of the Covenant of grace entred with our first parents presently upon the fall Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members Disciples and subjects of Christ because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith So that Mr. Bs. opinion is Christ by his law of nature or nations or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith formerly and present disposition beyond the meer bare profession of faith is properly the onely cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian. Against this I argue 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember nor any such law either of nature or nations or positive which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership is false But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it in that which followes 2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional the absolute according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant and it is granted to be onely to the elect in his Appendix answer to the 8th and 9th object and elsewhere and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person not visible churchmembership upon the faith of another The conditional covenant is of justification salvation on condition of faith and this pâ—omiseth not visible Churchmembership but saving graces it promiseth unto all upon condition and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith 3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership because God may be their God and yet they not be visible Churchmembers as he is the God of Abraham of infants dying in the womb of believers at the hour of death yâ—t they not now visible Churchmembers 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership yet being to the seed simply may be true of them though not in infancy and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times it being certain that many are never visible Churchmembers as â—ll still-born infants of believers many that are visible Churchmembers for a time yet fall away and therefore if that promise were granâ—ed and the condition and law put yet infants might not be visible Christian Churchmembers 4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assignes is not sufficient But the antececedent is true For the promise the parents actual believing the law of nature of nations any particular precept of dedicating the childe to God the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born and yet then the childe is no visible Church member Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick That the cause being put the effect is put To this Mr. B. plain Script proof c. pag. 100. Moral causes and so remote causes might have all their being long before the effect so that when the effect was produced there should bee no alteration in the cause though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing I reply this answer deserved a smile 1. For Mr. B. as his words shew before cited makes Christ by his law or covenant-gâ—ant the onely cause efficient therefore it is the next cause according to him and not onely a remote cause 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe is born as after and there is no alteration in the cause though yet it have not produced the effect then it is made by M. B. a cause in act and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect yet not the relative being of causes for so they are together So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law yet they are not the cause adequate and in act which Mr. B. makes them without the being of the effect nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose It is true election Christs death the covenant c. are causes of remission of sins imputation of righteousness salvation before these be but they are not the adequate causes in act For there must be a further act of God forgiving justifying delivering afore these are actually They are causes of the justificabâ—lity the certainty futurity of justification of themselves but not of actual justification without mans faith and Gods sentence which is the next cause A deed before one's born gives him title to an inheritance but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Churchmembership the effect of a moral or legal cause He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue of a grant or legal donation But in this he is mistaken confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it Whereas the Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral to wit the call whereby they are made Churchmembers and that act or signe what ever it be whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law covenant or some donation legal or moral not the state it self of visible Churchmembership Which I further prove thus 5. If visible Churchmembership bee antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it But visible Churchmembership is immediately upon the persons believing professed which is a condition of his being in
An unmoved position That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church that is faith Hudson vindic ch 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian and a member of Christs visible Kingdom because â—he form viz. visible believing common to all Christians and all members is found in him And this may be proved out of Scripture which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of faâ—th in respect of which they are termed believers 1 Tim. 2.12 Acts 4.32 5.14 c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another of the parent church c. It is a meer novel device of Papists who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds and Paedobaptists who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties the Church their owners the nation believing their parents next or remote faith Which is a gross and absurd conceit For that in profession alone makes visible believers which makes in reality true believers But that 's a mans own faith Hab. 2.4 not anothers therefore a mans own and not anothers profession of faith makes a visible believer Again the form denominating must be inherent or in or belong to the person denominated so as that there is some union of iâ— to him but there is no inherence or union of anothers faith to an infant Ergo. Naturally there is none nor legally if there be â—et him that can shew by what grant of God it is Infants may have civil right to their parents goods a natural interest in their mothers milk parents and masters may have power over the bodies labour c. of their children and servants they have no power to convey Faith or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent But this conceit is so ridiculous that I need spend no more words to refute iâ— I subsume Infants make no profession of faith they are onely passive and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christiâ—ns as experience shews yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry and as they are able oppose it Ergo. To this faith Mr. M. I answer even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members though they were visible members of the Jewish Church But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can that the same thing to wit natural birth and Jewish descent and dwelling which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church doth denominate a christian visible church-member And till he do this the force of the argument remains 5. I argue If infants bee visible Christian church-members then there may be a visible Church christian which consists onely of infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive though not organical But this is absurd Ergo Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member To this Mr. M saith I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behinde them Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abrahams or Israels house which they might be though but infants But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ which infants cannot do and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may bee onely of infants of believers whereof not one is a believer by profesâ—ion not so of ths Jewish church 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose though it never were or should bee so in the event sith the absurdity followes upon that grant as well as the actual event 6. I argue If infants be visible Christian church-members then there is some cause thereof But there is none Ergo. The major is of it self evident every thing that is hath some cause by which it is The minor is proved thus If infants be visible-Christian church members by some cause then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some onely But of neither Ergo. I presume it will be said of some sith they account it a priviledge of believers infants But to the conttary there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members Mr. B. plain Script c. part 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause not so much as instrumental properly of the childes holiness by which he means visible Church-membership but he makes it a condition which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non of childrens holiness I answer saith he fully If this be the question what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness It is the actual believing of the parent For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings it is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing or of actual faith it were vain to say that the promise to our infants is oneâ—y to faith in the habit The habit is for the act yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act therefore it is both faith in the habit or potentia proxima and in the act that is necessary But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed either in actu procreandi vel tempore nativitatis vel baptismatis It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly or else he hath no habit of faith and hath not fallen away from Christ but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer and then the said act will follow in season and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth It is not therefore the meer bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift but the former act and present disposition Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onely cause efficient Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds
than a malignant spirit towards me he would have judged that not to side with Jesuits but to keep my Oath which I took in the solemn Covenant I did oppose infant-baptism in maintaining of which he and the rest of the Paedobaptists have broken the covenant whereby they bound themselves to reform the worship of God after the Word of God And for what he chargeth me with that I borrow my weapons from the Jesuits though my denial is enough to acquit me from it there being none but knows my actions better than my self and with men not malevolent to me I think my words at least deserve as much credit concerning my own actions as Mr. Blakes yet as I said so I repeat it it appears to be a loud calumâ—y in that all along in my Examen and now in my other writings almost in every point I produce Protestants of good note concurring with me not onely in the point about the extent of the covenant Examen sect 4. part 3. and the holiness of children 1 Cor. 7.14 Exam. part 3. sect 8. Exerc. sect 5. Review part 1. sect 22. but also about the institution Mat. 28.19 Review part 2. sect 5. even in this point of the mixture of the covenant in the Section next before this Yea the Principle upon which I found all my dispute is that which Mr. Cotton in his Preface to his Dialogue for infant-baptism confesseth to be a main principle of purity and reformation And though Protestant writers do many of them oppose my conclusion yet they do agree with me in the premisses on which I build it to wit that Baptism is to be after the institution and that neither the institution nor practice in the New Testament was of Paedobaptism and all Paedobaptists whether Presbyterians or Independents who do hold that infâ—nts belong to the visible Church as the posterity of Abraham to the Jewish Church â—o injuriously keep them whose Baptism they avouch to be good and to be viâ—â—ble Church-members from the Lords Supper for want of knowlâ—dg as for what he tells me He can trace me out of some Jesuit in what I deâ—â—â—er â—bout the Covenant and Seal though I do not yet believe it yet there is no reason therefore to reject it as Doctor 〈◊〉 saith truly Bishop Morton in his Apology hath produced Popish writers and many of them Jesuits who deliver the same things which the Protestants do yet this is so fâ—r from discrediting their cause that it is justly counted a good plea for them and why should not the like plea be good on my behalf sith Jesuits are Adversaries to me as well as others But enough if not too much in answer to these calumnies sufficiently answered before Postscript Sect. 13. Mr. Blake proceeds thus Secondly if Circumcision have respect to those promises that were no Gospel-mercies but civil domestical restrained to Jews and not appertaining to Christians How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion it might have made a civil distinction and the want of it have been an evidence against other Nations that they had been none of the multiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh and that their interest had not been in Canaan But how could it have concluded them to have been without Christ strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision Ephes. 2.11 12. cannot be imagined Ans. 1. Circumcision did not make such a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion as that every circumcised person was of the Jewish Religion for if the posterity of Ishmael and Esau were not circumcised as Mahometans at this day which some Historians say of them at least for a time that they were yet Ahab and other worshiperps of Baal were of the posterity of Jacob and the Samaritans as Mr. Mede in his Discourse on John 4.23 were circumcised yet were not of the Jewsh Religion or at least there was a distinction in Religion between them John 4.22 Noâ— every one that worshipped the same God with the Jews was circumcised Cornelius and many other Proselytes of the gate owned the God and spiritual worship and moral Law of the Jews though they were not circumcised as Mr. Mede proves in his Discourse on Acts 17.4 nor doth the Apostle Ephes. 2.11 12. determine upon their uncircumcision that is conclude them without hope without God barely from their uncircumcision as if he held all uncircumcised were without hope without God but he onely sets those things down as concurrent not one the certain cause or sign of the other 2. Circumcision did distinguish between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion not because it sealed Gospel-mercies nor because it sealed promises of civil or domestick benefits but because it bound to the observance of the Law of Moses in respect of the observation of which the distinction in Religion was known by Circumcision not by its sealing the covenant-promises either Evangelical or civil and domestick 3. If the distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion were made by Circumcision as sealing the covenant Gen. 17. it might have made a religious distinction by my Tenet who hold it signed the spiritual promises though not them onely as wel as by Mr. Blakes The next thing which Mr. Blake urgeth against me from Jerem. 4.4 Rom. 2.28 Deut. 10.16 Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 44.9 is that Circumcision had relation to promises spiritual which is not denied nor any thing against the mixture I hold in the covenant nor to evacuate any inference I make from it In like manner the fourth tends to prove that Circumcision did not respect alone the civil interest of the Jews which I grant But the fifth thing urged by Mr. Blake needs some examination Fifthly saith he How is it that the Apostle giving a definition of Circumcision refers it to nothing rational civil or domestick but onely to that which is purely spiritual speaking of Abraham he saith he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised The righteousness of faith is a promise purely Evangelical Rom. 3.22 3.30 10.3 Phil. 3.8 and this Circumcision sealed the self-same thing that our Sacraments seal Answer The Apostle doth not give a definition of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 12. For 1. that which is to be defined is say Logicians a common term but Circumcision Rom. 4.11 is not a common term but a singular or individual to wit that which Abraham had in his own person it is that which he received and the time is noted to be after he had righteousness by faith which he had yet being uncircumcised for a singular privilege to be the father of believers Ergo 2. There is no genus nor difference of Circumcision from other things therefore no definition No genus for the term seal cannot be the genus it being a meer Metaphor and so
Ishmaels posterity should be cut off from external right to the Covenant he being a Church member according to Mr. C's dictates Mr. C. then tels us that God saith in reference to our times he will be a God to the families throughout the earth and pag. 83. he cites for this purpose the prophecy Ierem. 31.1 but there it is the families of Israel But were it the families throughout the Earth this proves not that it is Gospel that Infants of inchurched believers have external Ecclesiastical covenant-interest If it did it may as well infer infants of inchurched believers yea servants who are part of the families of the earth to have the same interest yea all in the world if we must understand it without limitation and if with limitation then it is most rightly expounded as the Apostle doth Gal. 3.8 the promise of blessing all nations of believers v. 9. and so all the families of the earth to whom God will be God shall be only believers of all the families of the earth Gentile believers as Mr. C. truly saith without Infants As â—or what Mr. C. observes that God said to Abrahaham to be a God to him and his seed in their generations not in their regeneration it is frivolous For none of the Gentiles seed are Abrahams seed but by regeneration and so to be Abrahams seed in their generations applied to Abrahams spiritual or Church-seed among the Gentiles is all one as to be Abrahams seed by regeneration And for the prophecy of being a God to all the families of the earth it is meant not of every member of the family but the meaning is that God would not restrain his Gospel and Church to the Jews but take in any of the families of the earth who would embrace it as when it is said Mark 16.15 preach the Gospel to every creature that is to any Gentile as wel as Jews yet infants not meant This is proved from the event because parents did believe when children did hate them for it Mat. 10.35 36. and the husband was often a believâ—r the wife an infidel But saith Mr C. it was usually otherwise and God speaks of things as they usually prove extraordinary occurrences cross not such a rule To which I say if the prophecy were as Mr. C. would that it should be Gospel that God will be a God of children with parents because he will be god of all the families of the earth than it must be true of the children of all and every of the families of the earth which recieve the Gospel Nor are prophecies to be expounded at if they foretold onely contingents what may be and what may not be but what shall certainly be nor can ther be a rule much less Gospel made of that which is uncertain somtimes it is somtimes it is not a rule being as they say in logick a determinate known thing nor is it true that the occurrent of the families being divided in religion was extraordinary For our Lord Christ speaks of it rather as ordinary commonly to be expected Matth. 10.34 35 36. But Mr. C. would have iâ— a rule from Acts. 11.14 Acts. 16 31. Luke 19 9. To this may be answered 1 that three instances mak not up an induction of particulars whence a rule may be made 2. The first instance is not meant of infants for none are thâ—re said to be saved but those that heard the words which Peter spake The next includes not infants For the very next v 32. shews that by the house were meant those to whom the word of the Lord was spoken Nor is there any intimation of an infant meant Luke 19 9. And it is certain that none of the texts speaks of that which they are produced for a bare external interest for they expresly speak of salvation and therefore if they prove it to be a rule that parents and children are joint Covenanters or are taken in together they will prove they are saved together which Mr. C. I suppose will not assert But some other answers are in my Examen which I must vindicate with these I had said Examen part 78 there is a necessity to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a restrinctive particle and to expound this house Luke 19.9 of Zachâ—us his family only in reference to his person Against this Mr. C. speaks thus Nor by salvation come to his house is meant the comming of salvation to himselfe as if he and his house were all one nor do I know any parallel Scripture speaking in such language that when the scope and intent is to mention the comming of such or such a mercy to such a person that phrase is used to denote the same that such or such a mercy is come to his house what need such a circumlocution if so intended the word might more plainly have been set down this day is salvation come to this publican this person this man or the like in as much as he also is become a son of Abraham And what though the Greek word be used in Acts 2.45 and 4.35 for secundum according as yet not for quatenus or in quantum forasmuch as the text and sense thereof are cleare that it noteth proportion of such administration not meerly the cause or reason thereof Or if it be supposed to imply the cause or reason thereof its evident it noteth the proportion also they gave to every one as or according as they needed scil proportionably to their need it being regular as to give to the needy so to give them according to the measure of their present necessity But how that sense will here be fitly applicable I see not to say that salvation is come to his house or to him according as he is a Believer but rather as our translators render it it 's to be taken as a reason of the former salvation is come to this house forasmuch as he is a son of Abraham Answ. By restraining the salvation come to Zacheus his house to his person I do not make Zacheus and his house all one but salvation is come to his house that is to this place inasmuch or in that Zacheus is also become a Son of Abraham But whereas Mr. C. thinks no Scripture using such language I will use Grotius his words shewing the contrary even in Luke because they are full to answer this passage of Mr. C. Annot. in Luc. 19.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synecdoche Domus enim pro Patre familias dicitur ita supra 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domum autem ideo nominâsse videtur Christus ut ostendat relâ—tam hospitii gratiam Dixerat enim Zachaeo Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quare quae ad hunc locum afferri solent de beneficiis Dei in familiam pii Patris familias quanquam vera sunt rectè accepta tamen huc pertinere non arbitror As for what he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie
promiseth the continuance of it Right being a moral or civil thing can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action A gift that was never given is a contradiction So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four Answ. Visible Churchmembership is not a right but a state of being as to be healthy strong rich c. which are not given by a civil moral action but by providence of God acting physically as the soveraign disposer of all It is certain that it is by Gods will as all things are but this will is no otherways signified then by the event as conversion and many other gifts of God are My meaning is though these things are by vertue of Gods will and are signified in the general by some Declaration of Gods purpose and order by which he acts which may bâ— called his Covenant yet in the particulars I mean for the persons time c. there is not any Covenant that assures these persons conversion or visible Churchmembership or that estates infants in either of those benefits as their right by vertue of Gods promise as the sole efficient of it upon that condition Mr. B. asserts that is the parents faith as I have proved before Sect. 52. I deny therefore that there is such a promise of God as conferred infants visible Churchmembership upon â—he parents faith And to Mr. Bs. argument I say that though it be easie to prove that visible Churchmembership is by Gods donation or grant yet to argue therefore it must be by a promise such as Mr. B. asserts follows not it being no good argument which is drawn affirmatively from the genus to the species it must be by Gods gift or grant ergo bâ— promise Yea according to Mr. B. here a promise confers onely a future right and therefore it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some further act and therefore not the promise or Covenant of God is the next adequate cause of it but some other act of God and consequently there is another possâ—ble yea manifest way without the promise of it upon condition of parents faith which Mr. B. asserts But Mr. B. saith 2. God hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it Answ. These aâ—e but words as will appear by that which followes The 2d Proposition saith Mr. B. to be proved is that there was a law or precept of God obâ—iging the parents to enter their children into Covenant and Churchmembership by accepting of his offer and re-engaging them to God And this is as obvious and easie as the former But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms The word law is sometimes taken more largely and unfitly as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God considered without any sign to represent it to the creature So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law which indeed is no law nor can be fitly so called 2. It is taken properly for an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law Some define it Jussum maâ—estatis obliganâ— aut ad obedientiam aut ad paenam But this leaves out the praemiant part and some others So that of Grotius doth Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est I acquiesce in the first or rather in this which is more full and exact A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando is the general nature of all laws Some quarrel at the word sign because it is logical and not political As if politicians should not speak logically as well as other men There is a two-fold due 1. What is due from us to God or any Rector and this is signified in the precept and prohibition or in the precept de agendo non agendo 2. What shall be due to us and this is signified by promises or the praemiant part of the law and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties All benefits are given us by God in a double relation both as Rector and Benefactor or as Benefactor regens or as Rector benefaciens though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former or to do the same thing and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former or to revive the memory of them or to excite to the obedience of them And these do not properly constitute duty because it was constituted before but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it and therefore doth confirm the constitution and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before For obligations to one and the same duty may be mulâ—iplied 3. Some take the word law in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts especially directed but to one or a few men and will onely call that a law which is witten or at least a well known custome obliging a whole society in a stated way These be the most eminent sort of laws but to say that the rest are no laws is vain and groundless against the true general definition of a law and justly rejected by the wisest politicians That which we are now to enquire after is a precept or the commanding part of a law which is a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty of which signs there are materially several sorts as 1. by a voice that 's evidently of God 2. by writing 3. by visible works or effects 4. by secret impresses as by inspiration which is a law onely to him that hath them Answ. Mr. B. undertook to explain the terms and he onely and that unnecessarily and tediously explains one term to wit law which was not the term in my Letter to which his Proposition was to be opposed but the word precept whereas he should have explained what he meant by the parents entring their children into Covenant and Churchmembership and what offer he meant they were to accept and how and how they were to engage them to God and how this entring accepting re-engaging did confer the benefit of visible Church-membership to their children and what precept it is that is unrepealed distinct from the precept of Circvmcision which I presume he doth not hold unrepealed All these were necessary to have been distinctly set down that I might have known his meaning and thereby have known whether his assertion
by a moral or civil action and not by a mere physical action which is unfit to produce such an alien effect and can go no higher then itâ—s own kinde What sense therefore I should put on your words without making them appear unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse I cannot tell For to say It is not a law but legislation is all one as to say It is not the fundamentum but the laying of that foundation that causeth the relation or from which it doth result And to say it is an alien physical act which hath no such thing as right for us subject or terminus is to confound physick and morals and to speak the grossest absurdities as to say that the transient fact of eating drinking going building c. do adopt such an one to be your heir I must needs think therefore till you have better cleared your self that you have here quit your self as ill and forsaken and delivered up your Cause as palpably as ever I knew man do without an express confession that it is naught When men must bee taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that infants Churchmembership needed no revocation forsooth because their Churchmembership was not caused by a law precept promise or covenant but by a transeunt fact then which as you leave it the world hath scarce heard a more incoherent dream But I pray you remember in your reply that you being the affirmer of this must prove it Which I shall expect when you can prove that you can generate a man by spitting or blowing your nose or by plowing and sowing can produce Kings and Emperours Answ. I make not the Jews infants visible Churchmembers by bare legislation or promise-making but by the transeunt fact described in my Letters which was without promise or precept that is promise of it on condition of the parents faith or precept of accepting that offered mercy entering into Covenant and re-ingaging them to God which are the promise and precept Mr. B derives their visible Church-membership from Infants were visible Churchmembers among the Jewes in that they were visibly a part of that people who were Gods Church So that to visible Churchmembership was requisite 1. that God should make that people hâ—s Church this he did by the transeunt fact described 2. That the infants should be visibly a part of that people this he did by their bringing into the world ranking them among his people so as that they were discernable by their birth nursing circumcision habitation genealogy and such other signes to bee part of that Church Their visible Churchmembership imports a state of visibility in the relations 1. of a part to the whole 2. of a people that are Gods that is 1. separated from other people 2. called and taken or brought to God These things are done by various acts which I conceive I did fitly call a transeunt fact A physical and moral cause are thus described by Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. c. 22. tit 13. Topic. c. 3. tit 14. Stierius part Gen Metaph. c. 12. A Physical or natural Cause is that which truly flows into the effect and nextly reacheth it by its activity A Moral Cause is that which doth not flow into the effect so as to reach to it yet so behaves himself that the effect may be imputed to him to praise or dispraise reward or punishment Such are causes applying the agent to the patient counselling commanding perswading exhorting instigating meriting permitting when they might and should binder c. Visible Churchmembership is not as Mr. B. conceives it formally a right to a benefit or a benefit though it may be so consecutively or they may follow on it But it is a complex term noting a state with a douâ—le relation and imports a natural effect or term of action as well if not more then a moral and is from physical as well as moral causes and in infants visible Churchmembership I judge it altogether an effect of a physical cause as not knowing any moral action of God or man that makes them such though to the visible Churchmembership of the people or body of which they are a part acts physical and moral do concur which I shall clear in answering Mr. Bs. exceptions to my last Letter to him As for his outcries of grossest absurdities incoherent dreams unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse contemptible arguing obtuse subtility contradictions palpable forsaking and delivering up my Cause generating a man by spitting or blowing my nose with the rest of his Canine Scoptical Rhetorick I pass by it as being of ill savour hoping Mr. B. will in time come to better consideration of his writings and either shew me my errour or discern his own Mr. B. goes on thus In consideration of the 7th Qu. I shall consider the nature and effect of the transient fact which you here describe And first of the reason of that name You say that you call it transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall be for the future And do you think this the common sense of the word or a fit reason of your application of it to the thing in hand Answ. I do 1. Saith Mr. B. I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts and yet not eternal Answ. Yet all Gods immanent acts of whom I spake are eternal We use saith he to contradistinguish transient acts from immanent and that because they do transire in subjectum extraneum Answ. So do I. But it seems you take them here as distinct from permanent Answ. Yea and immanent too But use your sence as long as we understand it Answ. With your good leave then I may use this term if you understand it if not I must alter it 2. Saith Mr. B. If it be onely past actions which you call transeunt it seems your long fact which was so many hundred years in doing was no transeunt fact till the end of all those years and so did not by your own doctrine make any Churchmembers till the end of those years Answ. It doth but seem so the truth is in this long fact each particular act was a transeunt fact in each year and in each age and space of time in which those acts were done Churchmembers were made by one or more of those and other acts used by God to that end and yet the transeunt fact not so fully accomplished but that there was an addition till that people came to thei◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature in which respect I comprehended all those many acts which I set down under the name of a transeunt fact which I hope when he understands it Mr. B. will give me leave to do 3. Saith he But Sir the question is not Whether it were a transeunt fact
And it seems then that Ishmael was born a Churchmember many years before Circumcision Answ. I grant all this 6. Saith he If this be your meaning I pray you be so just and impartial as to accept of the proof which I shall give you of infants Churchmembership before Abrahams days if I make it appear to be as strong as this call of Abraham from Ur. Answ. I shall 7. Saith he If you should mean that some one of these comprehended acts should of it self make any infants Churchmembers then it must be any one for you no more assign it to one of them then to another onely say chiefly the bringing them from Aegypt But surely some of these acts particularly â—annot do it As the leading to Padan Aram the removal to Canaan to Aegypt placing preserving therâ— setling their Army c. Did any one of these make infants to become Churchmembers Answ. No But I did assign it to one of them more then to another to wit the beginning to Abrams call the accomplishing to the bringing of them out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 8. Saith he Nay suppose you mean that all these acts must concur to make them members and so that they were no members till many hundred years after the institution of Circumcision yet could not your Doctrine hold good For some of these acts are of an alien nature and no more apt to cause infant Churchmembership then a bull to generate a bird What aptitude hath the setling of an Army to be any part of the causation of infants Church-membership None I think at least if it be such an Army as ours For surely the setling of ours caused no such thing as you well know What aptitude hath the leading to Padan Aram or removal to Aegypt to make infants Churchmembers Nay how strange is it that the removing of Churchmembers and such as had been infant Churchmembers as Ishmael Keturahs children Esau must cause infant Churchmembership Sure it was no cause of their own Keturahs children were Churchmembers in infancy I enquire of you by what act they were made such You say by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people whereof the act of removing Keturahs children was a part Very good It seems then that removing from the Congregation of Israel a people of the Jews is a taking of the removed to be of that people or else it is not onely the taking that people but also the removal from that people that maketh Churchmembers even the removed as well as the taken both which are alike absurd Answ. 1. I mean not as Mr. B. supposeth I might 2. The setling of the Army had remotely causation of infants Churchmembership for by it the Israelites were a well formed Congregation Church or Commonwealth and by which the infants were a part which is their Church-membership 3. I know that our Army hath done so much for the setling of the Church as that the Antiprelatists congregations had been either none or much oppressed iâ— they had not broken the force of the opposite party Nor dare I be so unthankfull to God or them as not to acknowledge the great mercy and benefit we at this day enjoy thereby however Mr. B. fret at our liberty and jibe at the instruments 4. The leading to Padan Aram removal to Aegypt were acts of providence wherby Jacobs house were encreased and preserved which I conceive were some of those acts whereby he made them a people to himself 5. Ishmaels Keturahs children's Esau's removal were some acts whereby the congregation of Israel became Gods severed or a peculiar people 6. Keturahs children were visible Churchmembers while they were part of Abrahams house called after the people of the Jews by Gods taking of the people of the Jews and consequently them as a part and yet the removal of them was after one act whereby the people of the Jews were made to God a severed people from them and consequently their infants Churchmembers Distinguish the times and the different state of things and intentions of God in his providences and these seeming incoherences will be found consistent 9. Saith he And I pray you tell me yet a little better how an act can make a man a Churchmember that was one long before that was done You cannot here say that it was before in esse morali and had a moral causation How then could your chiefest act the bringing out of Aegypt make those infants Churchmembers that were born in Aegypt and were Churchmembers before Or how could it be any part of the cause Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moses a Churchmember when he was in the basket on the waters And when you answer this you may do well to go a little fâ—râ—her and tell me how such an act concurreth to make him an infant Church-member that was dead an hunded or two hundred years before that act was done For example how did the setling of the Israelites Army or inheritance or the Covenant on Mount Sinai make Ishmael or Esau or Isaac or Jacob Churchmembers Answ. The infants of Israel were Churchmembers in that they were a part of the congregation or people af Israel which was a fluent body and was taken to be Gods Church by a succession of acts whereof some were causes which began some continued some compleated and the several acts made the Churchmembers of that age yet all by vertue of the first call of Abraham whereby God declared his intention to make his house a Nation and his Church first more obscurely then more clearly The bringing out of Aegypt tended to make the Israelites a severed people and consequently all that were Churchmembers were by that act such the setling of the Army inheritance Covenant at Mount Sinai tended to make them a well formed people and to the accomplishment of the taking the Jews to be Gods people and consequently the infanâ—s to be Churchmembers which came after them Which if so understood there is nothing in my conceit which infers the making that a cause which is after the effect 10. Saith Mr. B. I desire you also to tell me by the next what be the nerves and ligaments that tie all these acts of 430 years at least together so as to make them one fact And whether I may not as groundedly make a fact sufficient for this purpose of the acts of an hundred or two hundred years onely and whether you may not as well make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christ to be one fact and assign it to this office Answ. 1. These acts are knit together into one fact by the unity of end designed and work accomplished as the many acts of several ages did make one fact of which the Poet speaks Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem to raise the Roman Empire 2. You might if God had so contrived it and brought the thing to pass in that time which he did in a longer 3. I
formerly in that people So that Mr. Bl. hitherto hath mâ—de no answer to my arguments but talkâ—d at randome quite besides the matter urged in them My 5th argument was If the breaking off the Jews were by blinding then the ingraffing was by giving faith but the former is true v. 25. Ergo the later To this Mr. S. saith There is not the sâ—me reason seeing â—e takes iâ— of giving saving faith their blinding was judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel the giving of faith is not on such terms neither is saving faith so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding to Gods final rejection Answ. He saiâ—h there is not the same reason but shews not why if the breaking off be by blinding the ingraffing should not be by giving a saving faith Sure according to all the Logick I ever learned it is as clear an aâ—gument as can be in this case that where opposite effects are put the one effect being from one cause the other should be from the opposite cause T is true I take the inlightning opposite to blinding to be the giving saving faith yet do not think the blinding v. 25. to have bin judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel but as it is v. 32. the vety shutting up in unbelief the antecedent to unbelief consequent on reprobation opposite to election as v. 7 8 9 10. do plainly shew not consequent to unbelief What he means by the giving of faith is not on such terms I cannot readily divine the speech seems to me to be either non-sense there being no terms forementioned that I can perceive to which it may be referred or else it is impertinent to the answering the objection and so as that which follows For though the giving of saving faith be not on such terms as Mr. S. means or that it be not so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding is to Gods final rejection doth it follow that if the breaking off be by blinding v. 25. the ingraffing is not by giving faith v. 24 But Mr. S. adds 2. Blindness came but in part on Israel it fell onely on the meer visible members not the invisible and elect therefore the ingraffiâ—g must be onely of visible members into the visible Church v. 7. The election hath obtained it but the rest were blinded Answ. There is no shew of consequence that I know in it that if blindness fall not on the elect therefore ingraffing is not of the elect onely the argument is plain on the contrary even from vers 7. alledged by him the rest to wit the non-elect were blinded therefore the ingraffed who obtained were onely the elect and their obtaining the ingraffing was by such enlightening as wrought saving faith in them Mr. Bl grants the conclusion that the ingraffing is by giving faith but a faith of profession into a Churchstate as he answered to the 3 d. arg To which I reply 1. If it were giving of such a faith yet infants would be excluded sith they are not so ingraffed 2. The ingraffing notes more then admission by an outward ordinance 3. I proved from the Text v. 7 8 10. that the blinding was of those who are not elect and therefore the inlightening by which the election obtains or the Gentiles are ingraffed is that as Dr. Ames saith Antisynod animadv in art 1. c. 16. whereby they obtain faith and salvation from election And I used these words If the blinding be the effect of reprobation and the breaking off be by blinding then the ingraffing is by inliâ—htening and that inlightening is according to election and so is all one with giving of faith by which I mean justifying or saving faith At this passage Mr. Bl. lays about him thus Here is Divinity which calls for patience in a degree above all that is Christian which one of the Contraremonstants worthy the name of an adversary of the Arminians hath taught this Doctrine It is that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them but that which they unanimously do disclaim I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sin but never that it was the cause and that sin is a consequent of it but never an effect Reprobation is the act of God and in case it be the cause of blindness then God is the cause So that the Contraremonstranâ—s have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them that none of their adversaries though they have turned every stone to it could never prove by them Answ. 1. I did onely use this expression if the blinding be the effect of reprobation which causeth all this insulting which doth not positively assert it onely Mr. Bl. gathers it from the assumption which he supposeth I would have put which is not very candid dealing 2. The assumption he sets down thus then his assumption can be no other but that blindness is the effect of reprobation But herein he doth grosly abuse me For I did not say if blindness be the effect of reprobation but if blinding be the effect of reprobation between which there is a great difference For blindness is mans sin but blinding is Gods act ascribed to God v. 8. when it is said God hath given them a spirit of slumber eys that they should not see And Job 12.40 He hath blinded their eys and hardened their heart And this act being no other then the certain permission of sin is commonly made by Protestants an effect and means executing the decree of reprobation which is no other then blinding Potav synt l. 4. c. 10. Reprobation is effectus est permissio lapsus Ames med Theol. l. 1. c. 25. § Tertius reprobationis actus est intentio dirigendi media illa quibus justitia possit in reprobas manifestari Media hujus generis maxime propria sunt permissio peccati derelictio in peccato Rom. 9 18. 2 Thes. 2.11 12. Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 23. § 1. unde from Rom. 9.18 sequitur absconditum Dei consilium obdu ationis esse causam Yea § 4. he saith Cujus rei defectionis Angelorum causa non potest alia adduci quam reprobatio quae in arcano Dei consilio abscondita est Vide Andr. Rivet sum contro trâ—ct 4. q. 6 7. And Piscat observ 9. e Rom. 9.10 11 12 13. Erram igitur qui putant praedestinationem pendere a praevisis operibus vel a praevisa fide vel incredulitate Imo haec omnia praedestinationis effecta sunt quomodo igitur possunt statui praedestinationis causae So that if I had taught as Mr. Bl. misreports me that Gods reprobation causeth blindness yet I had Authours worthy the name of adversaries to the Arminians so saying Nor have I done any such high dis service to the anti-Arminians as in the Table at the â—nd of his Book he chargeth me with
less reasonable account given then of putting it in the present tense in English 2. That the enallage or change of tense is frequent ch 11.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense for the future and here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the next v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter for the present and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here not hath been but is sanctified or if in the preter tense yet that to be understood of a past thing yet continued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 3.18 notes an act still continued in force To these two I reply briefly and first to the former the same which hee had mentioned before and excepted against as an excess in my paraphrase but both there and here without the least cause For in my paraphrase I look upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a verb of the preter tense and as such onely adapt the sense to it referring it not to future hopes but to past experiments or examples onely because examples are rhetorical syllogismes and what hath been frequently experimented may also reasonably be hoped I suppose that the Apostle so meant these examples as grounds of hoping the like for the future not making this of the future any part of the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter but explicating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rational importance which is somewhat more then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles speech and supposing this conclusion to lye hid under this premise as it is ordinary in all discourse to set down the â—remises distinctly leaving the conclusion by every ones reason to be drawn from thence without setting it down explicitly Answ. That the Dr. in his paraphrase qu. 4. § 31. of his letter put so much as I have noted Review part 2. sect 26. of which there is nothing in the text expressed is not justified by this plea. For what ever addition a paraphrast be allowed yet sure no paraphrast is allowed to express that which he conceives it deducible from the sense of the words in thirteen lines and the sense it self onely in three and especially when he layes that in his paraphrase as the ground of his argument for his position which hath not a word in the text to leade to that inference Sure I had great cause to except against his paraphrase which was so monstrous as to be defective in letting down what was the chief thing to be heeded in the Apostles speech to wit the relation of husband and wife and so extremely exuberant as to express that as done often which is mentioned in the singular number onely and ascribe the sanctifying to the conversation not at all expressed and put in a long inference that hath no intimation in the text and mention an act of the Church of which there is no inkling there or near it or any where else in Scripture and so many wayes corrupting the sense as I shew ubi suprà especially in the main supposing a mention made of a husband converted by the wife and yet the husband expressed by the Apostle as continuing an unbeliever and a husbands being sanctified by the wife which is ever ascribed to Gods spirit never to any Apostle to make that which is used as a reason of lawfulness as if it were a motive from an advantage to make that as a Rhetorical motive which is a Logical proof to make that which was a rare contingent event which might and it's likely did as often fail as a convincing argument to settle the conscience in the lawfulness of cohabitation with other faults as being so audacious an attempt as I think no approved writer can bee shewed to have made nor any considerate Reader will allow of Nor would it ever have come into my thoughts that so learned a man as Dr Hammond is should have vented such a conceit as this is in his Letter and Annotations did I not finde him set to maintain what the Church of England that is the Prelates held or appointed as others what the Scottish or New-English Churches approve of As for his excuse of his dealing in his paraphrase it is too narrow a plaister for such a sore For neither is any thing 1 Cor. 7.14 set down as an example to move the will the judgement being before setled nor any Rhetorical syllogism used but a Logical as the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Rom. 11.6 1 Cor. 15.14 18 29 c. shew nor doth the Dr. prove but suppose the Apostle so meant nor doth he answer the allegations I bring to the contrary Review par 2. § 26. And his words here do imply as if this were the conclusion that it is probable and a ground of hope that the unbelieving yoke fellow will be converted by the believer cohabiting and this the premise for it hath often so come to pass whereas there is not the least intimation of that conclusion in the text and it is manifest by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that v. 14. is a proof of the determination or conclusion v. 12 13. concerning the lawfulness of married persons living together in disparity of religion not of Dr. Hammonds imagined as tacitely implied conclusion But hee saith Wherein that I was not mistaken I had all assurance from v. 16. where the argument is prest and the conclusion inferred more explicitely For what knowest thou O wife whether thou shalt save thy husband and the like mentioned in the paraphrase from 1 Pet. 3.1 Answ. Dr. Hammond had no assurance from v. 16. that the unbelieving husband is oft converted by the wife the thing being expressed so doubtfully as an uncertain contingent though possible and so with some hope sperable Hierom. com in 1 Cor. 7.14 In dubium quidem â—osuit sed semper ambiguam melius evenire credenda sunt much less that there is a conclusion of the probability of the converting of the infidel yokeâ—fellow v. 14. deducible from the example and experiment of what was done in time past v. 16. being neither explication nor proof of what is said v. 14. but a motive to make the thing determined as lawfull v. 12 13. more swasible or a motive to what is said v. 15. that God hath called us in peace In my apprehension if v. 14. were as the Dr. meanes the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified that is converted by the wife often and therefore it is probable or there is a ground of hope or it is to be presumed it will be so for the future the Apostle had said the same v. 14. which is said v. 16. and so there would have been a meer tautology in the Apostles speeches which is not to bee conceived As for 1 Pet. 3 1. though it shew such an event possible yet not frequent nor is there in Peters words the least hint that Pauls words 1 Cor. 7.14 are
powers were to preach and baptize those that received their doctrine SECT XCVIII The testimonies of Cyprian Augustin and other Latin Fathers for Infant Baptism are shewed to have come from their mistakes and the evidences why the antiquity of Infant Baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended are vindicated I Now return to the examination of the Testimonies brought out of the rest of the Latin Fathers besides Tertullian for infant Baptism whereof Cyprian was the chief and his testimony is thus urged by Dr. Hammond Defence of infant Baptism chap. 4. sect 2. p. 99. In the midst of this third Age An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bp. of Carthage and ten years after he suffered martyrdome i. e. 158 years after the Age of the Apostles In the year 257 he sate in Councel with 66 Bishops see Justellus in his preface to the African Canons p. 21. and their Decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem which is now among his works â—amel edit p. 80. The Councel was in answer to some questions about Baptism and accordingly he there sets down his own opinion together with the Decrees of that Councel of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him And so this as it is an ancient so it is more then a single testimony that of a whole Councel added to it and yet farther to encrease the authority of it 〈◊〉 cites this Epistle more then once and sets it down almost entire 〈◊〉 a testimony of great weight against hereticks and so 't is â—â—ed by S. Hierom also l. 3. dial cont Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus whether infants might be baptized the second or third day or whether as in Circumcision the eighth day were not to be expected he answers in the name of the Councel universi judicavimus 't was the resolution or sentence of all nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denigandam that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denied to any human birth to any child though never so young by that phrase mercy and grace of God evidently meaning Baptism the right of conveying them to the baptized adding that 't is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized is given to them in a greater or less degree in respect of the age of the receivers and that God as he accepts not the person so nor the age of any confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean and that if any were to be kepâ— from Baptism it should rather be those of full age who have committed the greater sins and that seeing men when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptism how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden who being new born hath no sin upon him but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born who therefore should more easily bee admitted to pardon because they are not his own but others sins which are then remitted to him concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptism so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new-born children Thus much and more was the sentence of that ancient Father and that Councel and as the occasion of that determination was not any Antipaedobaptist doctrine there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church that we can hear of but a conceit of one that it should be deferr'd to the eigth day which was as much infancy as the first and so both parties were eâ—ually contrary to the Antiâ—aedobaptists interests the condemned as well as the Judges so that it is no new doctrine that was then decreed or peculiar to S. Cyprian who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptism appears also by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him and by the express words of St. August Ep. 28. ad Hieronym Blessed Cyprian not making any new decree but keeping the faith of the Church most firm decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops that a child new born might fitly be baptized Which shews it the resolution of that Father also that baptizing of infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time not onely the opinion but the â—aith which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles Answ. I have been willing to set down these words at large sith none urgeth this authority more fully though Mr. M. Dr. H. Mr. B c. do all alledge it and it is the chiefest of all the testimonies Augustin produced for infant Baptism and therefore was translated by me into English and printed at the end of my praecursor Concerning which act Mr. B. praefest mor. p. 401. saith thus It seems to me God ordered Mr. T. to translate Cyprians Epistle to the disgrace of his cause with the vulgar themselves For none can be so blinde as not to see in it the antiquity of infant Baptism which is all that we urge it for But if the cause I maintain be disgraced by translating that Epistle I shall take it as a sign that a spirit of dotage is faln on men so as to be enamouted on the blemishes of the ancient Sure me thinks none of the vulgar much less the learned should be so blinde as not to discern that infant Baptism was an errour which was maintained by the prime assertors upon such vain reasons as are in that Epistle which are not excused by what Mr. B. saith That the arguments are onely for confutation of the objection concerning infants uncleanness before the eighth day and not to give the grounds that warranted infant Baptism For the truth is both are done together and the best grounds they had for it are set down by them which will appear to be so frivolous by examination of them that notwithstanding all the credit Dr. Hammond endeavours to gain to it yet men of mean understandings I doubt not will by reading of it discern how ill that Councel did in that determination Nor doth it any whit beâ—ter the matter to say that it was not Cyprian alone but also a whole Councel of 66 Bishops which did thus agree with him For in like manner did the same Cyprian with a more famous Councel See Epist. to Jubaia ponep Quir. Janu. Steph. at the same place determine the rebaptizing of the baptized by Hereticks with better shew of Scripture and reason then in his Epistle to Fidus and alledged Apostolical authority as much as in this and yet he is deserted therein not onely by the Bishops of Rome that were then but also by Augustin and the African and other Churches Besides his maintaining the perfusion of the Clinici in his Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Epist. 7. his maintaining the necessity of water with the wine in the Lords Supper as
the Lords tradition l. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium with other things do sufficiently discover the weakness of Cyprian and the Bishops of those times in their determinations and the slightiness of their reasons which no intelligent Divine should now urge and therefore me thinks should not adhere to their practise or tenents grounded on such frivolous reasons Nor in this matter is Augustins or Hieroms authority such as that we should relye upon their approbations and speeches their corruptions in this point and in other points shewing their mistakes both in matters of doctrine and fact some whereof are before noted section 88. and more will bee in that which followes As for what Mr. B. saith That the antiquity of infant Baptisme is all that he with others urge Cyprian for I reply he and others need not to have done that sith I acknowledge it to have been as ancient as Cyprian not as it is now but 1. in the practise used onely in case of imagined necessity to save an infant in apparent danger of imminent death from perishing as the words of Tertullian de bapt c. 18. and Greg. Nazianz. orat 40. de sanct bapt and sundry relations shew to have been the practise Now in this if Proâ—estant divines have rejected antiquity and deny such infant Baptism as they practised determining that there is not such a necessity of baptizing infants for that reason nor that they are to be baptized with private Baptism upon such a fear and accordingly declining it as superstitious they thereby justifie us from their crimination of innovation in deserting the Fathers when they themselves do it in the same thing as well as we And if Mr. Baxter as hee doth plain Script proof l. 2. c. 15. p. 153. except against Tertullians reasons as poor and therefore reject his advice why should not we reject Cyprians and his Collegues determination which was built on as poor if not poorer reasons then Tertullians 2. In the Doctrines taught For they taught that by Baptism the grace and mercy of God was given that without Baptism infants must perish that every one that is born of mankind is to be baptized in which Mr. Baxter and other Protestants do dissert them Now if they disclaim their Doctrine in that which led them to their infant Baptism we have no reason to be bound to their authority Nor is the Doctrine the least matter to be considered or the reasons of their determination impertinent to a right judgement of their practise For as in other controversies between us and Papists as about Menkish profession Lent fast Prayer for the dead c. the main thing considered is how far the Ancients practised these and upon what grounds as may be seen in ushers answer to the Jesuites challenge and other learned Protestants writings so it is in this By whieh we may discern that the Fathers practise of infant Baptism was upon the same grounds with those of the Papists which we reject and therefore the Fathers testimonies do indeed disgrace the cause of infant Baptism and plainly shew upon what erroneous opinions it came in and if prejudice did not dazle their eys learned and godly Protestants would rather suspect and judge infant Baptism a corruption then alledge their determination for their justification And for what is alledged that August Ep. 28. ad Hierony said that Cyprian did not make any new decree but kept the faith of the Church most firm it is manifest that the faith Augustine means was that infants had original sin and without Baptism must perish which in like manner he taught about the Lords Supper which was given to infants in Cyprians time as his Sermon de lapsis shews l. 1. de pecc merit remis c. 24. l. 1. adv Julian c. 2. contra 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 4. c 4. Now as we and the Romanists have rejected infant Communion though as ancient as infant Baptism or very near as ancient so should infant Baptism be rejected as upon the like mistake brought into the Church The like might be said of the exorcising or exuffiation that is blowing away or puffing out the Devil of which Augustine speaks so much as used with Baptism to infants the anointing with oyl giving milk and honey cloathing with white garments mentioned by Tertullian as common in his time before Cyprian which yet are left by us notwithstanding he make them in his l. 1. against Marcion lib. de Corona militis Apostolical traditions Out of which and many more instances this may bee collected that the Fathers testimony of the use of their time or of Apostolical traditions is not to be received without examining their reasons to which in this thing how little credit or heed is to be given will appear by the exceptions I have made in my Examen and shall now vindicate from what Mr. Ms. friend and Dr. Homes say to them The first was that in Tertullians time infant Baptism was not defined sith he disswades it De Bapt. c. 18. Scult med patr part 1. l. 7. c. 42. Tertullianus l de Bapt. â—os duntaxat baptizandos censet qui Christum nosse potuerunt The answers are 1. that he was for infant Baptism as appears by his book De anima c. 39. But this is refelled before 2. That he mentions it as then in use Ref. It is true but not allowed 3. That he allowed it in case of necessity Ref. This is against those that deny the use of it for that reason in that case 4. That he disswaded onely the Baptism of infants of infidels sith they onely were in need of sureties and likely to sail in answering the engagement for them Ref. This is not likely 1. Itâ—s not likely such were brought in the times of persecution nor that there were any Christians who would become sureties for them 2. It was usual then as the custome hath been since to have sureties at Baptism of infanâ—s of believers and also at the Baptism of the aged as is gathered out of Tertul. de corona militis Inde suscepti which is spoken of the â—ged 3. The words of Tertullian shew he argued aâ—ainst the Baptism of any little ones in respect of their age 4. His reasons be they what they will â—re agaiâ—st the Baptism of any little ones wiâ—h express direction for them to come not till they were of age to understand Venient ergo dum adolâ—scunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniant docentur fiâ—nt Christiani cum Christum nosse potâ—erint That is Let them come tâ—erefore when they be grown up let them come when they learn when they are taught wherefore they come let them he made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ. Which makes it certain he meant this even of believers infants whom he presumed would be taught to know Christ and that Anâ—iâ—adobaptist doctrine had then lookt into the Church though Dr. Hammond say otherwise â—he â—d Exception was â—ugustines and Hieroms