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
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
3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel he might have interpreted as indeed I meant the term effect not strictly or rigourously as Scheibler speaks but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun though it be rather a consequent then an effect after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book Review part 1. sect 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word effect be left out and let the word consequent be put in my argumen hath the same force and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a meer wrangling exception Let 's view what he saith in answer thereto He saith Mr. T. lays all upon God Gods reprobation causes blindness and their breaking off is by blinding here is no hand but Gods in their destruction And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied so that blindness is no effect of reprobation breaking off being not by blinding what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced And Mr. T. should not be ignorant that election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare otherwise as election leads to salvation without any merit of works so reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin which Contraremonstrants unanimously deny though Mr. T. here will have them to affirm having before quoted v. 8. 10. of this chapter he saith from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation and then explains himself what this absolute reprobation in his sense is in the words spoken to And then in opposition to me cites Gomarus denying absolute reprobation in my sense that God absolutely reprobates any man to destruction without subordinate means to wit sin that God doth not effect sin or decree to effect it And Dr. Prideaux that sin follows not on reprobation as an efficient but deficient is a consequent not effect of reprobation And Mr. Ball that Gods decree is not the cause of mans sin Answ. In all this there 's not a word that takes away the force of the argument if that word effect had been left out as it was left out in the first framing of it and consequent had been put in though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used or as it was in the first framing neither used He accuseth me of blasphemy here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation that I lay all upon God no hand but Gods in mens destruction that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8 10. in this sense of all which charges there is not one true so that here is nothing but a fardel oâ— manifest calumnies And as for what he alledgeth that breaking off is not by blinding because blindness was their guilt and casting off their just sentence and the guilt and punishment are not one it doth no whit infringe my argument For these may well stand together that Gods reprobation is executed by blinding and yet blindness their guilt and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence as on the other side election is the cause of Gods enlightening whereby the ingraffed branches believe and through faiâ—h they are by Gods act of grace ingraffed into the invisible Church of true believers And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin Which kind of absolute repâ—obation I never asserted nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants who onely make reprobation absolute in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other but his own will Rom. 9.11 12 13 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of Gods act I never said blindness is the effect of Gods reprobation as Mr. Bl. misreports me nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient but I said blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense as effect is taken for a consequent and that it was by blinding which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alledged by Mr. Bl. And if Gods severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitely no more then what Christ threatned Matth. 21.43 yet my argument holds good For the taking away of Gods Kingdome is not onely the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore and so the breaking off was by blinding and the ingraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election which was to be proved My 6th arg was If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from iniquity taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith But the former is true v. 26 27. Ergo the later Mr. S. saith To which I give a fair answer that doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall bee abundance of more glory brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new heavens and the new earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. litterally And so shall all Israel bee saved But get 1. they shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shal be ingraffed as they were broken off now they were broken off as a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this that the fulness of salvation and the vertues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Answ. 'T is a fair answer but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument there being neither of the premises denied but the minor granted expresly that the vertues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them which if true then none are ingraffed but elect persons and their ingraffing into the invisible Church now the ingraffing of the Gentiles was the same with the re-ingraffing of the Jews if then the Jews re ingraffing were into the invisible Church according to election so is
many Authors relate that the Habassines and Iacobites do at this day circumcise females then it is not true they were uncapable of it by reason of natural impediment But if it be true which Mr. M. saith yet Gods chosing a sign of which they were not capable and that for a typical use when he might have chosen one as baptism of which both sâ—xes were capable it is an evidence That it was not the Will of God since Abrahams time and so forward that all in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal which was Mr. Ms. proposition Nor do his two limitations added in his Defence help him For if incapacity and non-appointment be a sufficient exemption from the initial seal yea a prohibition of it then his proposition is but what I contend for that those in covenant to whom God appoints it and no other are to have the initial seal which is as much as I would evince that it is not bare interest in the Covenant without institution or appointment that gives right to a person to claim either circumcision or baptism nor warrants a baptizer to admit a person to baptism And therefore though it were yielded that all infants of believers were in covenant yet they have not right to either initial seal without a command or institution concerning each rite As for Mr. Ms. general proposition as he states it as it advantageth it him not for the reason last given so it may be granted if he mean by exemption or particular dispensation the non-appointment of it For then I am sure infants of believers are exempted from baptism till they be proved disciples of Christ or believers by profession which if it could be proved we need not fetch it from circumcision and the Covenant From which they that deduce infant-baptism do but in vain weary themselves and others as they that seek to draw water out of a pumice stone But there is some more in Mr. M. about womens circumcision which I must not omit Mr. M. in his Sermon had answered that women were circumcised virtually in the Mâ—les To which I answered that a virtual circumcision was not enough to make good his argument For then his Syllogism must have four terms thus They that are in Covenant must be sealed actually in their now persons or virtually in others But infants of believers are in the Covenant therefore they are to be sealed If the Conclusion be meant of actual sealing in their own persons then there are four terms and more in the Conclusion then in the premisses But if it be meant disjunctively they are to be sealed actually or virtually then it is less than is to be proved his business being to prove that they were to be sealed actually For a virtual sealing is less than Mr. M. would have and might be granted without any detriment to the cause of Anti-paedobaptism To this Mr M. makes no answer at all but chargeth me with a scoff where there was none tells me it is like refuting Bellarmine with Thou liest whereas I did shew wherein his answer was insufficient and that by putting his Syllogism into form according to his own meaning and then shewing how it would not conclude what he should prove And to this in his Defence he makes no answer but tells us what his plain meaning was which is nothing to the present point he should have shewed how with that exposition or limitation his argument would prove actual sealing of infants in their own persons But to slight a reason and speak nothing to it is not to answer but to shift But I also said to speak exactly women were not circumcised virtually in the Males For that supposeth they might receive it in their own persons wheras it had been a sin in them to be circumcised God not appointing it which is confirmed by the like it would be sin for the male to be circumcised afore the eighth day sith it was not appointed which may now be confirmed by Mr. Ms. words that God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old To this saith Mr. M. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of Law that no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxy or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good Law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sinned virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though the sin of Adam be ours by imputation The Sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the High Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their own persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such privileges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediatrly in their own persons Answ. My words were not as Mr. M. recited them but thus He is said virtually to have a thing by another as by a Proxy or Atturney that might receive it by himself yet quoad effectum juris according to the effect of Law another's receiving it is as if he had received it In which I understand by having a thing that having a thing which is by possession of it as a benefit privilege commodity and by might receive it without any prohibition in Law and that he receives it not in his own person is onely from some temporary impediment as minority absence or the like And this according to that skill I have in such terms I conceive still to be the meaning of them Nor do Mr. Ms. instances take me any whit off from it being without fear of being chargeable with bad Law or Divinity For our sinning in Adam is not receiving something as a benefit the Suns heat is natural not by vertue of any Political Law it is not having as a proxy or atturney for another the High Priests offering for the people was an action in their stead not receiving a benefit for them and what they received for the people which they might not receive in their own persons immediately was not by reason of any prohibition but from some other cause nor were they in imparting it the peoples Proxies or Atturneys but Gods were it an answer from God or any other thing they received for them if God had immediately communicated it to them it had not been their sin And the like may be said of what Christ receives for us as our Advocate But the circumcising of women had been a sin forbidden according to Mr. Marshalls and others doctrine before recited they
promise to which baptism the seal is annexed now the seal is ever to the covenant which is not barely to Christs being sent in the flesh but to benefits contained in promises by his coming Ans. Had Master Cobbet heeded my words in my Exam. pag. 60. And was it not a comfortable Argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sins by him was yet to them and their children c. And pag. 61. The promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might be turned from their iniquity and baptized in his Name for the remission of their sins these objections had been spared they proceeding all against me upon this mistake which my words heeded might have rectifyed as if I had expounded the promise Acts 2.39 of Christs being sent and coming without some promise annexed and particularly that of remission of sins by Christ Whereas I did expresly include it in my paraphrase as my words recited shew gathering it from the mention of it v. 38. and conceiving it to be implyed in the expression to you v. 39. that is for your benefit by remission of your sins And therefore these three objections are answered by shewing how according to my exposition the promise of Christ sent includes also the benefit of remission of sins But on the contrary all these objections are against Master Cobbets own exposition For 1. It had been but cold comfort to tell them of a promise of remission of sins onely in external right and administration 2. It had not been available for their reviving healing succour and support 3. According to Paedobaptists suppositions baptism is not a seal of that covenant in which remission of sins in external right and administration onely is promised but as it is in the Directory it is a Seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternal Therefore the promise Acts 2.39 according to Master Cobbets own arguments and Paedobaptists hypotheses is not of remission of sins onely in exâ—â—rnal right and administration Master Cobbets third exception Sect. 3. about those afar off whether Israelites in the dispâ—rsion or in after ages or the Gentiles be meant hath been considered before But whereas he saith The Apostles afore Peter Sermon Acts 10. knew by Christs declaration of his minde to all his Apostles touching the discipling and inchuâ—ching of the Gentiles the conversion of them onely they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition as proselytes to the Jewes rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches his speech is not right For 1. Though it is true Christ had declared his minde Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 about conversion of the Gentiles yet either Peter understood not Christs minde or did not remember it afore the vision Acts 10.2 It is apparent from Acts 11.3 that the exception against Peter was not for that he had gathered Cornelius and his company into a distinct Church and not joyned them as Proselytes to the Jewes but that he went in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them which shâ—wes they held it unlawfull so much as to preach and converse with any uncircumcised though he were a proselyte of the gate as Cornelius appears to have been As for not joyning the Gentiles as proselytes to the Jewes they knew that well enough that they were not to be so joyned sith neither John the Baptist nor Christ or his Disciples did ever by baptism joyn any as proselytes to the Jewes but did take even the Jewes themselves who embraced their Doctrine into distinct Churches or Schooles though they did not erect any new political States or Common-wealths as the nation of the Jewes was Master Cobbet further excepts against me in these words 4. It 's affirmed that this promised of sending Christ was to them their children and those afar off as many as our God should call that they may be turned from their iniquity and be baptized for remission of sins and yet also that the promise what ever it be supposed to be was to them all with that limitation that they repent or that they be called What is it to as many as the Lord shall call or convert or cause to repent and yet is it that they may be turned from their iniquity is it to persons called and yet also to uncalled persons is it to them that they may be called yet the persons to whom the promise is are as many as are supposed to be called how can these two be right yea it is to them all upon condition that they be called and yet also that it is to them that they may be called Why if it be to them that by Christ they may be called then is that promise to persons as yet uncalled and their calling is an effect following their interest in that promise as a cause and not preceding their interest in the promise as a condition Ans. the promise is of sending of Christ for remission of sins their calling is a consequent of Christs being sent who was sent to turn them from iniquity that is to call them and this calling was for a further benefit remission of sins through Christ sent and so their calling is a condition of the remission of sins by Christ sent nor is the promise of remission of sins by Christ sent to any but those who are called The calling is a consequent to Christs sending as a prior benefit and an antecedent to remission of sins as a subsequent And thus the knot Master Cobbet conceives is easily loosed SECT XXIII The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between covenant-interest and baptism-right and infant-baptism are vindicated from Master Cobbets answers THere are other passages in the following Sections on which I animadvert Sect. 4. he saith Acts 2. he doth not intend it thus your children i. e. Abrahams children for Abraham is considered rather by him as a patern having the precedential Copy of the Covenant mentioned And it had been incongruous to have said It is to your children that is to Abrahams children Concerning which passage I say that though I conceive it a mistake to understand by your children Abrahams children yet Master Cobbets words intimate sundry things which are liable to animadversions 1. The promise Acts 2.39 is supposed by others and by Master Cobbet Sect. 7. to be that Gen 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee but this was the covenant it self and not a precedential Copy of the covenant mentioned I think Master Cobbet cannot shew any other after Copy in which God promised to be the God of a believer and his seed which it is confessed he did to
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
of yâ—ur one syllable such is discerned by trying it by a whole volume I doubt you will make what your list of it However if you should mean that such precepts there are as have for their subject the avouching God to be their God the entring into Covenant Circumcision of infants but not their Churchmembership then 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before 2. and more shall do anon 3. and it 's a palpable contradiction to the precedent affirmative But if you mean that Churchmembership of infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts and yet that infants were not made or confirmed thereby it is the contrary that I am asserting and I have no further need to prove then by shewing the contradiction of your opinion to it self For an actual Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised according to itâ—s tenour and terms is like a cause that hath no effect a father that did never generate and it 's all one as to say A gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant seeing the name is denied when the thing named and defined is granted So a precept or law to enter infants solemnly into Churchmembership which yet obligeth none so to enter them is as gross a contradiction as to say the Sun hath not heat or light and yet is truly a Sun Answ. I grant his assertion that there is no precept of God which doth not oblige to duty nor donation which doth not confer the benefit though sundry things which have the title of Gods lawes oblige not to duty and an actual promise doth not put the thing promised in present being as the next cause but the thing promised is thereby onely made future yea a promise that it shall be doth suppose it not to be and that there is something else the next and immediate cause of its actual being The imagined contradiction in my later to my former Letter is before cleared not to be so Sect. 53. Though I have said enough before in this and other fore going Sections yet to take away all colour of charging me with ambiguity 1. I acknowledge that the Covenant at Mount Sinai and the Covenant Deut. 29. did declare the people of the Jews to be Gods people or his visible Church in that the Covenant was mutual and open between them and God 2. That they were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God but by their promise to God Gods call of them made them his Church their promise to God with oâ—her acts made them visibly so 3. The promises of God Gen. 17. did not of themselves make the house of Abraham Gods visible Church 4. The call of God and such acts as whereby he separated them from others to bee his which were many made the house of Abraham Gods Church 5. The infants were members of that Church in that they were part of that peopâ—e 6. Such things as whereby they were visibly of that people their birth cohabitation c. did make them visible Churchmembers 7. Circumcision was one sign not by itsâ—lf but with other things whereby the male infants and adult were known to be of Gods visible Church 8. No promise of God nor duty of parents did make the infants actually visible Churchmembers as the next cause in act either formal or efficient If Mr. B. or any Reader will heed these passages with what goes before hee may easily discern my minde and acquit me from self-contradiction if not I think it in vain for me to use more words I pass on to that which follows SECT LVI That the People and thereby the Infants of the Hebrews were made visible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact is made good against Mr Bs. exceptions I Come next saith Mr. B. to the 6th Qu. Whether indeed there be any transeunt fact which without the causation of any promise or precept did make the Israelites infants Churchmembers This you affirm if you would be understood whether this your ground of infants Churchmembership or mine be righter I hope will be no hard matter for another man of common capacity to discern By a transeunt fact thus set as contradistinct to a law precept or promise either you mean the act of legislation and promise making or some other merely physical act If the former it is too ridiculous to be used in a serious business For you should not put things in competition excluding the one where they both must necessarily concur the one standing in a subordination to the other Was there ever a Law or Covenant made in the world any other way â—hen by a transeunt fact Sure all legislation is by some signification of the Soveraigns will And the making of that sign is a transeunt fact If it be by voice is not that transient If by writing is not the act transeunt If by creation it self the act is transeunt though the effect bee permament And certainly if legislation or promising be your transeunt fact you do very absurdly put it in opposition to a law or promise it being the making of such a law And the legislation doth no way oblige the subject but by the law so made nor doth the making of a promise grant or covenant confer right to the benefit which is the subject of of it any otherwise then as it is the making of that grant which shall so conferre it As the making of a knife doth not cut but the knife made and so of other instruments So that if the law oblige not or the grant confer not certainly the legislation or promise-making cannot do it I cannot therefore imagine that this is your sense without charging you with too great absurdity As if you should say It is not the will of the testator i. e. his testament that entiâ—leth the legatary to the legacy but it is the rranseunt fact of the testator in making that will or it is not the Soveraigns commission that authorizeth a Judge souldier c. but it is the transeunt fact of writing or making that commission It is not the sign that signifieth but the transeunt fact of making that sign Were not this a contemptible arguing To charge you with this were to make you tantùm non ununreasonable And yet I know not what to say to you that is how to understand you For if you mean a mere physical transient fact which is no such legislation or promise-making then it is far more absurd then the former For if it be not a signe of Gods will obliging to duty or conferring benefit then can it not so oblige to duty nor confer benefits It is no other transeunt fact but legislation that can oblige a subject to duty nor any other transeunt fact but promise or other donation that can convey right to a benefit or oblige the promiser A moral or civil effect must bee produced
remunerative mercy or avenging justice 4. It is not in meer indifferency but of moment to these ends that hee doth so Mr. B. proceeds thus The minor I prove in both parts 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice I prove thus If God never revoke his mercies nor repeal his ordinances in justice to the parties hurt till they first break Covenant with him and so procure it by their own desert then he hath not in justice revoked this mercy to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him But it is certain that God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him therefore to such he hath not so revoked it Answ. Gods revoking mercies in justice to the parties hurt is sometimes without the particular persons breaking Covenant with him or his desert Are not the infants of Adam deprived of life in justice to their hurt without their breaking Covenant with God or their personal desert Are not many infants and others deprived of the preaching of the Gospel who yet are descended from faithfull ancestors who never brake Covenant with God onely for that the nation of which they are a part are over-run by barbarous people they carried away captive they and their children made slaves Do not these things happen to the most godly Saints Doth not Solomon tell us Eccles. 9.2 that all things come alike to all Doth not the Apostle tell us Rom. 9.11 12. For the children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to the cleâ—ion might stand not of works but of him that calleth It was said to Rebecca the elder shall serve the younger As it 〈◊〉 written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated whence v. 18. he infers therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardeneth And again Rom. 11.33 after he had considered the various ways of Gods dealing with Jews and Gentiles he thus concludes O the depth of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements and his paths past finding out From whence and from innumerable experiments of thousands of godly Greeks whose children are taken from them and made Turks and others I may safely deny the minor of Mr. Bs. argument which he saith is certain as being most certainly false and like the arguing of the Disciples John 9 2. which Christ refuted v. 3. concerning the man who was born blind But Mr. B. goes on to prove it thus That this is a mercy and of the Covenant is plain Deut. 29.10 11 12. and frequently past denial Answ. That the visible Churchmembership of infants in the Jewish national Church was a mercy it s not denied but that it was such a mercy as Mr. B. makes it above to contain essentially a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour proteâ—tion provision and other blessings which are due from so powerfull and gracious a Soveraign to such subjects and from such a head to his members is neither true nor proved from Deut. 29.10 11 12 13. where the being a God to them doth not necessarily include all these benefits nor if it did doth it ascribe them to their visible Church-membership but to their obedience to his laws implied in the phrase that he may establish thee for a people to himself that is saith Piscator in his Scholie on the place That he may require worship from thee by obedience towards his precepts and so may bind thee to himself Which sense the rest of Moses his speech in that and the following chapter shew and consequently they presuppose not onely their Covenant with God and their visible Churchmembership but also their keeping the law so far as the blessings were legal and their belief and obedience to the Gospel so far as they are Evangelical 2. Saith Mr. B. That God doth not in justice revoke such to any but Covenant breakers I prove briefly thus 1. From the mercifull nature and constant dealings of God who never casteth off those that cast not off him Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth most vainly intimate them to be cast off by God who are not visible Churchmembers which if true it would prove that all infants dying in the womb are cast off by God with many more who are not visible Churchmembers and yet are blessed persons 2. For Gods mercifull nature it doth not hinder but that God may cast off them who cast not off him sith his mercifull nature doth not act as a natural agent but as a free agent and he hath resolved us Exod. 33.19 Rom. 9.15 I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion even then when he proclaimed his Name to be gracious and mercifull 3. â—t is false as hath been before proved that the constant dealingâ— of God are such as that he never casteth off those that cast not him off 2. Saith Mr. B. From his truth and faithfulneâ—â— For else we should make God the Covenant breaker and not man which is horrid blasphemy Answ. This argument indeed were good if God had made this Covenant with men That whoever of them believe in Christ their infant children should be Churchmembers visible in his Church Jewish or Catholick But there was never such a Covenant made by God and therefore though he alters the frame of the Church so as to leave out infants of beleivers from being visible members he breaks no Covenant 3. Saith he From the immutability and constancy of God His gifts and calling are without repentance Answ. God is indeed immutable and constant in his being and promises and his gifts of election foreknowledge effectual calling meant Rom. 11.29 as v. 28 27 26 7 5 2 shew are without repentance Rom. 8.30 Rom. 9.6 But the gift of visible Churchmembership is not such even according to Mr. B. Cain was a visible Churchmember yet cast off with many more Many a believers child is in infancy taken from him and made a Mahometan so as that he never is a visible Christian and yet God is unchangeable and his gifts meant Rom. 11.29 without repentance 4. Saith he Scripture frequently layeth all the cause of all evil of suffering upon mans sinning Mic. 1.5 Hos. 13.9 Answ. 1. He supposeth but proveth not that the non-visible Churchmembership Christian of infants is an evil of suffering which I deny 2. It is false that the Scripture ever layeth all the cause of all the evil of suffering upon the mans sinning who suffereth the contrary is manifest in the death of infants by Adams sin Rom. 5.12 3. Some sufferings our Lord Christ denies to be from the special sin of children or parents John 9.3 4. The Texts alledged prove not Mr. Bs. proposition the former proves onely the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem to be for their
yet so perfect in all actual energy of compleat members and so neither in all actual priviledges of such compleat members I suppose what ever others deny this way yet our opposites do not deny that Church-covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such so that till that bee they are not so incorporated as to bee fit for Church dispensations or acts of peculiar Church power over each other more then over others over whom they can have no power unless they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto as reason will evince Answ. This reason as I conceive goes upon these suppositions which Mr. C. conceives will not be denied 1. That there is a Church-covenant over and besides Gods covenant of Gospel grace and mans believing and professing of faith in him through Jesus Christ whereby the members of a visible political Church do engage themselves to walk together in Christian communion and to submit to their rulers and to each other in the Lord. Now such a Church covenant though I confess it may be according to prudence at some times and in some cases usefull to keep persons who otherwise would bee unsetled in a fixed estate of communion yet I find not any example of such a Church covenant in the old or new Testament and in some cases it may insnare mens consciences more then should be 2. That the Covenant of grace whether Gods promise to us or ours to God invested with Church covenant that is as I conceive Mr. Cs. meaning to be together with it is the form of a visible political Church which gives it the being of such a Church as such so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations or Church power In which I conceive are many mistakes 1. That the Sacraments are seals or church dispensations are committed to the Church which are not committed to the Church which consists of men and women but to the guides and over-seers of it 2. That Church power or as Mr. Cotton in his treatise of the keyes of the Church the power of the keyes is committed or given to the Church in which are mistakes that either censures Ecclesiastical or as the Schoolmen and Canonists term it the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical are meant by the keyes Matth. â—6 19 or that they were given to Peter as representing the Church the Scripture doth no where commit Church dispensations or power to the Church but to the guides and overseers and rulers of the Church for the Church 3. That till a company of believers be a visible poliâ—ical Church they are not fit for church dispensations or censures which I conceive not true there being examples in Scripture of their breaking bread together Acts 2. who were not such a political visible Church of fixed members under fixed officers united by Church covenant as Mr. C. describes Nor were Christ and his Apostles such a Church when first they did break bread Nor did Christ appoint Baptism Matth. 28.19 to be onely in and with such a Church nor do the exampls Acts 2. or 8. or 10 or 16 or 18. intimate any such condition but rather the contrary 4. That the covenant of grace with a church covenant fore mentioned give the being of such a visible Church political But the Covenant of grace of it self doth not give any actual being it is a promise of something future and therefore puts nothing in actual being extra causas but assures it shall bee by some cause in act which in this thiâ—g is the calling of God from which the Church and each member have their being as from the efficient from faith in the heart as the form of the invisible Church and each member from profession of faith as the form of the visible Church and each member as Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 7. that which makes it political is the union under officers and lawes without a Church covenant it is a political visible Church if there bee but at present an union or conjunction in the same profession of Christian faith under officers and lawes of a number of Christians they are a Church visible political though they should be dissolved the next hour and though they enter into no covenant of Church-fellowship or subjection for the future and therefore church covenant is neither of the form of such a true Church nor as Mr. Weld in answer to Mr. Rathbard of a pure Church but it is a good means in prudence to conserve a Church so constituted that they may not divide and scatter from each other but may continue in communion 5. That by this incorporating they have peculiar Church power over each other and without tht Church covenant they can have no power But neither do I conceive this true For the power whiâ—h christians have is to reprove admonish censure shun society chuse officers reject false teachers c. this power they have by the laws of Christ without a church covenant 6. That Church dispensations and acts of peculiar Church power are limited to those particular persons who joyn with us by Church covenant But this I conceive not right nor agreeable to such Scriptures as these 1 Cor. 3.22 10.17 12.13 3. It is supposed by Mr. C. that the Covenant with Church covenant gives the priviledge of a member of such a church body suitable to its memberly estate as is this of the Church initiatory seal But in this sure Mr. C. is quite out and besides their own practise who do not give the initiatory seal after they are members by church covenant but baptize them or suppose them baptized in infancy and then joyn them us members by church covenant now if church covenant did give the priviledge of the initiatory seal then they should first enter into church covenant and then have the initiatory seal or be baptized 4. It is supposed by Mr. C. that there are such little churchmembers by such a covenant as are to have the priviledge of the initiatory seal though they be not compleat members so as to have the actual priviledge of the after seal and other church power But sure the Scripture acknowledgeth in the Christian church no members but what partake of the Lords Supper as well as baptism as is manifest from 1 Cor. 10.17 1 Cor. 12.13 and have church power as others of their sex and rank Now all these suppositions though they were granted except the last would not prove the thing Mr. C. aims at and that which he makes the main reason from whence he would infer the conclusion namely the Covenant with Church covenant gives being and priviledge of the initiatory seal makes against him infants making no such Church covenant nor according to their own discipline doth their parents Church covenant serve instead of the childs sith afore the child can bee admitted to communion of breaking of bread and other power
wâ—ich is indeed sinful And so for confirmation by laying on of hand anointing wiâ—h oyl use of the signe of the cross setting up lights and many more it is frâ—quentâ—y shewed that they countenance no the Pâ—â—ish confirmation extream unction use of the signe of the cross lighting candles at noon day in their â—â—mples c. because they were in different mâ—nner and for different reasons and purposes then they are now used by them And indeed the discovery of the different reasons manner and end of rites used bâ— the Ancients from that they are now used is of greatest moment to shew the novelty of the Popish Prelatical Paedobaptists usages who have not onely quite departed from the Scripture but also from antiquity even in those things which the Ancients practised indeed but not as they do Secondly saith Dr. Homes he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better that they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy as well as at riper years 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is Circumcision that was wont to be done on the 8th day c. Answ. 1 The first of these is no other then the partaking of common grace for to partake of the common grace is all one as to be sanctified onely with a little enlargement 2. The 2d is indeed rather a preventing of an objection that they could not be parâ—akers of the common grace without perceiving it rather then a further reason of baptizing them And the answer is from two examples one of curcumcision which was given to infants without the use of reason the other of the anoining or sprinkling the door posts whiâ—h were things insensitive bringing salvation to the first born which is such a woodden reason as Dr. Homes thought fit to let pass in this place Thirdly saith Dr. Homes Wee answer that all three reasons stand in force as well for all believers infants God putting them under the promise Gen. â—7 a for the infants that are in danger of death Answ. Whâ—tever force there is in the reasons which in my apprehension are frivolous to prove Dr Homes his opinion or practise yet sure in Nazianzens intent they are onely for the colouring over of the practise of infant baptism of any whether believers or unbelievers children onely in case of apparent danger of imminent death and not at all for countenancing baptizing of believers infants onely at all times as federally holy Fourthly saith Dr. Homes that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine reasons to him evincing for the baptism of infants in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of deaâ—h he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion â—he calls it his opinion And what is it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or four years old more or less And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from infants toward baptism For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may hear and answer some spiritual things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Answ. 1. T is true Nazianzen gives one reason for baptizing infants in case of danger of death which is the sanctifying them by it not divers reasons the examples of Circumcision and anointing the door pâ—sts being answers to an objection as I said before Now that reason is so far from being Divine that it is from a meer superstitious conceit as if the meer outward Baptism did sanctifie Nor is it the same reason in effect for differing baptism three or four years with that which hee gives for infant baptism in case of danger of death For though he supposeth in both Baptism sanctifies yet he takes infant Baptism to sanctifie onely the body the other to sanctifie body and mind He supposeth they may learn some spiritual thing though imperfectly and so the baptism may be a sign to them though obscure and there may be some memory of what is done though confused which though it be not as it should be yet it is better and more agreeable to Scripture then the infant Baptism where there is no signification to the baptized nor remembrance of it 2. Be it granted that Nazianzen expresseth but his opinion and that it betters not the thing much and his reasons not so right as they should have been there is in this passage this evident that infant Baptism was no tthen common as now nor upon such reasons as now nor approved of as now it is but out of the case of danger of death imminent apparently disswaded and consequently the present common infant baptism an innovation from what was in that age Dr. Hammond adds That Chrysostome in his Homily to the Neophyti hath these words For this cause i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism there recited ten in number we baptise children though they have not sins and that he flourished in the beginning of the fift Age. Answ. Though finde in two Homilies one in the fifth the other in the sixth tome of Chrysostomes works of Eton print some speeches unto the newly inlightned or planted yet I finde not these words there nor any where else in any of his homilies Yet I deny not them to bee Chrysostomes finding them in Augustin tom 7. l. 1. against Julian the Pelegian ch 2. But perhaps if the words before were viewed it might be discerned whether the Baptism of little ones then used were onely in case of danger of death apparently imminent or without that case It is likely hee meant that infants or little children were baptized onely in case of danger of death imminent sith many of his Homilies express even that where these words cited were exhortations to the newly baptized and the relation of his life testifies that when hee was persecuted by the Empress and was about to baptize on the solemn festival in which Baptism was used the persons men and women that were to be baptized by him fled away naked being ready to be baptized upon his apprehension which shews they then baptized persons naked And the occasion of the speech as sâ—t down by Austin shews it was done upon the conceit of giving them grace which is manifest by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause And the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in the Greek shews there was mention of baptizing others then little children And in the same place Austin saith â—ohn Chrysostome held believed and taught this not onely that little children were not onely to be baptized but also to have the Eucharist or Lords Supper for without
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is
simply everlasting Mr. Cr. adds But the truth is it is not onely meant of the natural seed but of the spiritual seed of Abraham both whereof successively and in part if not altogether concomitantly for there were always Proselytes iâ— is everlasting or to the end of the world Answ. If Mr. Cr. meâ—n that to the natural seed who are also the spiritual seed the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is simply everlasting I grant it but this doth no way advantage Mr. Cr. For then it will onely follow that to such infants as are not onely the natural seed of Abraham or a believer but also are themselves believers God hath promised they shall be in Covenant under the Gospel which would not be true of all the infants of believers or any but the elect If he mean it as it is there meant as appears by the next words v. 8. being understood of the natural seed of Abraham of the nation or people of Israel and not of a remnant of them it can be true onely of a limited everlastingness and not at all of the Gentile believers infants and so is not at all for Mr. Crs. purpose But he tels me It follows not unless the same word in adjoyning verses must necessarily signifie the same thing which if so an argument might be drawn against the Infiniteness and Eternity of the Deity from these words God of Gods and Lord of Lords Gods and Lords in the latter signifies creatures therefore in the former but how inconsequently in both a child may judge Answ. My arguing needs not proceed thus but is good against Mr. Cr. thus The term everlasting signifies a limited everlastingness afore the Gospel v. 8. therefore it may be so meant v. 7. and if meant of the body of the Israelitish people who were the natural seed of Abraham it must be so meant otherwise it were not true And for his instance I think the arguâ—ent not good as he makes it yet it follows the term God doth not necessarily of it self infer infiniteness and eternity but when it is applâ—ed to the most High God the Creatour who is the God of Gods because it is sometimes spoken of Creatures But Mr. Cr. tels me That v. 8. can be true onely in one of these senses that they had title to all the Land of Canaan though not actual possession of it or that it was a type of the everlasting spiritual Canaan in which senses from Abraham they possessed it or that the plenary and full possession of the whole begins at the conversion of the Jews and shall last from thence to the end of the world without interruption because neither Abraham nor his seed had actual possession of all the Land of Canaan none of these will support Mr. T. his declining cause Answ. That the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 must be meant of that part of the earth so called is manifest from the expression wherein thou art a stranger or the land of thy sojournings and might be if need were proved by multitudes of other Scriptures And that the seed of Abraham is that which is natural and afore their later conversion is apparent from v. 9 10. where the seed to whom the land of Canaan is promised are enjoyned to be circumcised and the term possession v. 8. cannot be meant of a mere title for that 's implied in the words will give but the possessiâ—n is distinct from it and consequent upon it therefore I choose rather to untie Mr. Crs. knot by expounding it thus I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession but not altogether thou shalt possess a part in thy time as a pledge of the whole as his burying place was and thy seed in Joshua's and Davids time shall possess the whole and this shall be not onely a place to sojourn in but a possession for them to dwell in and that everlasting that is fâ—r many agâ—s as Phineâ—as his Priesthood is termed everlasting Numb 25.13 so long as they shall keep my Covenant and observe my statutes Now this will serve thus far to support my cause which is still standing and not declining to shew that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it is made to the natural seed of Abraham is termed everlasting that is for a limited time afore the Gospel which sense also the terms for ever and everlasting have Exod. 12.14 21.6 Numb 25.13 c and so the major Proposition of Mr. Cr. justly denied He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel Sect. 5. Mr. Cr. endeavours to draw Gal. 3.8 to his purpose to prove a continuance of the Gospel Covenant to the end of the world to Abraham and his seed by paraphrasing it thus That the Scripture foretold that God would justifie the Heathen through faith that is the partition Walâ— should be pulled down and the Heathen nations should profess faith as visible members whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible But besides his inept expression of heathen nations which is all one with nations nations he abuseth the text by paraphrasing through faith thus that the nations should profess faith as visible members when it should be shall be true believers as Abraham was and would justifie the nations by whereof some should be actually justified whereas the text mentions no other then should be justified and v. 9. terms them they that are of the faith who are blessed with Faithfull Abraham and onely meant by the nations v. 8. Mr. Cr. tels me 1. That I injuriously mis-report his allegation as that he urged this argument drawn from Gal. 3.8 to prove that Abrahams natural seed were promised to be in Covenant under the Gospel whereas he urged it to prove the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to have been a Gospel Covenant made with Abraham and his seed that is proprofessors and believers whether carnally descended from him or no. But sure he that reads his first argument in his Sermon p. 88 89. and his Defence p. 256. where his words are the minor I prove from Gen. 17.7 where the infants of believing parents are implied it being a Covenant not only established with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generatâ—ons for an everlasting Covenant by vertue of which Isaac and all succeeding male infants were circumcised now sure these were Abrahams natural seed and here the Covenant is everlasting and therefore according to Mr. Crs. reasoning to extend to the end of the world and the infants of believing parents who are their natural seed are he saith implied which can be no otherwise then as Abraham is imagined to be taken for each believer and the believers natural seed proportionably correspondent to Abrahams natural seed by prerogative of birth as he there speaks and then adds In Gal. 3.8 there is implied Abrahams seed in that it was a