly in his Auct of his Epit. of Baron Annals ad annum 1524. saith That they began in Suevia by rising of the Bores against their Lord Count Lupfius and that the beginning thence being risen after an infinite number of Rusticks being stirred up to seditions upon pretent of Gospel liberty which Spanheimius himself in his Diatribe Historica § 4. refers to Luthers Book of Christian Liberty as the occasion taken by them committed great outrages And ad annum 1502. tels us That in the Diocess of Spiâ—e a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons which was called the Rustick League began from two Rusticks of which conspiracy the châ—ef article was that they should shake off every yoâ—e and in imitation of the Helvetians should recover their liberty And Lucas Osiander Epit. hist. Eccles. cent 16. l. 1. c. 16. p. 34. saith These particular seditions in Germany were the praeludia or foâ—e playes of that great sedition of Rusticks which was in its vigour in the year 1525. And Gnodalius in his history of the rustick tumults in Germany in the year 1525. lib. 1. saiâ—h That in Suevia where they first began they did openly signifie that they were not Gospellers nor did flow together for the Gospel sake but because of exactions Bp. Jewel Def. of the Apology of the Church of England part 4. chap. 4. Divis. 1. to Harding saying Were the hundred thousand Bores of Germany consumed by the sword of the Nobility there for their obecience answers thus The Bores of Germany of whom ye speak for the greatest part were adversaries unto Doctour Luther and understood no part of the Gospel but conspired together as they said onely against the cruelty and tyranny of their Lords as they had done two and twenty years before in the same Country in the Conspiracy called Liga sotularia fifteen years before Doctour Luther began to preach the partners of which conspiracy had for their watchword the name of our Lady and in the honour of her were bound to say five Ave maries every day Certainly touching those later Rebels it is known that Luther sharply and vehemently wrote against them And they themselves being demanded thereof utterly denied
his testimony about infant Baptism as to be rested on but we may say as Vorstius adv Bellarm. tom 3. contr 2. thes 2. rat 3. The doting of Augustine and some other is ill brought for the consent of the whole Church and we may make that use of this instance of Augustines Innocentius and others errour about infant Communion which Cameron doth c. â—7 of his Examin of Rom. prejudices to take away the unjust fore-judging of the refusal of infant Baptism aâ— unreasonable by shewing how little the Fathers particularly Augustine are to be trusted and what just reason there is to forsake him in the one as they have done in the other My 4th Exception was That Augustine 1. ascribes a certainty of regeneration to children baptizâ—d though they were not brought for spiritual grace but temporal health 2. That he justifies this fact Epist. 23. ad Bonif. Mr. M confesseth He ascribed too much sometimes to Baptism yet sometimes he saith of some that they have the thing of Baptism without the sacrament and so Ambrose of Valentinian yet Ambrose as well aâ— Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptism To which I reply It is true and so did generally the Fathers as may be seen abundantly in Mr. Gatakers strictures against Bishop Davenants Epist p 52 c. And this caused great abuses 1. the allowing of infant Baptism yea and much advancing it 2. the allowing of the Baptism of men that kept their beds by reason of sickness on their beds 3. the Baptism by womâ—n 4. the Baptism by Athanasius on his playâ—fellows which he did in plâ—y with them when but a boy as sufficicently done for Baptism 5. the bringing of infants to be baptized for cure of their bodies But saith Dr. Homes By all the words Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. I should think Augustine doth no way justifie or excuse their bad intention To which I reply yet he justifies their bad action saying by them the necessary service or ministery is celebrated My 5th Exception was â—hat Augustin Ep. 23. ad Bonif. was so tenacious of customes then in use that he doth defend or excuse from lying the answer of sureties as if the child to be baptized did believe In this Mr. M. saith I scorn Augustines judgement And I reply I do not so much as Chamier paustr. cath tom 4. l 5. c. 15. § 22. where he terâ—s it mimical as if it were a play on a stage rather then the celebrating a Sacrament in the Church which Augustine defended But saith Dâ— Homes This is impertinent to the question I reply it is very pertinent 1. to shew how vain Augustines judgement was in these things about Baptism and the Lords Supper 2. To shew what was the primiâ—ive use of propounding the question of his faith to every baptized person which Vives com in August de Civit. Dei l. 1. câ—7 â—7 thought a good evidence that of old none were baptized but persons grown up and able to answer the questions â—o this saith Dr. Homes 1. â—e wonder Mr. T. will assert confession of faith in all Ages before all Baptism from witnesses or sureties when as we know that the first intimation of touching them was not till about 95 years after Christ. And how novel the invention of their confessions is who can justly tell I reply 1. I wonder Dr. Homes will so untruly say I do so assert 2. If sureties were so late an invention surely infant Baptism was at new it being never without such sureties 2. Saith he I propound it to grave consideration whether sureties did not confess in relation to themselveâ— that they might be reputed fit to stand as a kind of parents to a child of an unbelieving parent to be baptized even as Abrahams profession of his belief in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him stand as a parent to all his houshold I reply Upon my consideration it was not so because Tertull. de 〈◊〉 c. 18. mentions them as undertakers for the child and Bonifacius and Augustine that they professed in the childs stead My last Exception against Augustines judgement was That they baptized any infants even of unbelievers who ever brought them and what ever were their intention they counted it a work of charity and the defect of the faith of the baptized they counted supplied by the faith of the whole Church To this saith Mr. M. Neither I in that justifie him You may take notice that here again you confess the question that infants were baptized I reply this was not the question But saith Dr. Homes 1. â—oo much doth not overthrow enough I reply it overthrows the imitableness of their practise 2. This argues against me that infant Baptism hath been anciently more universally practised then adulâ— Bapâ—ism I reply if so more infidels children should be baptized then Christian converts which is a monstrous fiction refuted by all the remaining monuments of antiquity Mr. M. They baptized upon Covenant holiness believers children infidels children upon the engagement of undertakers to train them up I reply the former appears not the later was of others as well as believers children as is shewed before This is enough to shew the invalidity of Augustine and the Latine Fathers testimonies â—or infant Baptism as Protestants assert it To the recollection of the passages about the Ancients testimonies Mr. M. answers 1. To what I said that that they practised infant Baptism on erroneous grounds the necessity of it to salvation the certainty of the remission of original sin by it denying Gods grace to none and therefore more likely to be an errour Mr. M. saith p. 54. Do not Tertullian Cyprian c. argue from Circumcision unto Baptism 〈◊〉 we now do and others of them from Covenant holiness I answer No not one that I know of 2. To what I said that it is not proved to have been practised but in case of supposed necessity he saith It is otherwise and an Arminian book termed Censura censuâ—ae of which I have made great use in this controversy which is not true saith Augustine first grounded infant Baptism upon necessity But I answer this is not true that which is said before out of Tertullian Nazianzen Cyprian proves it otherwiâ—e Yea long after Augustine Concilium Geâ—undense in the 6th Century appointed in the 4th and 5th Canon That ordinarily persons catechized not infirm should be baptized at Easter and Whitsontide the infirm at other times and infants if infirm and desire not the mothers milk if they be offered the day of their birth which expresseth it to be a permission in that case and shews it to be an exception from the ordinary course Yea Magdeb. cent 1â— c. 6. of the rites of Baptism shew infants then to have been baptised onely out of fear of death 3. To what I said that there was a constant course of baptizing believers children at age he saith I have been been mistaken and this practise was disavowed