all the promises of it are Yea and Amen 3. Yet were it so this sealing is not to Infants who have no intelligence thereof and so no confirmation thereof by baptism 4. Nor doth this sealing any more pertain to the children of believers than unbelievers it is but of the truth of the covenant in it self not of any persons interest in it 5. This is as well sealed by the baptism of others yea by the baptism of any one deceased most of all by Christs baptism as by each persons own baptism 6. This sealing may be not onely to them that are baptized but to them that deny baptism yea to Infidels yea to Devils who may and do believe the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it to be Yea and Amen and have it sealed as well to them by the baptism of a person as to the baptized and better than to an infant But perhaps Mr M. helps the matter in the second or third But as to the second saith he which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but Signa conditionalia conditionall seals sealing the spirituall part of the covenant to the receivers upon condition that they perform the spirituall part of the covenant Thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Dr. Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are Seals alledges then they are falsly applied oftentimes he answers to Bellarmin Sacraments are conditionall Seals and therefore not Seals to us but upon condition Answer The spirituall condition is faith so Ames Bell. enerv tom 3. l. 1. â— 1. q. 4. th 11. Sacramenta non sunt testimonia completa absoluta nisi credentibus Sacraments are not compleat and absolute testimonies but to the believing Now if the Sacraments seal onely conditionally they seal onely this proposition that he that believeth shall be justified saved c. But this is all one with sealing the truth of the covenant in it self nor doth this seal the baptized persons interest in the covenant any more than the unbaptizeds no more to the infants of believers than of unbelievers not at all to any till they believe and so to no infants ordinarily and if then the baptizing of them must be derived from this interest and sealing of the covenant either none are to be baptized till they do believe or all alike are to be baptized Besides if Sacraments be but conditionall signes or testimonies incompleat and conditionall till persons believe then they are but conditionall incompleat Sacraments till a person believes sith to be a sign seal is of the nature of a Sacrament and if so then infants have not a compleat Sacrament or absolute but an incompleat and conditionall baptism and consequently though the baptizer begin to baptize the infants yet he cannot say he doth baptize them but must wait till they be believers and then he may say he baptizeth them and gives them a compleat Sacrament and is bound to baptize them when they come to years whom he did wash in infancy or else he mocks them which is the mind of Christ indeed that he that believeth should be baptized and no other Mark 16.16 Besides whether there be any conditionall sealing may be a uqestion Mr. Baxter Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 77. pag. 140. speaks of it as a strange thing useless and vain But this I shall leave till I examine Mr. Baxters exceptions against me about the condirional covenant and sealing onely I take notice of his words Sect. 79. pag. 141 A conditional seal is not a seal till the condition be performed and infers that if baptism be a conditionall seal it is no seal and consequently no sacrament to an infant untill he doth perform the condition Mr M. adds Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or tie for him to perform who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute All circumcised and baptized persons did or do stand absolutely ingaged to perform the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law that is the legall and typicall administration of the covenant which was then in force and infants among the rest are bound to this though they had no understanding of the covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this seal was administred to them Answer It is true God required that his covenant should be kept which is expressed to be That every man child among the Hebrewes should be circumcised Gen 17.9 10. but this was the duty of the parents not of the infants who were to be circumcised not to circumcise And it is true That all circumcised persons were by the eircumcision obliged to keep the Law And if circumcision sealed this its sealing of this was the sealing of a command not a promise of God for they are not obliged to keep Gods promise that is the work of God alone but his precept so that this sealing is not of the covenant of grace at all yea by this sealing obliging to keep the whole Law the covenant of works is sealed rather than the covenant of grace as the Apostles speech shews Gal. 5 2 3 4 And this sealing belongs to all infants and elder persons for all are tied to perform the condition of the covenant that is to repent and believe And if hence be derived a title to baptism either all are to be baptized because all are obliged to the condition of repentance and faith or none are to be baptized but penitent believing persons To speak the plain truth the right use of baptism is first to seal to God testifying our repentance and faith by it afore God seals to us by it any benefit of the covenant of grace To conclude Mr. M. hath not yet acquitted himself from putting a seal to a blank which Mr Calvin counts a profanation of the Sacrament when he baptizeth an infant who hath neither a promise of spiritual grace from God nor doth perform the condition of the covenant nor understand by baptism any thing of the covenant nor professe any accptance of the covenant nor is or can be known to have any part in the covenant of grace nor is there indeed any thing but vanity in this discourse of Mr. M. or the Paedobaptists doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant of grace and the interest of believers infants therein SECT XXXII The exceptions in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. against Mr Ms speeches about the covenant and conditionall sealing are made good against Mr. M. and Mr. Blake BUt that we may the better discern the vanity of Paedobaptists conceits about the seal and covenant I shall enquire a little more into this point in which I find much jangling
Mr. C. tells us Hence c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion and minding discourse about it But how from any thing said before That Christ is the head of the visible Church that visible Professors though not sincere are united to Christ as visible head this follows That Parents profession unites the child to Christ so as to give him right to baptism is a riddle to me If it were formed into an Argument thus If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism But the visible professors c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas nor is there any proof in that which follows For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution None of the texts produced no nor any other do shew that the parents act of professing faith did entitle the child to circumcision much less to baptism Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision though he and his house feared God was a devout man gave much alms to the poor and prayed to God alway Acts. 10.2 Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onely from the command as I have often poved Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church but obliging to duty Deut. 16.16 17 there 's an injunction That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God but this was enjoyned not to parents onely but also to children married or unmarried And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would it proves rather the males act to stand for the females than the parents for the children More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak so the childs act went for the parents However here 's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent Deut. 26.17 18. there 's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church What is said Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God is not said to be done by the parents for the children nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents or Captains Elders Officers or men of Israel It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church but to bind them the more firmly to their duty and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship Yet if they had that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved till the rule about Circumcision and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism and the Church-membership of the Christian Church which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution Goverment but Judiazing notions opposiâ—e to the Gospel What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14 depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat Schol. in locum Diodati new Annot. Grotius c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus the male the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people my Covenant is broken Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose they that expound it as Aben Ezrae apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his It is true Iohn 4.50 51. Matth. 15.22 to 29. Mark 9.12 to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children and so Mark 2.5 the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Foâ—â— nor was it the confession of faith but reality though not known to men which Christ lookd on so that if this be a good reason the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism After many dictates without proof he tels us As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6 yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26 yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such Rom. 11.28 and hence made as a ground of their return v. 15 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church whence that respect of children of God and his church by vertue of that espousall covenant Ezek. 16.8 Even in the children of idolatrous members v. 20 21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed Albeit many unworthy members are giâ—t up in it to hold them and theirs in externall communion Jer. 13.11 untill either the church be divorced from God or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege Answer Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved and incoherent yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis I shal say somwhat to it 1. There 's not aword in the texts alleged that shews what Mr C. here asserts that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to
think it is not a condition of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. to wit of restoring from captivity upon their seeking of God But if it be made a condition of the promise v. 6. yet it is not a condition competent to Infants nor is it there made to any but the Israelites and to them onely at the time of their return from captivity in reference to their re-establishing in the land of Canaan and so was not common to them all much less to all believing Gentiles at all times It is untrue that the promise of saving grace is made to any onely externally or that it takes not effect in all to whom it is made or that any such thing is meant Rom. 3.3 9.6 7 8. though I deny not that there were many promises to Israel after the flesh which being indefinite in respect of persons and conditionall upon obedience to the lawes given by Moses took not effect in all the Israelites though in generall propounded and therefore notwithstanding some attained them not yet the faith of God was not without effect But all this is nothing to the objection concerning Gods covenant of saving grace in Christ which is not shewed to be made to any but the saved nor shewed to be in respect of the persons taken into covenant conditional 3 Saith Mr. C. This Argument supposeth that one cannot be within the Covenant of saving grace externally but they must be in a saving estate the contrary whereunto appeareth Concl. 3. And it is said of sundry illegitimate Jewish Children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the Author cannot mean other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate Even Esau's Birthright was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it was a Church blessing as well as a Naturall and Civill Ans. That any one is in the covenant of saving grace onely externally is not proved before My words Examen pag. 78. which Mâ— C. seems to mean â—hâ—t Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar Jephie of Gilead and many others were within the covenant of saving graces and Church-privileges are not meant of the covenant of saving grace exâ—ernally onely but also internally Esau's birth-right was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it is that which Jacob was not born to for it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the right of the first born which Jacob had not but by purchase and blessing nor is it denied to be a Church-blessing but that it was the spirituall blessing promised to Abrahams seed to wit justification and salvation from the covenant of saving grace I do not conceive for that was not limited to the first born as the birth-right was and therefore it seâ—ms to have been either the superiority or the inhâ—ritance of Canaan or the descent of Christ and the Chuch of God from him to which I most incline the losse of whâ—ch being a great losse and having with it the privation of interest in the covenant of saving grace he being hâ—ted of God made Isaac tremble and Esau cry and were a 〈◊〉 instance to set before the Cristian Hebrews lest thâ—y through prophane underâ—â—â—â—ing Christ fail of the grace of God Mr. C. adds 3. Object But saith â— S. the Covenant of grace being a Covenant there must be a mutuall agreement betwixt the Covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the terms thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Henry Den a little differently maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant-right and not meerly Gods entering into Covenant with the creature for so he entered into covenant with the Beasts c. Gen. 9 10. Answer To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a Testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb 9. Now a Testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without their knowledge nor do any usâ— to deny a Childs right in the Testators will because it was taken in amongst other Legacies in the bequeathed Legacies before it understood the same Nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed the choice parties in Gods Covenant Gen. 17. That they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promise or that that solemn Covenant Deut. 29.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30.6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the Covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed No rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant-estate being the parents privilege whence the encouragements to Abraham to walk with God Gen. 17.1 c. from that amongst other encouragements that God would become his Seeds God also v. 7. and so Deut. 29 and 30. amoongst other encouragements to the parents that is one v. 6. that God will do so for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham c. Yea the externall avouching a Covenant may be of God being owned as the childrenâ— Deut. â—6 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the parents covenant duty whence called the Covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or duty as well as the token of Gods Covenant Gen. 9.7 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as well upon their childrens part as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Cvenant-condition and Bond too after imitation of their Father Abrahams purposeâ— S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenanâ— yea the bastard children of Judah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to be in the Covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like Answ. The Objection as it is not mine so I might let it and the answer passe but that there are some things in the answer to it that do requiâ—e consideration In the first part of this Review Sect. 5. answering Mr. Stephens his argumenâ—s for the Convertibility as he caâ—ls iâ— of a word of promise and a word of command from the general nature of Covenants between men and men I had said the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—o not alwayes note a mutuall covenant and mutuall performancâ—s and instanced in Gen. 9.10 and said there is a single covenant as well as muâ—uall and further added that if it be true that such a convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall nature of Covenants then there can be no Covenant between God and Infâ—nt 〈◊〉 Infant cannot contract If any say the Parents
order of Nature is inverted To all these arguments against infants visible Christian-Churchmembership this one may be added That there is neither example rule nor hint in all the New Testament of their admission into the Church or ordering in it or care of the Elders and Officers of the Church for them as members nor any other sign that Christ would have them reckoned as visible members in the Christian Church which is a strong presumption against it I know none that hath disputed for it so much as Mr. B. I will therefore go on to examine what he saith SECT LIII Letters between me and Mr. B. are set down concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which he asserts whereby the point is stated THat the Reader may understand the true state of the Dispute between me and Mr. B. he is to take notice that when at first in the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. Mr. B. urged for infant Baptism his argument of the ordinance or law or appointment of God whereby infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church now Printed in his book of Baptism ch 5. part 1. I not knowing what other it might be and he denying it was that of circumcision urged him often to tell me what it was which he would not which occasioned the Dispute to be more confused then otherwise it might have been After in my Praecursor I again told him I found it not but in the peculiar national policy of the Jews no universal law or ordinance for it To which what elusory reply he made is shewed in the second Part oâ— this Review sect 2. pag 8 9. Which moved me being then upon the examining of his 4th and 5th ch from Bewdley within two miles of Kidderminster to write and send April 3d. 1655. this Letter to him Sir Not finding yet that Law or Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written and to transmit it to me by this bearer that your allegations may be considered by him who is Yours as is meet April 3. 1655. John Tombes The next morning I received from him this Letter directed to me Sir I mean to see more said against what I have already written before I will write any more about infant Baptism without a more pressing call than I yet discern I have discharged my conscience and shall leave you and yours to take your course And indeed I do not understand the sence of your Letter because you so joyn two questions in one that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to Whether there were any Ordinance or Law of God that infants should be Churchmembers is one question Whether this be repealed is another you joyn both into one For the first that infants were Churchmembers as you have not yet denied that I know of so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods ordination There are two things considerable in the matter First the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges It is the work of a grant or promise to confer these and not directly of a precept Secondly the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit and this is the work of a law or precept to constitute this duty I am past doubt that you doubt not of either of these For you cannot imagine that any infant had the blessing without a grant or promise that 's impossible nor that any parents lay under a duty without an obliging law for that 's as impossible Taking it therefore for granted that you are resolâ—ed in both these and so yeeld that such a grant and precept there was there remains no question but Whether it be repealed which I have long expected that you should prove For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained though more may be said then is said yet I shall think it needless till I see the ordination contained in those Texts which I have already mentioned to you proved to be reversed Nor do I know that it is of so great use to stand to cite the particular Texts while you confess in general that such a promise and preeept there is by vertue of which infants were till Christs time duly members of Christs Church for Christs Church it was even his univeâ—sal visible Church Still remember that I take the word law not strictly for a precept onely but largely as comprehending â—oth promise and precept and I have already shewed you both and so have others So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holiness I am willing to second yoâ— in viz. that at the age yoâ— desire people might solemnly profess their acceptance of Christ and their resolution to be 〈◊〉 But I hope God will find me better work while I must stay here then to spend my time to prove that no infants of believers are within Christs visible Church that is are no infant Disciples infant Christians infant Churchmembers I know no glory it will bring to Christ nor comfort to man nor see I now any appearance of truth in it I bless the Lord for the benefits of the Baptismal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy and that I was dedicated so soon to God and not left wholly in the Kingdome and power of the Devil They that despise this mercy or account it none or not worth the accepting may go without it and take that which they get by their ingratitude And I once hoped that much less then such an inundation of direful consequents as our eyes have seen would have done more for the bringing of you back to stop the doleful breach that you have made I am fain to spend my time now to endeavour the recovery of some of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers or at least the preventing of others Apostacy which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches Which I suppose will be a more acceptable work with you then again to write against rebaptizing or for Infant-baptism Sir I remain your imperfect brother knowing but in part yet loving the truth Rich. Baxter Being the same day to return home yet loth to be put off thus I wrote immediately upon the reading of his Letter this also to him Sir I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Church members that is of the Congregation of Israel I do not confess that there was any law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely
opposeth my position and whether he prove it or not But that the Reader may the better perceive where the point to be proved lies I shall set down distinctly what I conceive Mr. B. means and then what I assert and what Mr. B. should prove in opposition to my assertion 1. I conceive he imagines an offer of God to parents which he calls a promise or Covenant that upon their taking him to be their God he would be a God to their children even their infants 2. That parents are and were bound to accept of this offer for their children 3. That by it they do enter them into Covenant that is they do Covenant for them that they shall be Gods people and consequently they partake of the Covenant that God is their God 4. That by vertue of this entring into Covenant accepting and re-engaging them to God they are visible Churchmenbers I assert 1. There is no such offer promise or Covenant 2. That though there are precepts for parents to pray for their children to breed them up for God by example teaching c. yet they are not bound to believe this that upon their own faith God will take their infant children to be his and he will be a God to them nor to accept of this pretended offer sith there is no such promise or offer 3. That though parents may enter into Covenant for their children that is they may do it as those Deut. 29.12 either by charge and adjuration or by wishing a curse to them if they did not cleave to God as Nehem. 10.29 Josh. 6.25 and this may have an obligation on them beyond the precept and influence on them as a motive as the Oath to the Gibeonites Josh. 9.16 yet by this their entring into Covenant for them they do not make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God wil be their God 4. That if there were such a promise and such a duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging yet this neither did then nor doth now make infants visible Churchmembers So that the point between us is Whether there be such a precept to parents besides Circumcision of entring into Covenant accepting an offer of God to be their God for their children according to a promise that he will be so and re-engaging them to God whereby they become actually visible Churchmembers This Mr. B. affirms I deny He speaks thus Having thus opened the terms law and precept I prove the Proposition thus 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant then there was a law or precept which made this their duty and obliged them to it But it was a duty Ergo there was such a law or precept For the antecedent 1. If it were not a duty then it was either a sin or a neutral indifferent action But it was not a sin for 1. it was against no law 2. it is not reprehended nor was it indifferent for it was of a moral nature and ergo either good or evil yea sin or duty For properly permittere is no act of law though many say it is but a suspension of an act and so licitum is not moraliter bonum but onely non malum and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality 2. If there be a penalty and a most terrible penalty annexed for the non-performance then it was a duty But such a penalty was annexed as shall anon be particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. If it oblige ad panam it did first oblige ad obedientiam For no law obligeth ad paenam but for disobedience which presupposeth an obligation to obedience 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their children into Gods Covenant and Church then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major There is no duty but what is made by some law or precept as it 's proper efficient cause or foundation Ergo if it be a duty there was certainly some law or precept that made it such Among men we say that a benefit obligeth to gratitude though there were no law But the meaning is if there were no humane law and that is because the law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankfull If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it there could be no duty 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will ergo no duty but what is made such by a law or precept For a precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty 2. Where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 ergo where there is no law there is no duty for these are contraries it is a duty not to transgress the law and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us There is no apparent ground of exception but in case of Covenants Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent I answer 1. He may oblige himself to an act which he must perform or else prove unfaithfull and dishonest but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty ergo when God makes a Covenant with man he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity but not of duty 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise doth occasion an obligation to duty from God because God hath obliged men to keep their promises 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own ruler so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty that is duty to himself though the act be for the benefit of another but then he may as fitly be said to make a law to himself or command himself so that still the duty such as it is hath an answerable command So that I may well conclude that there is a law because there is a duty For nothing but a law could cause that duty nor make that omission of it a sin Where there is no law sin is not imputed Rom. 5.13 But the omission of entring infanâ—s into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ergo there was a law commanding it 2. If it was a duty to dedicate infants to God or enter them into Covenant with him then either by Gods will or without it certainly not without it If by Gods will then either by his will revealed or unrevealed His unrevealed will cannot oblige for there wants promulgation which is necessary to obligation And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will unless remotely as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed If it be Gods
baptism He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism which neither hath institution from God nor promise of blessing and was never known by the infant nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred 3. Saith he The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church which iâ— the most honourable and profitable society Ergo. That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such particâ—pation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sence So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own when they speak of duty to God they mâ—st be interpreted in the strictest sence When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onely woâ—k Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Baptiâ—m Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 24. â—e have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members but onely by Baptism Mr. Bs. minor then here is this that parents have leave to enter which is all one with admission their children into the visible Church by Baptism that is to baptize them But this is false For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism in that he hath not appointed baptism for thâ—m as is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review much more to baptize them in their own persons according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses plain Scrip proof c. pag. 2â—1 except they be Ministers A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case but a not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc prov ch 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for which who so denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will worship in the world If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church then it is a law that speaks of duty to God not of benefit to man for such laws contain grants of something from God not of what man is to do Now if it be a law of duty it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence which is the right sence they are bound to it as God appoints and no otherwise So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism as it is officium a duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized Mr. Ball reply abâ—ut nine positions p. 68. The Sacraments are of God and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to Disciples to them that are called Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it yet it self is onely a duty and such a one as is onely by institution not by the law of nature nor belongs to paâ—ents for children but to each person for himself But Mr. B. goes on 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of sell preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawfull Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation good welfare real happiness of them but to their hurt 2. It requires a positive command sith it is not of the law of nature 3. It is forbidden in that it is not commanded 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it sith he hath promised none to it 3. Saith he It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Upon so much encouragement and hâ—pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ. Answ. The point to be proved was that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church but a leave of infaâ—ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God if there be good sense in the expression is another thing Infants Churchmembership is the infants state not the parents act and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember to which God vouchsafes leave But whether there be sense or not in the expression it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers nor is it true that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded is it the duty of parents without a positive command by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of those hopes and to list them by baptism into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent then an other who hath the same hopes and may do it as viz. a Midwife Yea by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believeâ—s
infants but also all infants if it be so much for their good welfare preservation real happiness and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement and sith they are in their power as well as parents yea before them and they may list them into Christs army enter them into Covenant and the Church they are bound to do it Yea considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds that by Christs commission Mat. 28.19 Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born and none can do it so soon as Midwives they ought to do it according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses immediately upon their birth Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the infant is not sui juris but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own childe As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but onely for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already and more shall be Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called this last speech is denied He goes on thus And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world perfectè sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the lawes and capable of honors and right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers and that nature revealeth to us that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Under the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents and have the immunâ—ties of that society 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much lesâ— under the Gospel to the members of Christ then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence Exod. 34. and in the 2d Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes as many texâ—s of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or naturâ—l guilt So much of that Answ. 1. All these considerations if they were yeelded to be true would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible which would contradict the Scripture Rom 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. yea rather sith the 4th consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption which is into the invisible rather then the visible Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 3. It is a gross conceit and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau which is intimated as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be that as the members or seed of Adam so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire as I conjecture I do not contradict peremptorily as not knowing how he stated the question nor what his proofs were Yet it seems to mee to be an errour nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid Once more saith he Yet before I cite any more particular texts I will add this one argument from
be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant yea the Apostle concludes and proves Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. That all the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not comprehended in that promise and therefore the visible Churchmembership Christian of infants of Gentile believers câ—n have no shew of proof from the promise Gen. 17.7 and precept v. 9.10 9. Saith Mr. B. I think it is not to bee made light of as to this maâ—ter that in the great promise Gen. 12.3 the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth all the families of the earth shall be blessed as the Heb. Samar Arabic or all the kindreds as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or all the tribes as the Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised and so a Gospel blessing Ergo the Syriac adds and in thy seed and the Arab. hath by thee And the Apostle fully testifieth that So that as tribes kindreds families do most certainly comprehend the infants and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ. Answ. The blessing Gen. 12.3 is not visible Churchmembership which may be without justification but justification as the Apostle expresly expounds it Gal. 3.8 which may be without visible Church-membership Nations there doth not comprehend every member of a nation nor every one of a tribe or kindred as it is Acts 3.25 but the elect and believers of each nation tribe or kindred as the Apostle doth both v. 7. 9. shew terming them that are blessed those that are of faith Therefore though the Scripture be not to be made light of yet Mr. Bs. inference from thence is most vain the promise being not of visible Churchmembership nor to nations families kindreds entirely nor to infants of unbelievers or believers as such but to so many of all nations kindreds and families as are believers or elect Whereby Mr. B. may see how infants can be excluded these families and this promise without apparent violence to the Text. 10. Saith he Note that as infant Churchmembership is here clearly implied in infant Circumcision so they are two distinct things and as the sign is here commanded de novo so the thing signified I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant is commanded with it though not de novo as a thing now beginning as the sign did So that here is in Circumcision not onely a command to do the circumcising outward act but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant and so withal for the parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God and devote them to him as his separated peculiar people So that here are two distinct duties concurrent â—he one external newly instituted the other internal not newly instituted And therefore the former may cease and yet the later stand and it 's no proof that the later Covenant engagement of infants to God is ceased because the sign of Circumcision is ceased no more then it proves that such Covenant engagement did then begin when Circumcision did begin or that women were not Churchmembers separated engaged dedicated to God in infancy because they were not circumcised And no more then you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were uncircumcised for 40 years So that here you have a a command for entring infants as Churchmembers And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3 Gen. 17. Answ. I do indeed but not such as Mr. B. should produce a promise of infants visible Churchmembership and a precept of their entring unrepealed there being no such promise of believers infants visible Churchmembership or precept of admission as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision which Mr. B. will not sure say is unrepealed As for his discourse of a duty of engaging separating to God and dedicating which is internal and not instituted de novo it is neither in Gen. 12. nor Gen. 17. nor if it were is it any thing to the purpose For neither doth such an internal duty make or admit or enter an infant into the visible Church either Jewish or Christian. According to Mr. B. himself infants are visible Churchmembers afore it yea without it nor is the admission or entering into the Church visible by it but by an outward sign as he himself determines part 1. ch 4. of Baptism And this sure is now Baptism which Mr. B. I presume will not now allow to parents for then they should be Ministers of the Seals which he counts one of my six errours I never denied an internal duty of faith prayer vowing c. for the engaging and dedicating infants to God prayer for them is practised by me in publick but I deny that this makes them visible Churchmembers or admissable by Baptism He adds And when I consider the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah I think it far more probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy then that she was entred afterwards at age or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her Answ. What in the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah Mr. B. observes which should make it in any degree probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy I know not There are such things related Gen. 31. of Laban her brother and Rachel his daughters Idols as me thinks should move Mr. B. to conceive that either in that house there was no Church of God or at best a very impure one though it is likely their idolatry and wickedness was not so great as that of the the Canaanites which made them more desirable and eligible wives for Isaac and Jacob then the daughters of the Canaanites whom Esau chose Mr. B. adds And as here are before mentioned standing Covenants so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be further then to Abrahams natural seed not onely in the express promise of the blessing to all the nations or families on earth of which before but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is common to Abraham with other true believers For Gen. 22.16 17 18. it 's thus alledged because thou hast done this thing c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice And Gen. 26.3 4 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac and the same reason assigned because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my commandments my statutes and my laws How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing I am not determining but taking the words as I find them in general I may conclude that they are here given as a cause or reason of it some
I have oft shewed in Mr. M. Mr. B. and Mr. Bl. to let fall such passages especially in opening the institution Matth. 28.19 in opposing Papists Prelatists Antibaptists as overthrow their disputes for infant baptism and therefore they will not stand to them when they are urged against them but by some shift elude them It is false which Mr. Rutherford saith that this proposition Those to whom the promise of the Covenant does belong these should be baptized if universally understood is Peters Acts 2.38 39. or that this assumption The promise of the Covenant is to you and your children is the express words of Peter The offer of Christ in the preached Gospel is not the call meant Acts 2 3â— nor are all such as to whom the offer is made exterâ—ally in covenant and such to whom the Covenant is made and should be baptized though I grant if they give a professed consent to the call of the Gospel they are bapâ—izable Calvins words are no proof against those who yeild not what he saith of the Anabaptists of his time Mr Rutherfords words are too vain for a man of his name which say that believing children are not children but men of age My exposition of Acts 2.39 neither excludes sucking children nor is the inclusion proved by him from Matth. 2. â—8 1 Cor. 7.14 the sense Mr. Rutherford makes the onely sense of Acts 2.39 the promise and word of the Covenant is preached to you and your children in you is false for then it had been true that it was preached then to all afar off which is manifestly false and vain for it had been no comfort to them sith it might bee preached without their benefit nor is this to be externally in covenant except in Mr. Rutherfords gibberish both under the Old and New Testament In the Oâ—d persons were so by birth without preaching in the New they onely who profess faith The other sense Mr. Rutherford sets down is none of mine nor is it needful I should answer the objections against it and the terms the Lord hath internally covenanted with you I take to be non-sense no covenanting with us being an immanent but a transeunt act My sense is fully set down here Sect. 13 c. and proved I grant no more Covenant favour holden forth to their children Acts 2.39 then to the Pagans children except in priority of tender I make not external covenant holiness ceremonial holiness out of daâ—e nor can he cleer it or that by any thing I say the words Acts 2.39 must be in a contradictory way expounded to wit the promise is no more made to your children so long as they are infants then to Devils which seeing hee mentions Mr. Ms. words but a little before I have reason to conceive reflect on my self and if so they have too great a shew of Diabolism Right to hear the preached Gospel and a Covenant or Gospel warrant peculiar to believers children is such talk as I understand not I think hearing is a Duty obliging all Pagans have not onely warrant but also command to hear it it is not onely lawfull but necessary The children of the most holy Christian Gentile believers are not Christians till they believe and both they and their parents when they believe are still Heathens the term Heathens being all one with Gentiles contradistinct to Jews and so used here by Mr. Rutherford himself pag. 74. in words before cited and I sometimes admire that some learned men should suggest this to Readers and hearers as a hâ—inous thing to term them Heathens when they must be so if they be not Jews though most holy Christians The term Pagans if it bee all one with professed infidels positively I grant it belongs not to our children yet they are infidels negatively till they believe and are so accounted of them that admit them not to the Lords Supper as well as of those that admit them not to Baptism unto which actual profession of faith is as well required as to the Lords Supper To neither hath a man any right by Covenant although by the Covenant he hath right to the benefits of the Gospel Baptism and the Lords Supper are neither of them formally benefiâ—s or seals of the Covenant of grace though by conâ—equent in the right use of them such benefitâ— accrue to men by them They are hoth rites appointed by Christ the one to be the baptized his signe whereby he professeth repentance and faith in Christ and engageth himself solemnly to adhere to Christ as his disciple the other whereby heâ— signifies his remembrance of Christs death both our duties and a right to duty sounds to mee like non-sense I know no Anabaptist that ignorantly confounds the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and benefits covenanted But this I aver that when God promiseth and covenanteth they are connex there is no man to whom Cod promiseth or covenanteth but he hath or shall have the thing promised or covenanted And this I learn from the Apostle Rom. 9.8 who makes onely the chosen sons of promise as Mr. Rutherford here pag. 77. expounds him and that is as Gal. 3.16 he expresseth himself to Abraham and his seed were the promises made or said that is Christ personal or mystical or both and to no other And sure the Apostle Rom. 9.6 did think it blasphemy to say that God had promised and those he promised to should not have the thing promised for then Gods word should fall and he be a liar If Gods conditional promise be a Covenant yet it is made onely to them that perform the condition He that believeth and is baptized shall bee saved is not an universal promise to all men whether believers or not but onely to so many as shall believe 'T is true we can exclude none because we cannot exempt any from believing and therefore we are to make an indifferent offer to any but God in his intention excludes many and his promise is not made to them whom he excludes nor are they under his Covenant or in covenant with him in respect of his act of promising though they may be said to bee in Covenant or under the Covenant in respect of their own act of promising I grant the command is to persons whether they believe or not obey or not for that is not an enunciative speech that signifies any thing true or false but is in the imperative mood and extendeth to all men whatsoever so as whosoever doth not as the command bids sins But when Mr. Rutherford saith the promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not whether ye transgress or transgress not if an Anabaptist falsly so called may have the boldness to tell a Professour in Divinity in an University in Scotland of ignorance I should tell him he is mistaken in saying the promise is to you whether you believe or no the threatning is to you whether you transgress or no. For
the Messiah c. The like may be said of the ends of Circumcision and the occasion of appointing it But let us view Master Drew's proof of the Minor The reason saith he of the command for signing Infants of Believers under the Law with the first signe or seal of the Covenant was this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as is evident Gen. 17.7 8. compared with the 9.10 and 11. verses where this promise of God and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another I will establish my Covenant between me and thee c. to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee therefore thou shalt Circumcise every male as a token of the Covenant vers 11. But this same reason of the command continues in force under the Gospel God doth as truely say to every Believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles so he is called Rom. 4.11 Therefore I may conclude that Believers under the Gospel have the same command for signing their Infants with the first seal of the Covenant of promise which now is baptism as Abraham had to signe his under the Law with the first signe c. which then was Circumcision and now Sirs if the blessing of Abraham be come upon you and if you be heirs according to the promise you may easily finde a command for Baptizing your Infant seed Answ. If Master Drew would prove what is to be proved he should prove that the proper formal reason obliging to the duty of Circumcision Gen. 17.9 10 11. was the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee But that is false For the formal reason being put the thing is put without any other thing and it being not put the thing is not put though other things be put But if the promise had been put yet Abraham had not been obliged to Circumcise unless a command were put and the command being put Abraham was bound to Circumcise though God had made no promise Therefore though the promise might be a motive to do it yet as Master Marsâ—all truely confesseth Defence of his Sermon pag. 182. the formal reason of the Jews being Circumcised was the command and therefore till Master Drew shew we have the same command to Baptize Infants as Abraham had to Circumcise Infants he can never shew we have the same or equal reason for Infant-baptism as was for Infant-circumcision But Master Drew thinks to prove his Minor from Gen. 17.7 8. compared with the 9 10 11. vers Where it is evident saith he this promise of God I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another But he doth but dictate without any cleer explication or thorough consideration of what he saith For 1. He doth not plainly tell us that the dependence he imagines to be one upon another of the application of the first seal and the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is upon that promise alone and not upon the other promises vers 4 5 6 8. And if he do so mean yet he brings nothing to pâ—ove it and it â—s unequal he should expect we should take it on his word sith if we gather any thing from the placing of the words the reason of the command vers 9 10 11 12. may as well be from the promise of giving him and his seed the land oâ— Canaan vers 8. as the promise vers 7. 2. Whereas the promise vers 7. hath diverse senses one so as to be meant of Abraham as a natural father and his seed according to the flesh another of Abraham as a spiritual father and his spiritual seed he neither brings a word nor do I think can why the reason of the Command vers 9 10 11 12. should be from the promise made to Abraham as a spiritual father and to his spiritual seed which alone is for his purpose to bring Gentile-believers children to be in the promise rather than to Abraham as a natural Father and to his natural seed especially those of them that were to inherit the land of Canaan yea it is manifest that if the dependence were as he saith it is to be interpreted of Abrahams seed by nature sith the command there was given to the natural seed of Abraham only and them that joyned to them 3. Nor doth Mr. Drew shew what dependence one upon another they are knit into whether contingent or necessary or if necessary in what degree of necessity Whether de omni per se or quatenus ipsum This last seems to be most likely and the dependence this To whomsoever that promise is made that person is to have the first seal and whosoever is to have the first seal to that person the promise is made But this were evidently false For it appears from v. 19. that the promise was not made to Ishmael and yet he was to have the first seal others of Abrahams house had not the promise who were to be signed with Circumcision and the females had the promise made to them and yet were not to be signed If it be said they were vertually signed it serves not Master Drew's turn who asserts a dependence of the promise and actual signing in the person federate 4. Nor doth he shew from what term or words his imagined dependence is evident The onely term I know he or any other gathers the supposed dependence from is vers 9. therefore But in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the most usual sense is And thou noting a further addition to his speech not an illation of one thing from another And so the Tigurines read tu And thou Pareus Tu autum But thou Piscator Tu vero Thou verily So that the evidence is very small which is from so uncertain a light 5. Nor doth he nor can he shew from the comparing Gen. 17.7 8. with 9 10 11. any dependence of application of any other first signe than Circumcision upon the promise there The Command of an indfinite first seal there or elswhere to believers Infants is a meer figment 6. That dependence which is implyed by the term therfore is not at all such as intimates a right competent to Infants but a duty enjoyned to parents which Infants are nor capable of And therefore if any see a command for Baptizing of Infants in that place it is but a parallax or decepâ—io visus a mistake of sight as in him that thinks he sees two Suns or two Moons at once The Minor also in his Argument is to be proved SECT IV. The Covenant Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. was a mixt Covenant BUt afore â—e comes to prove it he brings in an objection Gods Covenant with Abraham was not a pure Gospel-Covenant as appears
or which is all one any medium to prove his Conclusion by but only repeating the Conclusion in different phrases and those some of them new minted gibberish or non-sense sometimes the Major sometimes the Minor sometimes both However sith it is my task I shall view what he saith Page 92. he saith thus Which is apparent in the very first institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore and this is my Covenant which ye shall keep every man-child among you shall be circumcised and afterward in the fourteenth the seal is by a metonymia called the Covenant for that it is apparent not only that God commanded them who were in covenant to be circumcised but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant or in token of the Covenant between God and them and he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant So that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in Covenant I therefore concluded that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal supposing still they were capable of it So that to lay circumcision upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together for the command is the cause of the existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it Answ. Here is all Mr. Ms. strength to prove his Major that it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time and so forward should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant which he after alters thus Such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal But there is nothing but confusedness and impertinency in all this passage 1. He tells us There is the institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. which he must understand of an initial seal in general or indefinite or else it reacheth not to baptism and so it is impertinently alleged But it is palpably false that there is in those words any other initial seal instituted then circumcision and I dare boldly say it is a meer dotage to maintain that in those words there is any rule about baptism or any other ordinance of God then circumcision The very words are thou shalt keep my Covenant and this covenant is demonstrated to be male-circumcision and no other of which the time and part are precisely set down 2. He should prove that all that were in covenant had title to the initial seal or right but his Conclusion is of their duty not of their title Now it cannot be said to be infants duty the command was not given to them nor doth Mr. M. I think assert it as their duty but as their privilege and yet all that the text inferreth or Mr. M. concludes from it concerns the connexion between the duty of circumcising which belongs not to infants and the covenant not between the Privilege of circumcision passively taken which belongs to infants and the Covenant which is another impertinency 3. Be it granted that the proposition to be proved is of duty in parents or Ministers yet he is necessitated to grant the command was the cause of the existence of the duty and more plainly page 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God which if true there 's no duty without the command whatever interest there might be in the Covenant and therefore the proposition is true all that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal if it be commanded not otherwise and so neither infant-circumcision nor infant-baptism can be proved from the bare interest in the covenant without a particular command for each of them 4. He saith the Covenant of grace was the motive page 182. the Covenant of grace or their Church-state was the motive to it and the thing it related to But he tells us not to whom it was a motive A motive is an impulsive cause whereby a person is perswaded or induced to do a thing But it was not the motive to infants for they conceived not of it His words the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant do intimate that he means the covenant was the motive to God to give the command But what it makes to his purpose I do not conceive For though that were the motive to God yet Gods motive is not the rule of the duty but his command to us nor the evidence of our privilege but his declaration of his Will But be it a motive to Abraham yet it was but a motive for the more full engagement of him to that which without that motive he had been to do by reason of the Command nor any further evidence of privilege then was imported by other Declaration of Gods will 5. Though Circumcision did relate to the Covenant and it was received as an evidence of the Covenant yet this proves not that it was received by each person because he was in covenant nor that the being in Covenant was the rule of the using that rite that they which were in Covenant should have it and they that were not in Covenant should not have it which is the thing to be proved but is certainly false as I have by many instances shewed 6. If all this were granted yet that this rule did reach further then the use of circumcision is not proved here and what is brought elsewhere shall be shewed in it's place to be much short of proving any such general rule about an initial seal as is here by Mr. M. averred But let us see what his proof amounts to about circumcision 1. He urgeth That circumcision is called a token of the Covenant But this proves no more then this that the use of Circumcision was to be a sign God made such a Covenant and would fulfill it not that every one that was in Covenant was to be circumcised or that every one that was to be circumcised was in covenant 2. That it is termed the Covenant But this proves no more than the former sith it is acknowledged to be so called only by a metonymia of putting the thing signifyed for the sign 3. The particle therfore is thus urged God not only commanded them who were in covenant 〈◊〉 b◠circumcised but that they should therfore be circumcised because of the covenant or in token of the Covenant between God them But 1. The particle therfore though it be in our last translation yet in the Hebrew it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may be rendered And thou
seal would be limitted to invisible members But this is not true for then the being of the promise would be limitted to them not baptism It is false which Master Blake supposeth that baptism is limitted to them to whom the promise is and that the being of the promise to a person intitles to his baptism He saith it is a call unto such a Church-state as the whole â—â—tion of the Jews did then enjoy as the first-born in the family To which I reply The whole Nation of the Jews enjoyed a Church-state by which they were joyned in one national society under an high Priest and other Priest offering sacrifice at the Temple whither the Church-members were to bring their gifts and to observe the Levitical rites It is a dotage with a witness to conceive that Peter meant Acts 2.39 that the promise was to them or those afar off whom God should call to this Church-state It is certain that the calling of the Jewes and Gentiles by the Gospel was to remove them out of that society and Church-state as appears by v. 40. nor did the Apostles ever associate the Christians to the Jews as Proselytes to them nor did they ever draw them into any such Church-state as the Jews had to take in a whole Nation City or Family comprehending Infants into the Christian church but onely so many as believed as v. 41.42 c. shew yea to call them to such a Church-state as the Jewes had had been to call them not to baptism but to circumcision and the observation of Moses Law The call of God Acts 2.39 is no other then what is mentioned in the new Testament to be Saints to his Kingdom and Glory to the fellowship of his sonne by his word and spirit or one of them at least yea the promise being meant of Christ which Master Blake doth not deny as will appear in that which followes it can be expounded onely of those that are effectually called sith to them onely Christ belongs on the other side to understand it of a call unto such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy is to limit the promise to Jewish proselytes or to national Christian Churches which is a wild conceit unfit for a serious and sober Divine But Master Blake goeth on from whence this Argument may be drawn those to whom the Covenant of Promise appertains have a right to baptism But the Covenant of Promise appertains to men in a Church-state and Condition and to their Children The Major cannot be denied by any that will not make themselves the Apostles opposites The Minor proposition is now onely to be considered that the Covenant of promise to men in a Church-state and Condition is in that latitude as to comprize their Children For which the words of the Apostle are full and clear To you is the promise made and to your Children on which Calvin rightly comments Peter observes saith he a due order when he assignes the first place of honour to the Jewes that it takes in Children it depends on the word of promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed where God joynes children with their parents in the priviledge of Adoption where Adoption is taken in the Apostles sense Rom. 9.5 to the inheritance of privileges belonging to all Church-members as he after explains himself Ans. The Major is ambiguous and in some sense it is true and in some sense false It is true in this sense Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by their beleiving and Covenanting to be Christs Disciples appertains have a right to baptism But in this sense in which Master Blake seems to understand it for he comprehends Infants in the Covenant Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by Gods Acts of Promise whether of saving Grace or Church-privileges appertains without their personal believing or covenanting have a right to baptism it is false Nor is the Contradictory thereto opposit to any thing the Apostle saith who doth indeed exhort to repentance and baptism but doth not from the promise without each persons repentance ascribe a right to baptism to any parent or child the promise is not urged by him to declare a right to baptism of it self without repentance but to encourage to repentance and baptism into the Name of Christ as their duty The Minor also is ambiguous it being uncertain what he means by the Covenant of Promise whether the Covenant whereby the persons promise to God or God to them and if of this latter whether the Covenant wherein God promiseth to them be of saving-graces or of Church-priviledges if he mean it of the former understand it universally it is manifestly false contrary to Scripture and experience whether the Church-state be in respect of the visible or invisible Church there is no such promise of God that if the Parent be in a Church-state or condition so as to be elect or true beleiver much less if he be onely in the visible Church that his child as his child shall be in the Covenant of saving grace have Christ his Spirit remission of sins and life everlasting by him Nor is it true of the promise of Church-priviledges that God will take the child of him who is in a Church-state and condition for a visible Church-member capable of the initial seat because he is his child without the childs personal faith and repentance Nor do I know of any Covenant of Promise now under the Gospel of such outward Church-priviledges but take it to be a faction of Paedobaptists nor is there in the Apostles words any thing to prove the Minor For neither doth the text say the promise is that Gen. 17.7 nor that it is made but onely is nor doth say it is to you as in a Church-state and condition and to your children as the children of men in a Church-state and condition And for Calvins words neither are they plain for Mr. Bls. purpose nor if they were should I take them for an oracle but should expect better proof then his or Master Bls. sayings As for the Adoption Rom. 9.5 it is clear from the text and confessed by Master Rutherford Due right of Presbytery ch 4. Sect. 4. pag. 192. to have been a prerogative of the Jewes as was the giving of the Law the descent of Christ c. and therefore it is untruly suggested by Master Blake to be an inheritance of priviledges belonging to all Church-members or that the Apostle doth after so explain himself and Master Blake continues his want of dictating without proofe He next takes on him to answer objections One is that the children are the same with sons and daughters mentioned v. 17. from Joel 2.28 and consequently the promise is of the spirit of prophecy and appertaining to none but those of age and capacity for prophecy To which he answers 1. That the promise cannot be that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost in that visibie way
he speaks thus And he â—aies Arise and be baptized which are not Peters words Acts. 2.38 but the words of Ananias to Saul Acts. 22.16 My tenth exception was usually Paedobaptists in their paraphrases put not in any thing to answer repent v. 38. which is true though Master Stephens be alleged in my sixth exception as paraphrasing it by covenant for your selves and your children Master Blake grants the Apostle presseth to a duty and such as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers If so then he doth not infer a right to bapâ—ism barely from their interest in the promise What he saith right and duty very well stand together and that the Apostle fitly makes use of their interest as a motive I deny not It is true the Apostle mentioned more to whom the promise was then he then perswaded to repent for he mentions the promise as pertaining to the absent or unborn but he perswades none to be baptized but the penitent nor mentions any to whom the promise was but the called of God To my Argument from the precedency of repentance to baptism Acts. 2.38 against infant-baptism he answers as before ch 37. to which I have replyed before As for Master Stephens his paraphrase avowed by Master Blake as the Apostles meaning that if the Jewes who had crucified Christ would receive him as the particular Messiah the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation it is far from the Apostles minde For the Apostle doth not make the eontinuance of the promise as the benefit consequent on their receiving Christ and the receiving of Christ the condition of continuance of the promise but the being of the promise is alleged as a thing already existent nor is there any likelyhood that the Apostle Peter would urge them to so hard duties as repentance receiving Christ by so slender a reason as the continuance of the promise of visible Church-membership and baptism to them and their infant children yea the text it self shewes that the things by which he would perswade them to receive Christ were the assurance of remission of sins and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the alleging the promise v 39 is to take away the great objection against these great benefits from their crucifying of Christ and their imprecation on them and their children Matth. 27.25 If then Master Stephens build his word of command to baptize father and child on that paraphrase he builds on a foundation which will not hold Master Blake addes To this the word repent refers as may be made plain But what he means by this assertion I do not well understand it being ambiguous what he means by this whether the paraphrase of Master Stephens that the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation if they would receive Jesus as the particular Messiah or the word of command to baptize father and child and in like manner what kind of reference he means whether as a medium to prove it or as a motive to it If he mean the same with that which his allegations seem to tend to his meaning is that the promise of visible Church-state was to the Jewes as they had been formerly if they did receive Christ and the term repent refers to it as the motive Now though I grant that the promise Acts. 2.39 is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v 38. yet I deny such a promise to be meant v. 39. as Mr. Bl. and Mr. Stephens fancy Nor do any of Mr. Blakes allegatione prove it For Acts 3.25 doth not speak of such a covenant as Master Blake means but of that Evangelical covenant wherein God promised Christ and saving blessings by him Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant onely but also of the Prophets Now the Prophets there are the same with all the Prophets v. 24. and those Jewes to whom Peter spake were no otherwise their children then in that they had been raised up of and sent to that nation in their predecessors times and they are in like manner called children of the Covenant because they were the posterity of those ancestors specially Abraham to whom that Covenant was made But this doth not prove that they were then Gods visible people that the Covenant of visible Church-state did belong to them and their children or that such a covenant is meant Acts 2.39 What Master Blake allegeth from Matth. 8.12 Matth. 21.43 that they were in danger to be cast off doth prove rather the contrary thet the nation or body of the Jewish people who had rejected Christ were not in covenant with God and although those particular persons Acts 2.37 to whom Peter spake v. 38 39. were more awakened then others yet they could not be then said to be in the covenant of visible Church-state being not then believers in Christ. What Master Blake allegeth and infers from Matth. 21.31 32. Luke 7.29 30. I assent to but know not what it makeâ— for his purpose Yea me thinks his calling baptism to which Peter exhorted entrance into a new covenant-way crosseth Master Stephens paraphrase of continuing the same promise to them and their children In his third allegation he misreports me as if I excluded all consideration of right in the Jewes and their children from those words which are Acts 2.39 Whereas that which I said was this that from the promise Acts 2.39 what ever right be imported by it Peter doth not infer their being baptized as a right or privilege accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim but as a duty to which he perswades in a moral way What good interpretation I give of those words v. 39. suitable to Peters exhortation I have set down Exam. pag. 61. Review part 1. pag. 41. and elsewhere Master Blake if he could should have overthrown it Master Cobbets exception is answered in the next section Mr. Bl. hath been oft told that the children are mentioned Acts 2.39 because of the imprecation Matth. 27.25 That the words Acts 2.38 39. are carried in that way that interest in Covenant and Covenant-Seals in Mr. Bls sense formerly ran is supposed but not proved by him That the Jews yet persisting in their adherence to Moses not embracing Christ should be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptism is such a dotage as me thinks Master Blake should disclaim That the words of the text Acts 2.39 hold out such a covenant-right as Master Blake imagins in Scripture-language according to the grand charter of heaven I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is said but not proved by Master Blake Whether my exceptions against the Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38 39. or Master Blakes answers are frivolous shifts the intelligent Reader will perceive My Antipaedobaptism is enough to refute Master John Goodwins charge and my censure of his interpretations others have made good As for
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is
argument being drawn from an act or end of Christ which was not onely duty but his performance it was urged that if infants were not baptized and to be baptized they belonged not to the Church To which I answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an answerable illation by the same reason the thief on the cross should not belong to the Church because not baptized That which Mr. B. answers is not true that Mark 16.16 the former part speaks but ad debitum and the later de eventu For though a duty may be gathered from the subject of the proposition it being clear that salvation being promised to the believer baptized Faith and Baptism are required duties to that end yet the former part of the proposition doth as fully speak of an event as the later part doth And though Ephes. 5.26 it is proved a duty to baptize as aâ—so to preach the word because it is Christs way in which we are to concur with him of clensing his Church yet the clensing of the Church with or in the washing of water by the word doth not note a duty but an end intended and event to follow by Christs action Mr. B. proceeds 2. He objecteth that therefore it must be understood of the more famous part of the Church or that purification is to be understood of that which is for the most part Answ. The Apostle speaks plainly of the whole Church and to take it for part is to cross the Text except you shew a necessity for it 2. It speaks of all quoad debitum in regard of the means of it which they are capable of 3. And usually quoad eventum of the said means too Refut 1. It cannot be understood of the whole visible Church in which are many reprobates for it is that Church which Christ loved with that peculiar love which is the Husbands pattern to love his Wife by for whom he gave himself that he might sanctifie it that he might present it to himself glorious and a Church not having spot or wrinkle or any of such things but that it might be holy and without blemish which are true onely of that part of the visible which is also of the invisible Church of the elect 2. Whomsoever it speaks of that he might purifie it in or with the washing of water by the word it speaks of the intention of Christ which being supposed that it is not frustrated it follows that those who are said to be purified in or with the washing of water by the word are all in the event converted by preaching and baptized with water Which sith it cannot be said of all elect infants for they are not purified by the word it must be understood as I say either by a synocdoche of the whole for the more famous or apparent part or else the act is meant of that which is usually done or for the most part not what is universally and perpetually 3. It is granted that we may gather thence the duty of preaching the word and baptizing with water and that they who are sanctified by preaching are to be purified by baptism and that this was usual in the event a known use in the primitive times But expresly it notes onely Christs act not the Ministers duty which is onely implied and follows from this that Christ doth it by them and it supposeth that they who are capable of the one to witâ— baptism are capable of the other the hearing of the word for these two are conjunctively put not dis-junctively either the one or the other as if some were purified in the washing of water onely others by the word but the same who are purified by the one are purified by the other Mr. B. adds Object But some may say that by the word is here added which infants are not capable of Answ. 1. Infants are sanctified by the word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God though not by the word preached to infants 2. The means is to each member as they are capable Washing by water to those that are capable of that and by the word to those that are capable of that which blind and deaf men are not any more then infants Ref. There is no word of precept to parents to dedicate infants to God by baptism though there be to pray for them nor do I think M. â— would allow every parent to dedicate his or her infant to God by baptism which they must do if there were a precept to them to do it That there is no such word of promise as entitles every infant of a believer or any definitely to baptism much less that appoints parents to dedicate their infants to God by baptism is amply shewed in this book before Nor can the meaning be Ephes. 5 26. of such a sanctification For 1. no word of promise and precept to parents to dedicate them to God is that which Christ doth sanctifie or clense them by partly because there is none such partly because the word of precept to parents if there were such to dedicate them to God would not clense or sanctifie the infants it hath no effect on them nor notes their duty nor doth the precept sanctifie or clense but the observing of it nor was the parents dedication ever made by God a means to clense or sanctifie the child as there is meant Nor were there such a word of promise to a parent would that of it self sanctifie and clense 2. The word there meant is the word of the Gospei preached to those who are said to be clensed by Christ. For 1. all along the N. T. and particularly in that Epistle by the word is meant the word of the Gospel as it is preached or published Acts 10.22 36 37. Rom. 10.8 9 17. Ephes. 6.17 Heb. 6.5 1 Pet. 1.25 Luke 3.2 John 3.34 6.63 68. 8 47· 12.47 48. 15.7 17.8 Acts 5.32 Matth 13.20 21 22 23. Mark 2.2 4.14 15 16 17 18 20. 16.20 Luke 1.2 5.1 8.11 12 13 15 21. 10.39 11.28 John 5.24 38. 8.31 43 52. 14.23 24. 17 6 14 17 20. Acts 4.4 29 31. 6.2 4 7. 8.4 14 25. 11.1 19. 12.24 13.5 7 26 44 46 48 49. 14.25 15.7 35 36. 16.6 32. 17.11 13. 18.11 19.10 1 Cor. 2.4 14.36 15.2 2 Cor. 2.17 4.2 5.19 Gal. 6.6 Ephes. 1.13 Phillip 1.14 2.16 Col. 1.5 25. 3.16 4.3 1 Thes. 1.6 8. 2.13 2 Thes. 3.1 1 Tim. 5.17 2 Tim. 2.9 15. 4.2 Tit. 1.3 9 2.5 Heb. 13.7 Jam. 1.21 22 23. 1 Pet. 2.8 3.1 Revel 1.9 6.9 12.11 20.4.2 It is the word of the Gospel preached or published by which persons are said to be purified converted regenerate sanctified John 15.3 17.17 Acts 20.32 26.18 Rom. 10.17 Gal. 3.5 Ephes. 1.13 Jam. 1.18 1 Pet 1.23 not any where by the word
government but to be his allies and neighbours being so many more in number then Jacob that they concluded rather that his cattel and substance should be theirs yet were they circumcised every male and so were made members of the visible professing Church For it was not the bare external sign that Jacob or his sons would perswade them to without the thing signified For the reproach that they mentioned of giving their daughter to the uncircumcised was not in the defect of the external abcision for so Moses own son and all the Israelites in the wilderness should have been under the same reproach and all the females continually But it was in that they were not in Covenant with the same God and did not profess to worship the same God in his true way of worship as they did And therefore as Baptizing is not indeed and in Scripture sence Baptizing if it be not used for engagement to God even into his Name so Circumcision is not indeed and in Scripture sence Circumcision unless it be used as an engaging sign and they be circumcised to God Answ. By the congregation of Israel I meant the same with the Hebrew people or house of Abraham which I termed the congregation of Israel by an anticipation usual in Scripture as when Gen. 12.8 it is said that Abraham removed unto a mountain on the east of Bethel though it were not so named till Jacobs time Gen. 28.19 Which term I the rather chose because it is most frequent in Scripture and I remember not the phrase any where the Church or congregation of Abraham but of Israel in Scripture the phrase of which I thought best to use Now taking the congregation of Israel for the Hebrew people or the house of Abraham I say the infants onely of the congregation of Israel as I say here Sect. 51. by birth property or proselytism were visible Churchmembers Nor is it any thing against this my Tenet that the Sichemites infants Gen. 34. were visible Churchmembers for they were circumcised as consenting to become one people with them as is expressed v. 16 22. and therefore of the congregation of Israel So that what ever were the reason of the reproach v. 14. what ever were the ends of Jacobs sons or the Sichemites how ever the fact is to be construed or it be to be judged that they were circumcised or not yet that instance proves not visible Churchmembership of infants any where but in the congregation of Israel sith the Sichemites if they were truly circumcised and so visible Churchmembers it was because they were by agreement one people and so of the congregation of Israel Mr. B. adds 6. It was then the duty of all the nations round about if not of all the nations on earth that could have information of the Jewish Religion to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision That all that would have any alliance and commerce with the Jewes must do it is commonly confessed that it must extend to infants the case of the Sichemites though deceitfully drawn to it by some of Jacobs sons doth shew and so doth the Jewish practice which they were to imitate that the same engagement to the same God is the duty of all the world is commonly acknowledged though Divines are not agreed whether the distant nations were obliged to use Circumcision the Jewish sign The best of the Jews were zealous to make Proselytes and no doubt but the very law of nature did teach them to do their best for the salvation of others To think such charitable and holy works unlawfull is to think it evil to do the greatest good And if they must perswade the neighbour nations to come in to God by Covenâ—nt engagement they must perswade them to bring their children with them and to devote â—hem to God as well as thâ—mselves For the Jews knew no other Covenanting or engaging to God As the Sichemites must do so other nations must do For what priviledge had the children of the Sichemites above the rest of the world Answ. This argument in form would be thus If it were the duty of all the nations round about to engage themselves and their children to God by Circumcision then it was not onely the infants of the Congregation of Israel that were Church members But the antecedent is true Ergo the consequent Of this argument I deny the consequence of the major and the minor also I deny the consequence because they that did engage themselves and children to God by Circumcision did thereby ingraff themselves and children into the congregation of Israel I deny also the minor For though I acknowledge it was the duty of all the world to engage themselves to God by covenanting to take him for their God yet I do not conceive that they were all bound to do it by circumcision For I conceive that precept given onely to the Hebrews or house of Abraham In whiâ—h I am confirmed in that I finde not that Sem Melchisedeck Lot Job ever did so or are blamed for not doing it It is most certain that Cornelius though a man that feared God with all his house yet was neither he nor his house circumcised Acts 10.2 11.3 and yet accepted of God It is true if any would keep the Passeover and be admitted to the rites of the Tabernacle he was to be circumcised with his males But they might devote and engage themselves and children to God without it nor was it necessary that God should be their God in covenant or to their salvation that they were circumcised or joyned to the people of the Jews I confess it was of much moment to reduce the nations and to preserve them from the idolatry that defiâ—ed the world to be of that people for generally the uncircumcised who were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel were without God in the world without Christ without hope aliens from the Covenants of promise and therefore it was a good office to endeavour to bring the nations to God by circumcision and a desirable advantagious thing as it is now to be in a well ordered fixed Church yet I cannot say it is or was necessary for all either as a duty or means of salvation to do either Mr. B. goes on 7. â—n Hesters time many of the people became Jews Hest. 8.17 who yet were not under their government And to be Jewes is to be of the Jewish profession And it â—s well known that this was to be circumcised they and their little ones as the Proselytes were and so to keep the Law of Moses Answ. Though they were not under the Jewes Government in respect of all power and command yet they were incorporated into the Jewish people and were under their government as far as other Jews by birth were having some exercise and liberty of using their own lawes though with subjection also to the Persian Princes I confess their being Jews was by circumcising of them and their males
revealed will that must thus oblige then there was some sign by which it was revealed And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty then there was a law For this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law which is the principal part so that you may as well say that you are a reasonable creature but not a man as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will but yet not by a law or precept 3. We shall anon produce the law or precept and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing In the mean time I must confess I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of it 's own evidence to shame the gain-sayer And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly by perswading them that there were duties without precepts or laws and benefits without donations covenants or promise confirming them then despair of nothing for the time to come You may perswade them that there is a son without a father or any relation without it's foundation or effect without it's cause and never doubt but the same men will believe you while you have the same interest in them and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits Answ. This tedious unnecessary discourse I have set together lest it should be said I omitted it because I could not answer it though I might have well done it and granted him his conclusion without any revocation of what I had written to him For his conclusion is that there was a law or precept to the Israelites to accept of Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant which I never denied onely I denied that this was any other then Circumcision or that this conferred the benefit that is made them visible Church-members or that this mercy as he calls it was offered by a Covenant to be a God to believers and their seed or that parents did by their act enter the children into Covenant that is Gods Covenant to be their God or Covenant to God in proper speech whereby they covenanted to be his people And for the first it seems to me 1. That Mr. B. can produce no other law or precept binding the Israelites to this duty besides that of Circumcision because he neither here nor elsewhere that I know of produceth any other 2. That he means no other by two passages in this discourse 1. because he saith there was a most terrible penalty annexed to this law obliging Israelites for non-performance as shall be anon particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. which he neither shews to be any other nor do I think he could mean any other then that of Circumcision 2. He saith the omission of entring infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed his limiting it to the time before Christs incarnation intimates he meant it of Circumcision 3. That he deals like as if he meant deceitfully in putting off the naming the law or precept to another place which it had been requisite for the Answerer and Reader to have found here that it might be discerned what law he meant And for the 2d I say if he could prove or produce that or any other law or precept yet if he did not prove that thereby the infants were made visible Churchmembers he proves not the contradictory to my writing The other two points belong to the two foregoing and following questions As for his confession though his injurious insinuations of me are so frequent and so frivolous that I could pass by them as the hissing of a Goose or the snarling of a Curre yet because his speeches do much wrong the truth and way of God through my sides I judge it fit to reply 1. That I see not reason to be ashamed of my assertion but Mr. B. hath cause to be ashamed of his own heedlesness and misrepresentation of my assertion and roving from the point he should prove 2. That I gather no Disciples to my self but endeavour to reform the abuse of Infant Baptism and to restore the right use of Christian Baptism according to the plain appointment of Christ in Scripture and practice of his Apostles 3. That he that will be perswaded by Mr. B. that infants are Disciples meant Matth. 28.19 and that in Gen. 1.26 3.15 is a law or ordinance of God for infants visible Churchmembership will believe any thing that he saith 4. That were it not for the opinion he hath obtained of godliness by his Book of Rest the esteem he hath gained by his writings for the Ministery and the advantage they have by his Book of Baptism to maintain their practice and station it were not likely so vain a Book would be esteemed among Schollers 5. That were it not for the affrightments of Mr. B. through his calumnies and slanders as if Ranters Quakers and all sorts of errours and sects sprang from Antipaedobaptism godly tender conscienc'd persons durst not maintain as they do so gross a corruption as their Baby sprinkling is nor neglect so great and fundamental a duty as Baptism is according to the Scripture But the Lord will judge betweene us I proceede The 5 th Qu. saith Mr. B. requireth me to lay down this assertion that there is no law or precept of God which doth not oblige to duty and no actual promise or donation which doth not confer the benefit This I aver on occasion of your last Letter where in contradiction to the former you confess the promises to the naâ—ural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai and Deut. 29. and a precept of Câ—rcumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calliâ—g the people and requiring them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. Deut. 29. Yet you do not conceive that the infants of Israel were made visible Churchmembâ—rs by the promises in the Covenants oâ— the precepts forenamed If so then either you imagine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Churchmembership or precept concerning their entrance into that state or else you imagine that such promises were made but did not actually confer the benefit and such precepts were made but did not actually oblige Your words are so ambiguous in this that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way For when you say there is no such particular promise concerning inâ—anâ—s visible Church-membership or precept c. besides Circumcision as in my Book of Baptism I assert who knows whether that exception of Circumcision be a concession of such a precept or promise in the case of Circumcision or if not what sense it hath and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert and before the sence
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
who have not that right and there are who have that right and are not visible Churchmembers 8. Nor is it true that the relation essentially includeth a right to the members station and to the inseparable benefits thereof For though the station in the body be included yet not a right to it yea the actual station is oft times without right which I think is sufficiently proved by Mr. B. himself in his dispute against Mr. Blake Sect. 39. asserting a dogmatical faith entitling to baptism 9. That though visible membership bee by Gods gift and this is to be by signification of Gods will yet it is not necessary it should be by any promise or declaration which may be termed moral or political sith the event it self is a signification of Gods will and of his gift 10. That if Churchmembership be contracted by a mutual consent and covenant as Mr. B. sets down 1. onely the elect can be visible Churchmembers for to them onely God hath covenanted to be their God or Christ their Saviour 2. Infants are not visible Churchmembers for they neither Covenant nor by any intimation in Scripture is it shewed or can bee that the parents or others obedience to God in Christ acknowledged or promised is virtually or reputatively by any law of God taken for the infants Covenant or consent Lastly this law which Mr. B. here sets down concerning the duty of the parents is not that law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. asserts to be unrepealed For the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership is not a precept of what another shall do but what they shall have not of what in duty a person is bound to but of what God doth give and grant And therefore all this tedious discourse of Mr. B. is but delusory sith instead of a law and ordinance determining that infants shall be visible Churchmembers he assignes another thing a precept of a duty and thinks if I prove not it repealed I prove not the law and ordinance of another thing repealed Mr B. adds As for the texts you cite Deut. 4.34 Levit. 20.24 26. 1 King 8.53 Isai. 43.1 In Deut. 4. is mentioned not the moral act of God by which he made them his people or took them for his own and founded the relation but the natural aâ—â—ions whereby he rescued them from the Egyptian bondage and took them to himself or for his use service and honour out of that land But I think sure they were his people and all their infants were Churchmembers before that taking by vertue of a former Covenant-taking Answ. The text expresseth that act of God whereby hee took the Jews for his people and consequently whereby he founded the relation of Churchmembers and if this act were a natural act then it follows contrary to Mr. Bs. conceits that a natural act may be it by which God takes a people to him which is the Scripture phrase whereby is signified his making them his Church If they were his people before and all their infants Churchmembers yet they might be made his people by repeated continued or new acts making or taking noting a beginning or continuance or completing of the estate they had formerly If they were by vertue of a former Covenant-taking yet I think Mr. B. cannot shew before that time a mutual Covenant-taking such as he said before the relation of Churchmembership is contracted by He adds As to Levit. 20. God did perform a twofold work of separation for Israel 1. By his Covenant and their entring Covenant with him 2. By local separation of their bodies from others It was the first that made them his people and Churchmembers and not the last the last was onely a favourable dealing with them as his beloved The same I say to the other two texts Sure you cannot think that corporal separation makes a Church-member What if an Egyptian that had no part in the Covenant had past out with the Israelites and got with them through the Red Sea do you think he had been therefore a Churchmember Suppose God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed but onely taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan and thence into Egypt and thence into the Wilderness and thence into Canaan again Do you think this much had made them Church-members Then if the Turks conquer Greece or the Tartarians conquer China they are become Churchmembers because this seems as great a temporal prosperity at least And I think itâ—s past doubt that Lot was a Church-member in the midst of Sodom and the Israelites in Egypt before they were brought out as truly as after Answ. I grant that they were though not so completed when they had not liberty to sacrifice to God nor to keep any feast and perform other worship to God as when they were brought out unto which the texts refer the severing of the Israelites from other people that they should be Gods although I did not in my Letter restrain it to that local separation which yet the Scripture with me chiefly refers it to but also to the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai giving them Laws setling their Priesthood Tabernacle Army Government inheritance If the Turks or Tartars had such a local separation as I describe they had been Churchmembers The Egyptians that came out of Egypt with the Israelites were Churchmembers with the Israelites they becomming Proselytes If God had made no promise or Covenant with Abraham or his seed but onely taken them out of Chaldea into Canaan and withall made known his will concerning his grace in Christ given them Lawes and set up his worship among them they had been Churchmembers According to Mr. Bs. own arguings the promise or Covenant with Abraham and his seed made them not Churchmembers for they were Churchmembers before The Covenant Gen. 17. was not a mutual Covenant which is that by which according to Mr. B. visible Churchmembership is contracted The texts that I allege do sufficiently prove the people of Israel were taken to be Gods people by such a transeunt fact as I describe and consequently the infants visible Church-members as part of that people without the promise to believers and their seed to bee their God on condition of the parents accepting the mercy offered and re-engaging them to God which Mr. B makes the sole efficient of their holiness or visible Churchmembership as is shewed before He proceeds As to Gen. 12.1 Acts 7.2 Nehem. 9.7 which you also cite as there is not one of them that gives the least intimation that Infant-Church-membership then began so I shall farther enquire anon whether they contain any Covenant or promise Answ. They do each of them plainly shew the beginning of the taking of the Hebrews for Gods people by severing them from Idolaters and forming them into a Chruch and consequently of the Churchmembership which infants had in that people or nation For the texts
controversie But whether also the first original corrupted nature it selfe before any sin against recovering grace did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdome of the Redeemer or whether the sins of later parents may propagaâ—e this as an addiâ—ional corruption in our nature I will not now stand to discuss Onely as to our present business it s certain that the general natural enmity to Satan may consist with an habitual friendship to his ways and cause And though as men they may have the first common advantage of nature and as subjects de jure may be under the common obligation yea and as listed in Christs Army may have man of its priviledges yet for the enmity of disposition to Christ they may be under a greater curse 10. As it is certain that it is not onely Christ himself that is here made the object of this promise and is here called the seed of the woman as is before proved and may be more and is commonly granted so it is to be noted that those others in whom this enmity are put are called here the seed of the woman and not the seed of Christ though the chief of them are his seed And so though the promise is made to none but the the womans seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed Till you can prove that infants are none of her seed we must take this fundamental promise to extend to infants and that very plainly without using any violence with the Text. Answ. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed serpentiâ—e with winding in and out wrigling and wresting the Text one while it is a promise another while a precept sometimes meant of one sort of enmity sometimes of another sometimes the woman under one consideration sometimes under another sometimes the seed of the woman comprehend all the natural seed sometime onely one kind with so many ambiguous speeches and unproved dictates and inconsequent inferences that I know not what better to term it then the way of a serpent on a rock which the Wise man said was too wonderfull for him and one of the things he knew not Prov. 30.20 21. And sure when I yeeld to acknowledge this discourse as a convincing proof of the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which Mr. B. asserts I shall deliver my self as a Pupil to him take him for an infallible Oracle and profess blind obedience But let me see what I can make of this Riddâ—e The sum of it so far as I can collect is this Here is an enmity proclaimed legally against the Devils pravity malignity and works hâ—reby all the seed natural of the woman are obliged to list themselves in Christs Army or the woman as a believer is to list all her infant progeny in the Redeemers Army infants being part of her seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed this fundamental promise extends to them and all duly listed are visible Churchmembers Ergo here is the fundamental law or ordinance for infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed To discern how silly and insipid these arguings are if I may use â—r Bs. own phrase let us grant him here is a promise and precept implied and inquire what listing is here enjoyned of whom by whom and how far this makes the listed visible Churchmembers The listing is not here exprest but in his book of Baptism p. 14. he saith They are first made Disciples and then solemnly admitted eâ—tred or listed by baptism P. 24 As every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn engaging sâ—gne so every one that hath right to be solemly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily bee admitted by baptism Christs listing engaging signe The persons to be listed are according to Mr. B. mankinde the woman and her seed even infants no exception being put in against infants or any age of her seed The persons that are to list are each man for he saith It is the duty of mankinde to list themselves infants being at the parents dispose it is they that are to list them in Christs army and this listing which he counts duely done makes infants visible Churchmembers Concerning which I grant that God doth proclaim here an enmity against the Diabolical praviâ—y malignity and works and that it is the duty of mankinde to fight against satan to joyn with Christ For this is no more but that God forbids sin and it 's our duty to resist â—t and to believe and follow Christ and here is a fundamenâ—al promise that they who do so shall bruise the serpents head or prevail against satan Nor do I deny that it is the duty of parents yea of all men to do what lies in them to engage persons even iâ—fants to this war provided they do it by wayes allowed and appointed as by their prayers vowes to God or the like But it is utterly false 1. that there is any precept of listing by baptism here for baptism is a mere positive rite of the New Testament not enjoyned here 2. That it is the duty of all mankinde to list themselves For then it is their duty to baptise themselves 3. That it is the duty of the woman to list her self and all her seed For then she had been bound to baptise her self and the children of unbelievers as well as believers Cains seed as well as Abels and if it were supposed that she had lived to this day she had been bound to list all the infants at least of the professed Infidels at this day For if it were a precept unrepealed it must have bound her still 4. That such a listing as Mr. Bs. words import is either duly done or that the listed in that manner are all visible Churchmembers 5. That here is any fundamental promise made to persons so listed 6. That as listed in Christs army in the manner Mr. B conceives infants have the priviledge of Christs soldiers None of these things denied by me have a word of proof in all this pâ—olix discourse nor do I imagine any proof for them can be from this text and therefore conceive his discourse without proof and like the dream of a sick man or the dotage of a phantastick He adds 11. Some learned men do use contemptible arguments to prove further That the sanctifying enmity is here promised to the seed of the woman as her seed I mean those that go the way of Dr. Ward Mr. Bedford c. that is that as the two former sorts of enmity are put into all the seed of the woman as is explained so the spiritual holy enmity promised to her seed as she is a believer 12. And some learned men do accordingly conclude That the impiety of parents may do much to hinder their children from that blessing more then by original sin they were hindered and therefore their faith
And if we must needs take up a fashion of disputing by challenges I challenge Mr. B. to shew me one infant who was a visible Churchmember out of the Nation of the Hebrews â— I conceive from Acts. 16.1 2 Tim. 1.5 that Timothy was born of a Churchmember yet no Churchmember visible in infancy Anabaptists refuse not the mercy of visible Churchmembership if God had offered it to their infants nor would they refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism if God had commanded it But they dare not challenge what God hath not granted nor profane the Ordinance of Christ by their altering it into that which he hath not appointed Mr. B. goes on thus SECT LVIII Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self and see what that â—aith to the point in hand And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and next of Gods acceptance of them and entertaining them into that estate And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of Nature it self at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them which I prove thus 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due But infants are Gods own due Ergo the law of Nature bindeth parents to give them up to God By giving here I mean not an alienation of propriety to make that to be Gods that was not so before but an acknowledgement of his right with a free resâ—gnation and dedication of the infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereâ—f If you say infants being not capable of doing service should not be devoted to it till they can do it I answer they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty and also of the relation which followeth that obligation together with the honour of a Churchmember as the child of a Noble man is of his honours and title to his inheritance and many other mercies of the Covenant And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediatour or head of the Church in his infancy yet for all that he must be head of the Church then and not according to this arguing stay till he were capable of doing those works And so is it with his members Answ. It is a bold attempt to undertake to prove a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed from the law of Nature when Churches are onely instituted not by any law of Nature and consequently there can be no direction in the law of Nature who shall be visible Churchmembers who not Nor could both those things Mr. B. considers be proved to wit the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and Gods acceptance of them and entertaining of them into that estate i. e. of dedicated persons prove them visible Churchmembers there 's more required thereto to wit something discernable by sense by which they may be said to be part of Gods people Yet I shall examine his proofs The conclusion may be understood of giving up devoting dedicating to God by prayer or vow or else by an outward sign such as Circumcision or Baptism This latter is not of the law of nature being meer instituted worship the former may be granted without any hurt to my cause Nevertheless I shall say something to the argument Which hath at least four terms and so is faulty in the form and for the matter of it the major is not true without limitation For the law of nature doth not bind every man to give to every one his own due except it be that due which is due from the giver or it belongs to him to give A private man is bound to pay his own debt not to pay every other mans debt to him to whom it is due Now infants may be said to be Gods due either in respect of their persons or their service Infants in infancy can do no service nor doth God require any service of them and therefore there is none due and therefore no parents do or are bound by any act of theirs for their infants service to give God his due of their infants service And for their persons they are Gods due in that he may of right dispose of them as he wil in life and death health or sickness and in this respect parents have no way of giving God his due but by acknowledging his Soveraignty and submitting to his will Dedication to God for the future iâ—â—o giving of God his due from infants it is neither the giving of God the due of their persons or their service they are bound themselves when they come to understanding to do it by themselves and if they do it not the parents dedication cannot do it I object not that infants should not be devoted to to God till they can do service but that what ever it be it is not the giving God his own due from infants nor doth make them visible Churchmakers Mr. B. adds 2. The law of nature bindeth all parents to do their best to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication doth tend to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery For they are under a double obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God Answ. To dedicate them by prayer and thanksgiving and vows to God may tend to these endâ— But to do it by Baptism not required of God secures not Gods right but abuseth his name nor doth it tend to the childrens good or prevent their sin and misery For neither is there promise of God that the parents dedicating the child by Baptism shall have these effects nor do these effects follow ex opere operato nor is there any obligation real put by infant-baptism on the person though there may be a putative obligation thereby But really infant-baptism is a disadvantage 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is by which means they are kept in vain presumption of their safe condition and this constant experience and the acknowledgement of observing men doth witness 2. They are kept back thereby from the true Baptism of Christ which hath had and would have a strong tie on mens consciences if it were solemnly and in a right manner performed as it should be Surely a mans own engagement by himself in all probability must have a stronger operation then an engagement by another for him notwithstanding the fond conceits of Mr. Simon Ford and Mr. John Goodwin of edification by infant
to Mr. B. they may be severed And if that which constituteth a visible churchmember be a qualification visible so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ which can be no other then his serious sober free and intelligent profession of the faith of Christ then my description of a visible churchmember is right and infants that have no such qualification are not visible churchmembers To say that their parents are visible professors is insufficient For there is no Scripture that makes the profession of the parent the childs qualification nor any Scripture that for it makes it our duty to esteem him in our judgement to belong to the Church of Christ nor is the paâ—ents profession any qualification of the child visible neither is the relation of the child visible or sensible For relations say Logicians incur not into the sense nor is the Fathers profession any more his own childes profession then any other mans childes profession So that Mr. Bs. own words beeing well heeded overthrow his tenet and confirm mine I go after him in the rest These things saith he explained I proceed and prove my minor thus They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church they are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation Therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall bee saved Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes here seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation of the Church to be all one whereas there is a great difference seemingly being in order to the understanding visibly to the sense he may be seemingly in the state of salvation and of the Church who is not so visibly there being many arguments which may make a thing seem to the understanding besides that which is discernable by the outward sense Therefore if Mr. B. mean by seemingly all one with visibly as his words import I deny his major as false and to the contrary assert that we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who yet die not visibly in a state of salvation that is do not any thing incurrent into the sense which may shew they are in a state of salvation as infants born abortives still-born children dying in the womb natural fools phrenetiques Yea we conceive hopes of the salvation of persons dying raving cursing by reason of their disease destroying themselves dying excommunicate justly from the Church though visibly they are in a state of damnation The minor is also false they that are not visibly of the Church may yet be visibly in a state of salvation as an Indian yet not professing Christ nor baptized being affected with the preaching of Christs love to man so as to lift up his eys to heaven knock his brest listen to the preacher weep kiss the preacher follow him keep company with him c. this man is not yet visibly of the Church yet he is visibly in a state of salvation and so dying we have ground of Christian hope that he shall be saved But Mr. B. tels us The major is evident and confirmed thus 1. Sound Hope is guided by judgement and that judgement must have some evidence to proceed on But where there is not so much as a seeming or visibility there is no evidence and therefore there can be no right judgement and so no grounded hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth still unskilfully put seeming for seemingness and confound it and visibility 2. Where there is no seeming there may be evidence he should rather have said Where there is no seeming there is no judgement for where nothing seems to a person he passeth no judgement or opinion 3. I presume Mr. B. takes evidence largely for any argument which shews a thing and not in that strict sense in which it is denied by learned men that faith hath evidence and in the large sense there may be and is in innumerable things evidence in which is no visibility as that corn will be sown and reaped though we see it not c. And in this present argument Mr. B. himself a little after reckons up many reasons besides visibility of the state of salvation and of the Church which he makes evidence for a judgement upon which there is a grounded hope of infants salvation pâ—g 77 78. as Gods declarations promises c. And therefore I deny that speech where there is not so much as visibility there is no evidence 2. Saith he Again to judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgement But such a judgement can be no ground for sound hope Answ. Yet a man may truly judge that to be which doth not visibly appear to be 2. Saith he The minor is as evident viz. that they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church are not seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation For 1. if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of salvation then they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of salvation But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The antecedent might be proved from a hundred Texts of Scripture It is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he giveth eternal life and those that sleep in Jesus that God shall bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will preserve pure and unspotted c. He that denieth this is scarse to be disputed with as a Christian Even they that thought all should at last be brought out of hell and saved did think they should become the Church and so be saved The consequence is beyond questioning Answ. 1. Seemingly and visibly are still mis confounded by Mr. B. 2. If the antecedent bee meant of the visible Church of which alone the conclusion is to bee then it is denied and the proofs are all impertinent sith they speak not of the visible Church as visible but of the invisible 2. Saith hee I next argue thus If there bee no sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of any out of the Church then there â— no sure ground of hope for faith and hope are conjunct wee may not hope with a Christian hope for that wee may not believe But there is no sure ground for such faith they that say there is let them shew it if they can Therefore there is no sure ground of hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth ill to
bound by the precept Gen. 17.9 the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptise their children This is as near as I well can gather it the force of Mr. Cs. discourse Against which I except 1. That the term everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 doth not prove it to bee meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed For besides places before alledged wherein the terms everlasting and for ever are vsed for a time of some few ages and shorter Numb 25.13 God promiseth a Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood to Phinehas and his seed after him and yet we know that Priesthood was to cease Heb. 7.12 It is promised Ier. 35.19 that Ionadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God for ever and yet this could be true onely of some ages Therefore Mr. Cs. reason is of no force from the term everlasting to infer the extent of that promise to the N. T. Nor indeed can the reason be good For if it were then God should not promise at all the possession of the earthly Canaan in that place But that is manifestly false for the Text saith Gen. 17.8 that God would give to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan wherein Abraham was then a stranger which can be understood of no other then that part of earth which is elsewhere called the land of the Canaanites Perâ—zites Jebusites c. I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abrahams spiritual seed though I find no passage in the N. T. so expounding the promise Gen. 17.8 yet sure it is but bold presumption to build any doctrine on an allegory not expounded so by the Holy Ghost and it is in mine apprehension a great usurpation of the Divine prerogative to impose duties on men consciences by arguments drawn from such devised senses 2. That Mr. C. builds his inference upon the conjunction therefore Gen. â—7 9. which though it be so in the English translation yet is it in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Tigur And thou by Pareus But thou by Piscator Thou verily which is enough to shew there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference sith there is no firm ground on which it rests 3. But were it granted that therefore Gen. 17.9 were the onely reading and that the command is to be meant also of Abrahams spiritual seed even in our days yet that the inference of the command v. 9. should be onely from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4 5 6 I know no goâ—d reason iâ— or can be given 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof yet sith the promise v. 8. is mixt containing both spiritual promise if Mr. C. be in the right and promise pecuâ—iar to the natural seed of Abraham me thinks the precept should be onely to that spiritual seed which is also natural and not bind the Gentile believers sith they have no part of the promise as it concerns the pâ—ssession of the earthly Canaan from which the duty is inferred as well if not onely as from the promise of the heavenly Canaan 5. But were all that Mr. C. would have here granted that the term everlasting possession v. 8. proves it meant of the times of the N. T. that therefore v. â— proves the command extends to the spiritual seed now that it is from the promise v. 7. or 8. not from the rest v 4 5 6. that it is to Gentile believers now and not peculiar to Israel after the flesh yet sure if the promise bâ— the reason of the command and the commandâ— belongs to them to whom the promise belongs it belongs to no other and therefore to none but elect persons to whom that promise is made no meere professours of faith are bound to keep Gods Covenant by vertue of the promise sith no promise is made to them 6. Were this also granted that the command is to every professour of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoyned v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professour of Christian faith to circumcise his males of eight days old which is contrary to Christianity For there is no other thing commanded there then Circumcision But to prevent this Mr. C. saith It is to be observed that this command of God is primarily fixed upon the general duty namely the Covenant to be kept and not upon this or that way of keeping either by circumciâ—â—ng or baptizing so as the circumcising of the child came under the command onely upon this because it was declared then to be the token of the Covenant and by the words it is supposed that when it should cease to be the token of the Covenant it should no longer be a duty and what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same Covenant would be the duty in stead thereof Mark the words he doth not say Thou shalt therefore circumcise every man-child among you as a token of the Covenant between me and you for so had that been made the token for perpetuity to have continued so long as the Covenant it self But 1. in general he saith v. 9. that is they should observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be and he addeth in the 2 d. place v. 10 14. therefore as I said as for Circumcision that was a duty onely upon those words declaring that to be then the token Circumcision is now abolished yet the command of keeping the token of Abrahams Covenant is still in force and binding to Abrahams spiritual seed in their Generations therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed in stead thereof Answ. No wise and just Law-giver would ever make such a command of a general duty concerning ceremonies or rites then undetermined but to be determined two thousand years after Thou shalt keep my Covenant that is what ceremony I shall now appoint thee or what I shall hereafter appoint when I take that away such indefinite dis-junctive commands so ambiguous un-intelligible to be understood at one time one way at another time another way are so like Delphick jugling answers as that I dare not ascribe them to the Almighty Many absurdities follow on this conceit of Mr. C. which I have before set down For present these arguments from the Text are against it 1. There is nothing enjoyned Gen. 17.9 but what Abraham was enjoyned in his own person to do as well as his seed after him in their generations this is proved from the express words And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my covenant therefore and again thou and thy seed after thee in their generations twice is this imposed on Abraham distinctly named and the term therefore spectially applied to him and after with difference from yet with his seed so that to deny this is to deny it's light
because preached by Christ himself and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows Mr. M. adds To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right But to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirm Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance which is Christ nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 10 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures signs types and sacraments of spiritual things so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows but Christ we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us nor did they make us compleat in Christ nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptism doth now to ours but did it not also belong to the substance Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith of Circumcision of heart c. Answ. Abrahams was not every ones Circumcision Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but do they not belong to it Answ. They do but not as of the substance of the thing sealed or the inheritance purchased or the Covenant whereby it is promised but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed Now surely he should use non sense who should â—erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised being neither essential nor integral parts of them but onely adjuncts without which they may be or not be entirely To my saying That 't is so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision that it is a benefit to want it God not appointing it I answer saith Mr. M. then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater be to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech he hath left out that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant but to the administration which then was a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens but a burthen in comparison of us which was in that it signified Christ to come the obligation of the law for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the place and uâ—e of it but Christ manifested in the flesh because if we had any thing in the use of it Christ must be expected to come in the flesh and Jesus denied to be the Christ and we debtors to keep the whole law And then I determined absolutely that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children not a loss in respect of duty God having not appointed it nor of priviledge God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted and my speech misrepresented but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace but effectual calling justification adoption sanctification glorification and if there be any other termed saving graces or which accompany salvation and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism especially when administred to infants is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge God not appointing it nor promising any thing upon the use of it nor declaring his acceptance of it which is the case of infant Baptism Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized or be covered with water though but for a moment were it not God commanded it and accepted of it as a service to him And the like is true of Circumcision the want of which being so painfull was a benefit but for the command and promise of God signified by it Such actions as are no way priviledges but sins without Gods precept and promise it is better to want them then have them or act them such is infant Baptism and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision it is a heavy burthen no benefit now but a yoke of bondage I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace and he answers That Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance not as a part of it but as a means of applying it Which speech how frivolous it is is shewed before sect 25. p. 165 166. and in this section Or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children To this he saith And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace is shewed before sect 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured but if as good assurance and estate be by a