were infants 2. Whether it be said of them Is the Kingdom of Heaven 3. Whether they were believers infants 4. Whether the Kingdom of Heaven be said to be of them in their present estate or their future 5. The reason why of them is the Kingdom of Heaven may be referred to Christs blessing not to their Parents faith 6. That Christs action in this was proper to him as the great Prophet and extraordinary and therefore not fit to make a constant rule for an ordinance and if it be to that use it is more apposite to establish confirmation than baptism sith Christ did neither baptize nor appoint them to be baptized though he said of them is the Kingdom of Heaven In all likelihood if infant-baptism had been according to Christs minde he would have taken this occasion to appoint it which he not doing it is very probable that he would not have it done To all which Mr. M. in his Defence pag. 221 222. replied onely this that they were dictates and brought in to little purpose whereas there is nothing sayd by me without reason and some proof and yet I being a respondent it was more than my business necessitated me to produce so much a denial being sufficient for the respondent And whereas he saith I grant enough to serve his turn that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to those infants and concludes that their infants in their infantile age are capable of inward grace and some of them actually partakers of it and this is enough for him and that more than this cannot be said of grown men who are visible professors To it I say Though I should grant that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to these infants yet it serves not his turn to prove thence that the infants of believers are visible Church-members and that believers infants have right to baptism except it be proved that their parents were believers that the Kingdom of Heaven for that reason did belong to them and in this thing was intended by Christ the establishing a settled rule for infants interest in the Church and baptism Capacity of inward grace is not denied to infants no not to Turks infants whether any of them be partakers actually of inward grace is not determined nor is it true that no more can be sayd of grown men for the making of visible profession may be said of grown mâ—n which cannot be said of infants But Mr. B. is eager for infant-baptism as conclusible hence le ts see what he saies First he begins with his Rhetorick which commonly supplies the want of proof Then he heaps â—p seven or eight inteâ—rogations and takes all for granted which he demands But to them I say To the first 1. I except against his expression which infinuates as if by denying that infants are visible Church-members they were cast out of Christs visible Church whereas it is one thing not to reckon them in and another to cast them out which is but once used in Scripture 3 Iohn 10. and this phrase serves onely to provoke passion 2. It is so far from being true that there is enough in those Texts to satisfy that Christ would have infants admitted into his visible Church that it is rather true on the contrary that there is enough against it To his other questions I answer 1. By denying that they were infants he would have received Mark 9. 37. 2. whether they were infants he took in his arms whom he would not to be kept from him but suffered to come to him and whom he blessed it is uncertain Piscator Estius c. conceive they were young ones that could come of themselves being called But be it granted they were infants le ts see what Mr. B. gathers thence Hence saith he I argue thus 1. If Christ would have us receive infants in his name then we must receive them as belonging to him and his Church But he would have us to receive them in his name therefore c. 2. If he that receiveth an infant in his name receiveth himself then some infants are to be received in his name and those that refuse them sin But the former is true therefore the later Answ. 1. Both the conclusions might be granted and yet Mr. Bs. cause not gained the former because infants may belong to Christ and his Church to wit the invisible and yet it not be proved thence they are visible Church-members the later because they may be received in Christs name as by harbouring feeding them and yet not be admitted to baptism 2. The minor in both Syllogismes is false For the Text Mark 9. 37. speaks not of infants in age to be received but of believers that are humble and low in condition as infants particularly of his Apostles 3. Saith Mr. B. if Christ was much displeased with those that kept particular infants from visible access to him then though they could not keep them from his visible grace I think he will be much more displeased with those that keep all the infants in the world from visible access to him in his Church now though they cannot keep them from the invisible Church But the former is true Therefore the later Answ. The conclusion is granted For what visible access to Christ in his Church now can be but by profession of faith I know not If Mr. B. know of any that keep infants from professing faith let him threaten them and spare not But that which he tels us that we keep infants from visible access to Christ because we baptize them not for want of profession of faith is but a squib that may affright women and children when intelligent persons laugh at it 4. Saith he If Christ command us to suffer them to come and not to forbid them then those sin against his express Command that will not suffer them to come but do forbid them for it is a standing Command and speaks of infants and not of these individuals onely and there is now no other visible admittance to Christ but by admitting into his Church and to be his Disciples But c. therefore c. Answ. The conclusion is granted without any detriment to our cause we forbid not any to come to Christ. There 's no coming to Christ no was those little children came that is to come to his person for blessing cure or teaching by himself in the flesh There 's no coming to Christ now but by hearing his word and believing in him as John 6. 35. is expressed If any forbid infants to do so let him bear the blame But we forbid infants to be baptized till they come to Christ that is till they believe and we are sure we have the Scripture for us Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Ephes. 5. 4. Gal. 3. 26 27. A thing so known that all that heretofore baptized infants did take this as unquestionable that believers onely are to be baptized and therefore to justifie infant-baptism
he added If you ask me what is it that directly or immediatly constituteth them such members I answer their visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ This performed by the parent for them is it on their part supposing Christs title to them and the offer of himself in Covenant Answ. I grant that the visible or audible that is their external engagement by Covenant to Christ doth make the persons so ingaging freely seriously soberly and understandingly visible Church-members But that the parents performing this for the childe doth make the infants such directly and immediately is an assertion not proved by Mr. B. nor is it true nor consistent with the descriptions of the visible Church and sayings about it which Protestants of note give nor doth it as here and elsewhere set down by Mr. B. yield any sure ground to know certainly any particular infant to be a visible Church-member That I may make good these in their order Two things are supposed and one thing named as directly and immediately constituting infants visible Church-members The things supposed are 1. Christs title to them 2. The offer of himself in Covenant to them But there is nothing but ambiguity in these expressions For 1. it is uncertain whether he mean that these are supposed when the parent doth perform the engagement for the childe that Christ hath a title to them and that he doth offer himself in Covenant to them or whether he mean that the parents engagement doth constitute the childe a visible Church member if Christ have a title to it and offer himself in Covenant to it If in the former sense then it had been enough to have mentioned the parents act without that supposition if in the later then what ever the parents act be yet no man is certain of the childes visible Church-membership by it alone without the other two 2. What title of Christ to them he means whether by election and gift of his Father to him or by his Spirit which he that hath not is none of his Rom. 8. 9. or what other title he means I am uncertain 3. What Covenant he means whether the absolute Covenant of grace belonging to the elect or the conditional Covenant to all upon condition of faith or the national Covenant made to Abraham and the people of Israel oâ— what other besides I cannot tell how to determine 4. How the Covenant is offered except by Preaching to them or by some secret work of the Spirit I cannot imagine 5. It is somewhat uncertain whether the external engagement that may make the infant a visible Church-member must not be of a parent that is a real and sincere believer or whether a dogmatical faith serves turn Sure in his plain Scrip. c. chap. 29. part 1. He makes a real faith necessary in the parent to that sanctification without which the childe is not holy that is a visible Church-member 6. Whether he make the parents engagement to constitute immediately infants born or unborn also visible Church-members is uncertain Le ts see what we can gather elsewhere I cannot for present find a place where he more fully expresseth himself than in his plain scrip c. pag. 336. of the first edition whereas saith he some stick at it that I make the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent I answer them 1. That it is evident in all the Scripture that God putteth a very great difference between the children of the faithfull and other mens Which I grant but withall that this is true onely of the sincerely faithfull and not onely inexternal profession and yet not so as to count any a visible Church-member in the Christian Church for the parents faith 2. Saith he that he maketh such promises to them and giveth them such privileges as I have exprest in this Book But if he mean by the promises those of the Covenant of grace I say they are made onely to elect and true believers if other promises of temporal blessings they are not made to the children of meer seeming believers but true believers nor do they at all reach to visible Church-membership or Justification of children These privileges are no where promised to the children of believing Christians though sincere meerly because of their parents faith And therefore that which he adds 3. That this is to them as they are the children of the people who believe is false And when he saith 4. And that he never requireth any condition inherent in the infant that I finde in Scripture yet others conceive an inherent condition required in an infant Heb. 12. 14. and elsewhere But he adds And doth not this plainly tell us that the parents faith is the condition if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the father entering it for him and his Deut. 29. If the parent be not a believer the childe is left out And what other condition can be imagined Answ. If the Scripture had required no inherent condition in the infant yet it had not followed that the parents faith is the condition of the infants Church-membership and justification For there are other ways to wit their election Christs death for them which are a vouched as sufficient to their justification without the consideration either of any inherent condition in the infant or the parents faith Nor is it true that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering it for him and his and that if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out For if it be meant of the Covenant of grace it is most false that if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant Esau was the childe of Isaac a believer Ishmael of Abraham yet neither entered into the Covenant of grace neither justified by the parents faith if it were so then they were entered into the Covenant of grace and justified and after outâ—d which infers falling from grace Not is there any such Covenant of visible Church-membership which if the parent be a believer the childe iâ— entered in Nor is there a word Deut. 29. to prove it There is nothing there set down but a narration of Moses his â—enewing the Covenant with the children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. It is true it is said v. 10 11 12 13. They stood all before the Lord the Commandors and the men then the litle ones wives strangers hewers of wood drawers of water that they might enter into Covenant but that 1. The parents peculiarly as parents did enter into Covenant for their children appears not but rather that the entering of the Covenant was by the Rulers in behalf of the subject as the league with the Gibeonites was by the Princes in behalf of Israel whereto they were bound Josh. 9. 15 19.
nor is there any consideration of a Father entering into Covenant for his childe more than of a Husbands entering into covenant for his wife or a Masters entering into Covenant for his servant and therefore if this fact were good to prove if the parent be a believer the childe is entered the Covenant the Father entering for him and his it is good to prove that if the Husband or Master be a believer the wife and servant are entered into Covenant the Husband and Master entering it for them and theirs and so wives and servants shall be visible Church-members as well as infants of believers by the faith of Husbands and Masters 2. If the parents faith procure this privilege for the child then either because it is his childe and then it procures it for the childe while it is his childe though the childe be at years and an infidel for then it is his childe or else upon condition the childe agree to it but then the privilege belongs not to infants and there is an inherent condition required to wit the childes consent besides the parents faith if it be said that it procures it to the childe while aâ— infant but not when it comes to years how can this be true that the parents faith or covenanting should immediately and directly constitute them visible Church-members when infants because they are their children and the covenant is made with them and their children as they say and yet they not visible Church-members while they are children surely the immediate cause continuing the effect continues and therefore if the parents faith with the covenant make the childe in infancy a visible Church-member it must also make it a visible Church-member at years though an infidel 3. Whereas it is supposed by Mr. B. that the parents as believers entered the covenant Deut. 29. it rather appears by Moses his preface v. 2 3 4. that Moses did therefore draw them into this solemn Covenant because they were to that day unbelievers 4. It is false that this entering into covenant did make them Church-members For. 1. The end of it was to prevent them from backsliding v. 18. to Idolatry and to prevent Gods forsaking them thereupon v. 13. 2. They were Church-members before both by Gods special separating of the whole nation to be his people and the solemn Covenant at mount Horeb and so were members of that Church as part of that nation 3. If this entering into covenant made them there Church-members visible then it made their posterity also then visible Church-members for with them also was that covenant made v. 14 15. and so persons should be made visible Church-members afore they are born 5. If it were true that that covenanting made them visible Church-members of that Church yet it advantageth no whit to prove infants now visible members of the Christian Church which is not national as that was nor gathered by the chief Magistrate as that was nor injoyned such a national Covenant as that but consisting of particular believers of all nations gathered by the Preaching of the Gospel and voluntary personal covenanting for themselves onely testified by their being baptized into Christ. If any ask whether a national covenant or a covenant of parents for children be now allowable I answer I deny not but such a national or parental covenant may be allowed and in some cases covenient yet I say that it makes not all the subjects and children Church-members nor bindes them without their consent any farther than the matter of the covenant it self bindes As for that which Mr. B. saith if the parent be not a believer the childe is left out it is false if we understand it in respect of Church-membership of children at years they may be in the Church visible though their parents were unbelievers and left out of the Church though believers if of justification it is false both of infants and children of years And it is utterly untrue that in the Christian Church children are made visible Church-members by parents faith or left out because of their unbelief For 1. There is no word of Scripture that saith so The three Texs Acts 2. 39. Rom. 11. 16 17. c. 1 Cor. 7. 14. are fully discussed already in the first part of this review and what Mr. Blake hath replied shall be examined God willing in that which follows 2. No one passage of the New Testament doth shew that any infant was reckoned for a visible Church-member of the Christian Church in the New Testament but many shew they were not 3. If the infant children of the faithfull had been accounted in the Apostles times visible members of the Christian Church there had been some thing done by the Apostles and other holy men to have preserved their right but no practise of baptism on them nor any other act can be produced that the Apostles or other holy men did to preserve such a right Ergo. 4. The Covenant of the Gospel is with particular persons made believers out of all nations their gathering by Preaching the Gospel to them which evidently shew that God intended to take in persons into the Christian Church upon their own faith and not in a national way as he did the Church of the Jews 5. The Texts besides the three forenamed brought by the Assembly Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. to wit Ezek. 16. 20 21. Gen. 3. 15. Gen. 17. 7. and the Texts brought by Mr. B. not here examined to wit Matth. 23. 37 38 39. Revel 11. 15. Heb. 8. 6. 7. 22. Rom. 4. 11. Exod 20. 6. Iosh. 7. 25 26. Deut 13. 12 13 14. Psal. 37. 26. Num. 31. 17. Dan. 6. 24. Deut. 20. 16 17. Deut. 28. 4 18 32 41. Mal. 2. 15 are so palpably impertinent to prove the visible Church-membership of infants now that I am in a demur with my self whether it be fit for me to bestow any more pains in shewing the impertinency of them 6. The speeches of Protestants of note do make the persons own profession that sign whereby they are judged and from whence they are termed of the visible Church Synops. Profess Leydens Disp. 40. sect 32. Ecclesia visibilis appellatur non tam quia homines ipsi visibiles sunt sed quia ipsorum ordo professio communio sensibus exponuntur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 9. sect 3. visibilis dicitur Ecclesia ratione communionis sensibilis membrorum inter se. Mr. Marshall himself in the Sermon at the Spiâ—â—le April 1652. stiled by Mr. B. that late excellent honest solid Sermon for unity pag. 15. hath these words Secondly that part of the Church which is upon the earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it ly in internal grace which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church but now as the same Church and members doth make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eys and
ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church but the visible is not one Church and the invisible another Church but meerly the same Church under several denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them There was lately a printed sheet brought to my hands intituled The profession of the Church c. which is owned by Mr. Richard Baxter in his Christian concord in the Preface of which are these words And because Ministers cannot well know who are members of the Churches and who not and so must be ignorant of the extent of their charges and duties without an expression of their peoples consent Hence I argue 1. If Ministers cannot know who are members of the Churches and who not without an expression of their peoples consent then they cannot know infants to be members of the Churches who express no consent 2. Then the parents faith upon which they were baptized without their own consent expressed doth not make them visible Church-members for if it did they might know them by their memory and registers that they were Church-members 3. Then they are not rightly baptized by him without their consent 4. Then it is not true which Mr. B. writeth plain Scripture c. pag. 280. And do you not see it fulfilled before your eys Are not Bewdley Kederminster meaning all the people â—lder and yonger c. and England till of latâ— as fully Christs Disciples and so Church-members aâ— the Jews were in Covenant with God and so Church-members which if true Mr. B. may know who at Kederminster are Church-members without their expressed consent even all the inhabitants and that his charge is extended to all 5. Then the gift of visible Church-membership is repealed â—ith in the Common wealth of Israel all the posterity of Israel were Church-members 6. By his new course of distinguishing the professing and subscribing parioshiâ—ers of Kederminster as Church-members from the rest as not his Church-members he gathers a Church out of a Church and separates some Disciples from others and doth himself make a like division in his Church though not in so justifiable a way as he chargeth so fiercely on me and others Which I conceive to be little less than a retractation of his own tenet about infants visâ—â—e Church-membership and clearing of his opposites Lastly by Mr. Bs. determinations there is no certain way to know a particular infant to be a visible Church-member For in his determinations there is no resolution nor according to his grounds do I think can be given a certain resolution whether the parent be such a one to whom the Covenant is whether he have that faith which may intitle his childe to visible Church-membership whether the immediate parents engagement be necessary or a remote parents engagement be sufficient whether the engagement must be open in the face of the Congregation or it be sufficient that it be done privately when it must be at Baptism or at some other time whether it need not be as oâ—â— as he hath children to be admitted visible Church-members whether the baptizer may account him a visible Church-member whose parents are dead absent unable to come or to express their engagement and so baptize him which with many other doubtâ— would â—â—â—aâ—d the course of Ministers and people in their profane infant sprinkling if they did not with a blinde obedience rest on Mr. Bs. unproved dictates but searched after the truth considerately and impartially But I pass on 6. Saith Mr. B. hence I further argue thus Iâ— Christ were much displeased with his Disciples for keeping infants from him then he took it as a part of their revealed duty that they should not forbid them But the former is true therefore the later Whence I further argue if it were the Disciples known or revealed duty not to forbid them to come to Christ then they must needs take it also for a revealed truth that infants in specie and not those numerical onely should not be forbidden to come for they could not know that those individuals should be admitted but by knowing that infants should be admitted But c. Answ. The conclusion of the former argument may be granted and yet the sequeâ—e of the later argument denied For they might know it either by some particular sign from Christ or some particular instinct of the Spirit that it was their duty to permit those infants to come to Christ and yet not permit any more But saith Mr. B. Yea further 7. If it were the Disciples revealed duty to admit infants to come to Christ for this very reason because of such is the Kingdom of Heaven then it was no secret but a revealed truth that of such was the Kingdom of Heaven But the former is true For Christ would not be angry so much with them for not knowing that which was neuer revealed on for not admitting them when they had no means to know them to have right of admittance The consequence is evident the â—â—forâ— and so 〈◊〉 follow 〈◊〉 that if it were then a revealed truth that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven then they were visible members of the Church For that sort of men that are known to belong to Heaven though it be not known of the individuals do visibly belong to the Church as I think none dare deny Answ. 1. According to their exposition who understand of such onely those that are like little children in affection and disposition and not of those particular little children then brought much more according to their exposition who by of such understand these individual infants and no other they might know those infants were to be admitted and yet have no knowledg of an universal rule for admittingâ— other infants at other times 2. But be it granted that not onely of those individuals but also of other infants is the Kingdom of Heaven yet I deny they were visible Church-members And for his proof I dare deny that which he fâ—ndly thinks â—â—nâ— dare deny that they that are known to belong to Heaven 〈◊〉 visibly belong to the Church Abraham and 〈◊〉 and Jâ—â—â—â— are known to belong to Heaven yet I do not conceive do visibly belong to the Church And the same is true of all the spirits of the Just made perfect of elect infants â—â—born Jâ—â—â—s unceâ—led c. I know none â—â—iung to the visible Church but such as sensibly have professed faith in Christ. Amâ—s Med. Th. l. 1. â— â—1 sect 24 25 26 27 〈◊〉 militant visibilis â—â—su sc. vel sensu externo 〈◊〉 praeâ—ect 〈◊〉 Eccl. pag. 246 Ecclesia aliquando denominatur abâ—iis qâ—◠〈◊〉 quaeque â—n sensum incurrunt Piscat â—â—â—or â—oâ— 19. 10. visiâ—ilâ— appellatur quatâ—ruâ—â—erâ—â—s hâ—bet noâ—â—â— in oculo◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. B. himself Praefest in Morator sect 11. By visible I mâ—an thâ—â— which is discernible by the understanding medianâ—â— sensu Therefore that sort of men that are known to belong to
saith thus First for the point of will worship I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion That all things belonging to Christian worship even in the circumstances of it even the ages and sexes of the persons to whom the ordinances are to be applyed must expresly be set down in the new Testament if you prove not this you say nothing to the purpose for this is our very case pag. 205. This about Infantbaptism touches but a circumstance of age Answ. T is true the main question is whether infants are to be baptized But they that deny it do so not meerly because of their age but because they appear not ordinarily to be disciples of Christ or believers or capable of these in act Their admission by baptism is questioned because of their nondiscipleship not precisely by reason of their age Mr. B. in his Appendix to his plain scripture proof c. pag. 302. And that in so material a thing as Infantbaptism and so about the proper subject of so great an ordinance and if you judge Infantbaptism a meer circumstance you are much mistaken If the question about Infantbaptism touch but a circumstance of age then the question about Infant-communion toucheth but a circumstance of age and if men may without precept or example in the new Testament of Infant baptism be acquitted from willworship because it toucheth but a circumstance of age by the same reason they may be acquitted from willworship who give Infants the Communion because it toucheth but a circumstance of age Our Lord Christ and his Apostles having determined who are to be baptized it is manifest willworship or humane Invention to baptize others than he and they have appointed and it is so much the worse because it is not onely about the proper subject of so great an ordinance but also the main end and use of baptism by altering of which the ordinance is quite changed into another thing and the Church of God exceedingly corrupted But letting that passe admission of Infants into the Church Mr. B. saith is fully determined in the old Testament if he mean not the Christian visible Church he speaks ambiguously and if his words be meant of the Christion visible Churah of which onely is the question then it is as fully determined in the old Testament that Infants should be admitted into the visible Church Christian as most things in the Bible as that God made heaven and earth idols are vanities fornication a sin c. But surely none will believe Mr. B. in this but he that is so simple as to believe every word Me thinks he should not have said such a word at Bewdly where he saith in his History were many antient stayd Christians that would not as children be tâ—st up and down and carried too and fro with every wind of doctrine except he presumed they would take what he said as true without trial Formerly this was the received doctrine that Baptism was the sacrament of admission into the Christian Church that Baptism and the Lords supper were the sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ himself that Circumcision and the Passeover and the whole Jewish Church policy are abrogated which if true it is very bold to say that Infants are to be admitted into the visible Church Christian is as fully determined in the old Testament as most things in the Bible when there is not a word in all the old Testament about the age or way of admission into the visible Church Christian. But where doth Mr. B. find this admission so fully determined in the old Testament In the dispute at Bewdly he denied the precept of Circumcision to be the ordinance of visible church-membership And in my Praecursor Sect. 6 I say as yet I can fiâ—d no such law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-mem-bership save what is injoyned concerning Circumcision To w th he replies in his Praefestinantis morator What not yet And yet dare you boast so confidently of your prepared confutation yet can you find no law that made women Church-members nor the uncircumcised males in the wilderness O the power of prejudice Whereto I say though I boast not of my prepared confutation but speak of it modestly yet I find no cause to be lesse confident of my prepared confutation because of these frivolous interogations of Mr. B. It is not the power of prejudice which is the reason why I find not a law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership but because I do not see or read of law or ordinance for Infants visible Church-membership besides that of Circumcision either upon my own search or Mr. Bs. or others shewing I asked once a Preacher at Bewdley where it was he told me it was Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. I told him I find a relation of a fact of a thing that was done but not a word of any law ordinance precept or command determining thus it shall be this shall be done c. or any other form of speech that imports a law ordinance precept statute or command to make female infants visible Churchmembers much lesse do I find an appointment law ordinance that some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church which Mr. B. should have proved to be unrepealed according to his assertion cap. 5. 26. except the law of Circumcising infants And therefore my confutation of Mr. Bs. argument cap. 5. might be sufficient if I only denied such an ordinance or appointment till it be shewed I do confess my weakness in my answering at Bewdley in that I permitted Mr. B. to run on in the proof of an ordinance unrepealed afore he had shewed me where that ordinance is but I perceived therein what I feared still that I should not in a verball dispute observe what was necessary to be heeded But I may say with truth Mr. B. either understands not what is meant by a law ordinance appointment liable to repeal or still binding or loves to pervert words from the genuine sense as he did the word accuse or else he is unwilling to speak plainly who being provoked to shew in what text of Scripture that pretended law ordinance appointment is doth not yet shew it And for his assertion here it exceeds all faith that infant admission into the Church meaning the visible Church Christian should be as fully determined in the old Testament at most things in the Bible But wherever Mr. B. imagines it is fully determined in the old Testament the Assembly at Westminster in their Confession of faith chap. 25. Art 4. allege but one text out of the old Testament viz. Gen. 17. 7. 9. for admission of Infants by Baptism into the visible Church and if Mr. M. their Champion in this Point expresse their minds they deduce Infant-baptism from this principle All Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of
the general term all nations Mr. Blake goes on He further saith that 1 Cor. 10. 17. is an express example in formal terms of womens receiving the Lords Supper we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of one bread I demand of Mr. T. whether the Apostle speaks in the person of Christians or in the person of women not of women sure for he takes in himself and he was a man and then the formality of an express example falls When it is said that the whole house of Israel is circumcised in the flesh Mr. T will not yield that there is a proof not by any consequence that women though of the house of Israel were virtually circumcised but all partaking of one bread there is a proof formal and express that they were at the Lords Supper Answ. An expresse formal example is mentioned 1 Cor. 10. 17. of womens receiving the Lords Supper there being relation of partaking the bread in the indicative mood and the term we all according to Grammar construction the matter not excluding them comprehending women as well as men For the Apostle under all we expresly comprehends all the many that were one bread and one body who are all Christians both Jewes and Gentiles 1 1 Cor. 12. 13. Mr. Blakes demand makes a disjunction of members coincident which is illogical However to it as it is I say the Apostle speaks in his own person not in anothers yet he speaks of the persons of all Christians both men and women and he takes in as expresly the women as the men and the formality of the example is of one as well as the other As for the other passage alleged by Mr. Blake the Predicate circumcised in the flesh being necessarily understood of actual circumcision there is a necessity to understand the Subject the whole house of Israel synecdochically else the speech would not be true But tropes are not to be made but where there is a necessity to make good the speech or to make it agree with the scope circumstances and other expressions of which there is no necessity 1 Cor. 10. 17. to verify the speech of the Apostle but that it is true of women as well as men and must be so understood without a trope and therefore there the speech is to be expounded according to the plain Grammatical meaning as expressed formally without the like trope Mr. Blake saith of me He brings Acts 20. 7. that the disciples on the first day of the week came together to break bread Here is an example as express and formal Mr. T. cannot infallibly prove by help of consequence much less expressly that there was a woman there At that night meeting there might be none but men as at the first institution It can never be an express example till it be made appear that none are disciples but women Answ. I had thought when it is said it is appointed unto men once to dy Heb. 9. 27. death passed upon all men in that all have sinned Rom. 5. 12. it had been express and formal for womens and infants dying though there be other men than women and infants and yet in both places men in Greek is in the masculine gender Disciples in the Acts note all Christians Acts 11. 26. Tabitha is named a disciple Acts 9. 36. and therefore there being no reason to make a trope Acts 20. 7. in the word Disciples Christian women as well as men are comprehended And by breaking bread say the Assembly at Westminster Answer to the reasons of the dissenting brethren page 67. Sacramental breaking of bread is understood generally by all Acts 20. 7. The like is said by Chamier Panst. Cathol tom 4. l. 7. c. 6. s. 13. And it is confirmed 1. from the text the words importing that the breaking of bread is there meant which was the end of their customary meeting on the Lords day But this was Sacramental Ergo. 2. From 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. where the Lords Supper is called breaking bread as the usual known term among Christians This seems to me infallible proof that women were there or which is to my purpose that usually they did meet with other disciples to break break As for what Mr. Bl. addes That if I had the texts in hand of a whole houshold baptized they would be sufficiently formal for infant-baptism I tell him no for I could not have withstood the clear light to the contrary from the words Acts 16. 18. and elsewhere which limit the whole house to persons that did hear the word believe receive fear God c. Ampsing dialog contra Anabap. page 206. Idem quoque vobis responsum volumus ad loca illa Act. 16. 34. 1 Cor. 16. 15. Tit. 1. 11. ubi quaedam de totis familiis enunciantur quae non nisi de adultis accipi possunt It is false that the Commission Matthew 28. 19. is to baptize Nations but disciples in or out of nations as is proved above Providence hath not ordered that nations including infants have been brought into the Church as Christ appointed to wit by preaching the Gospel but the national Churches are gathered otherwise than Christ appointed by human laws and infant-baptism I value as much the Churches practice as ever but it is false that in no controverted thing the Church is found so unanimous as in this of infant-baptism It is more unanimous about Episcopacy Prelatical use of the sign of the cross and many other things as may be seen in Mr. Sprint of Conformity pag. 85. c. I shall in convenient time I hope shew the mistakes of Paedobaptists plea for infant-baptism from antiquity The other speech of Mr. Blake That which will speak for infants to receive them into Heaven will speak also to receive them into the Church by baptism is not true For Election the Covenant of Grace a secret work of an initial habitual seminal or actual holiness or faith being supposed may speak to receive them into Heaven yet not to baptism Nor doth it follow that if want of faith exclude them from baptism then by the text Mark 16. 16. the same want of faith excludes from salvation For as I answer in my Praecursor s. 6. a want of faith dogmatical excludes from baptism and yet excludes not infants from salvation SECT VII Mr. Ms. exceptions that Matthew 28. 19. is not the institution of baptism that onely disciples are not appointed to be baptized that this was a rule only for a Church to be constituted are refelled THere are many other exceptions against the argument from the institution Matth. 28. 19. to be considered Mr. M. in his Sermon page 44. saith 1. That of matth 28. is not the institution of baptism 2. It was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant 3. It s only an inlargement of their Commission To which in my Examen I said 1. If this be not the first institution yet it is an
is put but refers us to another place which his Reader must seek and when he hath sought all his book he shall find but one text Acts 15. 10. and that miserably abused by him Of which in its place Thirdly That he acknowledgeth page 92 and here that the denomination is from the disciples act of learning yet will have it imagined that an infant may be a disciple without his own actual learning onely from his belonging to Christ by Gods covenant and mens destination and devoting to learn hereafter But it is to me unconceivable that the denomination which is from the act inherent in the person should be without the act inherent in the person from some acts of another and those acts not putting the form denominating in actual being yea when oftentimes the form denominating is never in act For by Mr. Bs. doctrine Gods covenant and mans devoting make a disciple and yet I think notwithstanding the covenant and mans devoting many thousands yea the most part of infants whom he would have baptized never actually learn by reason of death or disaffection yea many expresly renounce it Were Gods covenant absolute to every true believers infant that he shall be a disciple yet for the present it doth put nothing actually in the person to whom the promise is made no more than election doth put actually any thing in the elected Praedestinatio niâ— ponit in praedestinato Aq. p. 1. q. 23. art 2. Gods purpose of a thing doth not put it in being Mr. Bl. Vindic. foed pag. 89. Most truly Mr. Cobbet Just Vindic. part 2. cap. 2. Election doth neither make a man holy but only inâ—eâ—â—ionally nor give him actual Church right And this may in like manner be said concerning Gods promise or covenant by it self considered it doth assure something for the future but put nothing in present being The covenant is to a person afore he is born as to Isaac and Jacob shall it be said that afore they were born they were actually disciples and had actual Church right I confesse they might be called disciples or believers in possibility but not actually Gods election and promise denominate a man elected and a child of the promise which are terms of the same extent Rom. 9. 8. but not justifyed converted regenerated or actually a believer disciple or visible Church member But this is yet more in consistent with Mr. Bs. bypotheses who when he assigns the covenant which he will have to make an infant actually a disciple makes it onely the conditional covenant of grace as I shall shew hereafter and that covenant is upon condition of faith and this he will have to belong to all men whether believers or unbelievers and me thinks he should not say all men are actually disciples visible Church members though God hath made that covenant with them which he seals in baptism which he often saies to be only the conditional covenant and â—eckons it my prime errour that misleads me in the point of baptism that I make baptism seal the absolute covenant of grace And yet he chargeth Mr. Bedford p. 300. 301. as with an absurdity following his tenet that baptism should seal one covenat to the Father another to the son If then the covenant make not others actually disciples then neither insants Idem quà idem semper facit idem Again a conditional covenant cannot make an actual disciple till the condition which is actual faith be put Conditionale nihil ponit in esse Therfore the coÌ„ditional covenant sealed in baptism cannot make an actual disciple Nor is it to be said the parents faith is the condition of the covenant for the child For 1. it being not the condition of the covenant to the parent that another should believe for him neither is it the condition for the child except Mr. B. will fall into the absurdity he chargeth on Mr. Bedford that one covenant should be to the Father and another to the child sealed in baptism 2. A child the father believing shall be actually a disciple before it is born for a conditional proposition the condition being put becomes absolute Now it is his child and he believing afore it is born Ergo. In like manner it may be said of anothers devoting or destinating an infant to be a disciple that is no act of the person denominated it can only make a disciple intentionally a persons devoting is but his wish or desire or promise and shall that make a child actually a disciple yea destinating and devoting is before the child is conceived or born as Hannah did devote Samuel was Samuel therefore actually a disciple and visible Church-member afore he was born many of those whom the parents destinate and devote to be actual learners in after time yet never are such yea many of them are express disclaimers and opposers of that doctrine shall these be called actual disciples from their parents wish or hopes or promise Again he makes the term disciple applied to an insant to note a relation present actual learning as one end of it intended for the future I confess that disciple notes a relation between the teacher and person taught yet it seems to note a passion as its form or quiddity so that if any should ask who is a disciple I should say one that hath learned and what it is to be discipled it is to be taught or learned and so doth import a passion and is to be put in that predicament and the relation is as they say secundùm dici not secundùm esse But were it granted that the whole essence of a disciple did consist in relation I would fain know what shall be the foundation of his relation Logicians say To relation there is requisite a foundation as begetting two terms as Father and Son and a respect arising between them from that foundation as fatherhood It is an unheard-of thing that a relation should be without a foundation a Father without begerting an actual Father without actual begetting It is true a man may be p 〈…〉 lly a Father without actual begetting but to make an actual F 〈…〉 without actual begetting is oppositum in opposito Mr. B. Saints everlasting est part 1. 〈◊〉 8. sect 2. To be the people of God without regeneration is as impossible as to be the natural children of men without generation Now what should be the foundation of the relation of a Disciple of Christ but learning of Christ of an actual Disciple but actual learning I know not Future learning being acording to Mr. B. the end intended is not in being perhaps will never be and therefore it is in my apprehension a most illogical and absurd conceit which Mr. B. hath hatched to obtrude upon us such a notion of a Disciple as supposeth a relation without a foundation and contrary to Grammar to call a person a Disciple who hath learned nothing no not so much as to know or own his Teacher To say a person
Assertion is manifest in that though it is more to be of the invisible Church than of the visible yet that which denominates a person of the visible Church doth not agree always to a member of the invisible Church But Mr. B. thinks the contrary to be true and accordingly frames an explication of what it is to be a member of the Church visible which I must not call a definition for that is excepted against by him Praefestin Morator sect 11. as if in Logick any descriptions or explications of words or things were not usually called definitions though imperfect Let 's examine it however He tels us here what it is to be a visible Church-member which because he doth elsewhere more fully express I shall have an eye on the writings elsewhere and so much the rather because in this mistake of his lieth much of the fallacy of Mr. Bs. second Argument In his Praefest Morator sect 11. He saith when he distinguisheth the Church into visible and invisible He doth not divide the genus into the species sed aequivocum in sua aequivocata but I think he is mistaken in this for then a term is equivocal as Arist. Categ in the beginning tels us When the name is onely common but not the reason of being or the definition according to that name but the definition of the Church of Christ even that which Mr. B. himself saith All Divines are agreed on plain Scripture c. pag. 82. that it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world doth agree to the visible Church and therefore the term Church of Christ is not an equivocal term but a genus whether univocal or analogum And I add saith he that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical or that the name is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible Answ. I grant that the Church invisible is famosius or primarium Analogatum that is the invisible Church is more truly or in a greater degree of propriety Christs Church than the visible yet do not think the name of the Church is given secondarily borrowedly from the mystical to the visible For the original meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated Church being an assembly or meeting or congregation of people in one place who are an object visible I conceive that the term Church first agrees to the visible Church and secondarily to the invisible yea in exact speech the invisible Church now are called the Church in order to their meeting or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or General assembly at the last day for Heb. 12. 23. these are joined together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the General assembly and Church or as it is termed 2 Thess. 2. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our gathering together unto Christ at which time the visible Church and invisible will be all one visible company 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one sheepfold one Shâ—pheard John 10. 16. nor do I conceive the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to be the same with the mystical but because by their words and actions discernible by sense they own Christ as their Lord without any consideration of their election or reprobation sincerity or hypocrisy Christs approbation or non-approbation of them And that the seeming to other men to be of the invisible Church is not the reason of the appellation of a visible Church or Church-member I gather hence becaus a person may seem to be of the invisible Church yea may be known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect as for instance Jacob and John Baptist in their mothers womb seemed yea were known to be of the invisible Church of Gods elect Luke 1. 15. yet not of the visible For sure they were not visible Church-members when they were not visible men Yea there may be many visible men who may seem with great probability upon signs of their conversion wrought on them to be of the invisible Church and not of the visible as a number of Indians hearing Mr. Eliat or Mr. Mayhew preach and shewing affection by tears smiting of their breasts lifting up their eys to Heaven and such like actions have seemed from these sensible expressions of their own to be elect persons such as God intended to save and yet I think no man will say that at that time they were visible Church-members till they afterwards made profession of faith in Christ. Mr. B. goeth on thus So that if you ask me whether it be certain or onely probable that infants are members of the visible Church I say certain Answ. If Mr. B. mean it of the sorts or as he cals it species of infants it may easily appear by this Review that it is so far from being certain that infants are members of the visible Church Christian that it hath scarse a shew of probability If he mean it of the individuals I say that according to Mr. Bs. own sayings there is no certainty that any infant is a visible Church-member For according to him to be a member of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven But this belonging in seeming appearance or to the judgment of man is uncertain it s but a judgment of probability which any man hath of any mans belonging to the invisible Church Mr. B. himself plain Scripture c. p. 73. sayth Therefore even Cardinal Cuâ—anus calleth the visible Church Ecclesia conjecturalis as receiving its members on conjectural signs Therefore there is no certainty of it that any particular infant is a visible Church-member If it be sayd that the seeming is certain though it be not certain that they belong to the invisible Church I reply so it may be sayd that if Turks infants seem to be of the visible Church though to a fool or frantick man the seeming is certain But I suppose Mr. B. means that it is certain and not onely probable to considerate men to whom things are not certain of which they have not certain evidence that infants are visible Church-members But this understanding it of particulars is not certain upon any good evidence that they are members of the Church invisible and therefore it is not certain they are visible church-members sith by Mr. Bs. description to be a visible Church-member is to seem to be of the invisible Church and therefore as the seeming to be of the invisible Church is so is the visibility both uncertain and as most probable and so all baptizing of infants is upon uncertain grounds and therefore a man cannot do it in faith he being uncertain he doth his duty which thing is also made good elsewhere from Mr. Bs. concessions Antipaedobapt part 1. sect 35. But Mr. B. thinks he hath sure grounds and therefore
express covenanting wherein they renounced the world flesh and devil and engaged themselves to Christ and promised to obey him as you may see in Tertul Origen Cyprian and others at large being printed with a ful point at the end are as plain a denial that infants were baptized in the primitive times as words usually express As for the words following I will cite but one for all who was before the rest and that is Justin Martyr speaking of the way of baptizing the aged sayth they are not words if they be restrictive that limit any one 's speech but Justin Martyrs and if by them M B. would intimate that Justin Martyr did not in that speech set down the way of baptizing all that were then baptized the words following saying thus how we are dedicated to God we will now open unto you and then setting down the constant way of baptizing without any exception M. Bs. addition will easily be perceived to be but a shift to avoid the evidence of this relation of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Antoninum being so plain to prove infant-baptism not to have been then in use among Christians Likewise in my Praecursor Sect. 16. pag. 66. I bring an argument against infant-baptism from M Bs. own words mutatis mutandis His answer in his Praefestinantis morator is in these words His Confidence pag. 66. is marvellous I doubt not but that he knows that I take the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth 28. inclusively And so I answer that this solemn instition is our warrant requiring us both to disciple nations and baptize Disciples and we have other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples Answ My confidence is upon good reason M Bs. marvelling is from ignorance what he means by taking the words since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. inclusively I know not except he mean that time when that institution was given as well as the time after or that institution to be a warrant as well as after precepts or examples Either way the medium of M. B. serves my purpose For it plainly asserts that what we have no warrant in all the New Testament for we are not to do ordinarily what we have precept and example for we are to do Which if he will stand to then his warrant out of the Old Testament is not sufficient for infant-baptism and so it is not fully determined in the Old Testament at what age persons are to be admitted into the Church as he sayd before and what we do we have warrant for by his own grant sith he cannot deny we have precept and example for baptizing professors of faith And then his including here Matth. 28. 19. in his Texts though not brought Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 342. to prove his antecedent is an intimation that in all the rest of the Texts John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38 41. 8. 12 13 16 36 38. 9. 18. 10. 47 48. 16. 15 33. 18. 8. 19. 3 4 5. Rom. 6. 3 c. he findes not precept or example for baptizing of infants and so if he finde not warrant Matth. 28. 19. for baptizing infants all his other proofs are by his own reasoning made invalid For sure the Texts alleged do as evidently prove this antecedent we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28. to admit any member into the Church by Baptism but believers by profession but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it as Mr Bs. we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemn institution of Baptism Matth. 28 to admit any member into the Church without Baptism but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it The consequent then we must not admit ordinarily any by Baptism without profession of faith must by the force of his own illation be undoubted to those that take the word for their rule As for his evasion that he hath other Scriptures which plainly prove infants to be Disciples how miserably he fails therein will appear by that which follows in this Review The Reader may perceive that whatsoever his talk be about a Gift and Ordinance of visible Church-membership unrepealed and of Christs Laying of hands on little ones and such like Arguments and Texts he brings yet if he will stand to his own reasoning in Arg. 9. against deniers of Baptism by Water pag. 342. of his Plain Scripture proof c. we have no warrant to admit ordinarily by Baptism but according to the precept and example in the New Testament in the Text Matth. 28. 19. and the other Texts before recited Concerning which I have reason to be as confident as of common notions that they include not infants and to marvel that Mr. Bs. prejudice should so blinde him as not to see the futility of his arguings to prove infants to be Disciples included in the institution Matth. 28. 19. But I proceed Because as he sayth pag. 5. An answer cannot be always presently given which may make the case plain to some men therefore Mr. B. should have given his arguments in writing to those that came to him which had been an easier and fairer way than to tell them as he doth pag. 6. If any of you have taken up the opinion of Antepaedobaptism and have not read and studied Mr. Cobbet M. Church and other the chief books and been able at least to himself to confute them you have but discovered a feared conscience a most heavy though vain censure shewing what rashness and distemper was in Mr. B. in this writing which either taketh error for no sin or else dare venture on sin without fear and have betrayed your own souls by your laziness as if a man might not be satisfied by reading of the Scripture and conference with the able of the opposite party without reading so many Books Sure Mr. B. who had read those Books shewed little charity to those of Bewdley that came to him for arguments for infant-baptism when he would neither set down his own arguments in writing nor direct them in what part of those books they might have satisfaction but fly upon them with so deep a charge without any moderation of spirit And when he saith pag. 7. He dare say by my books that it is my case not to have received the doctrine of infant-baptism on the best grounds and arguments I reply 1. that there are many passages which make me think he never read my books with exact diligence and heed but if I may use his own words He betrays his own soul by his laziness or prejudice 2. It shews a fond conceit in him of his own arguments which another perhaps will think weaker than those of Calvin Ursin Piscator the Assembly Mr. M. c. which he might perceive by my Exercit. and otherwise that I had considered I said
â—is solis baptizare competit quibus Commissio data est baptizandi Haec propositio per se patet quia baptismi institutio pendet à sola voluntate instituentis itaque ex hac sola meâ—â—enda quomodo eucharistiae Lib. 8. c. 2. s. 3. Quod si igitur tota sacramenti essentia est ab institutione divina profectò hac violata non potest sacramentum consistere C. 8. s. 14. He cites Calvins words Institutio enim Christi est certa regula à qua si deflect as jam rectum non tenes S. 21. At nos contra hanc sceleratam audaciam ratum habemus illud Bielis in Canonem lectione 35. sacramentum irritum reputatur si contra institutionem celebretur L. 7. c. 13. s. 17. sed non peccari in missa privata negatur non enim aliter potest si contra institutionem admittatur sic consentiunt omnes peccatum fuisse cum baptizarentur mortui quia videlicet institutio habuit doceri baptizarique gentes in quibus mortui nulli numerantur Sic emendatum fuit quod olim admittebatur ut infantibus porrigeretur eucharistia quoniam institutio habet ut seipsum probet qui de hoc pane sit esurus similis omnino communionis ratio quandoquidem disertum Accipite edite Mr. Selden lib. 1. de syned Ebrae c. 13. pag. 500. Modorum temperamentorum ejusmodi ex arbitrio Humano accessione ut id quod esset institutum aliquod Divinum novaretur aut ullatenus mutaretur nunquam ritè permissum est If all these testimonies satisfy not the Apostle Pauls speech 1 Cor. 11. 23. yields us this truth that the institution of Christ is that whereby an abuse in a sacrament is to be reformed and therefore is the ordinary rule according to which the sacrament is to be administred Whence the New Annot. on that place infer The only way to reform any abuses in the Church is to have recourse to the word of God and first institution And even the Assembly itself Confession of faith chap. 20 make many things used by Papists as private masses half-communion adoration elevation reservation of the bread contrary to the nature of the Sacrament and to the institution of Christ and prove it only by these texts 1 Cor. 10. 16. Mark 14. 23. 1 Cor. 11 25 26 27 28 29. Math. 15. 9. which are no proof without this Proposition To vary from the institution in things appointed is evil as being an humane invention or worshipping of God after the commands of men contrary to Matth. 15. 9. The Minor is confessed by Mr. Cawdrey Sab. Rediv. part 4 ch 1. num 59. We have not in Scripture either precept or example of children baptized Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 35. that there is neither express command or example in the New Testament that children should be or were baptized and pag. 44. It is said indeed that they taught and baptized and no express mention of any other and a little after both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of baptism But that we may not seem to beg what is to be proved I further argue thus The institution and practice of the Sacrament of Christi an baptism is set down in the New Testament But baptizing of infants of believers is neither according to the institution of Christ nor any practice or example therein Ergo. The Major is plain of it self For Christian baptism being a Sacrament of the New Testament must have its institution and example to regulate it there or no where It is frequently put into the definition of the Sacraments of the New Testament that they are ordained by Christ himself and for defect of Christs institution in the New Testament sundry things are denyed to be Sacraments of the New Testament The Minor is proved from the texts which speak of baptism either of the institution or practise From both which I argue thus Matth. 28. 19. is Christs institution Mr. B. calls it The solemn institution of baptism But the baptizing of infants of believers is not according to Christs institution of baptism Matth. 28. 19. Ergo. The Minor is proved First from the Subjects appointed to be baptized to wit disciples of all Nations They that are not disciples of Christ are not appointed to be baptized Norton resp ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 34. non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baptizandi Matth. 28. 19. discipulate baptizantes But infants of believers are not disciples of Christ Therefore they are not appointed to be baptized That disciples included in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make disciples as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Rom. 4. 4. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them is proved from the expression John 4 1. where it is said when the Pharisees heard that Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh disciples and baptizeth This the Evangelist saith was done by the Disciples of Christ. Now what they did before in Judaea they were after appointed to do among all Nations Matth. 28. 19. Therefore no other were appointed to be baptized than were baptized before Iohn 4. 1. saving only with greater extent that is disciples made of or among or in all Nations Beza annot in Mat. 28. 19. Discipulos facite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est discipulos mihi facite ex omnibus gentibus Make to me disciples out of all Nations Ursin Explic. catech part 2. q. 69 Verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quo Christus utitur proprie est discipulos facite quod declaratur a Ioanne c. 4. 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ useth is properly make disciples which is declared by Iohn ch 4. v. 1. Pareus Comment in Matth. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est idem quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discipulos facere Christo ut explicatur Iohn 4. 1. It is the same with to make disciples to Christ as it is explained John 4. 1. The New Annot on Matthew 28. 19. of the first edition which is now altered in the second edition to hinder truth teach Greek make disciples of as Iohn 4. 1. all nations not Iews alone but Gentiles also Acts 10. 34 35 47. Chamier Panstr cath tom 3. l. 12. c. 9. s. 15. It was the express command of Christ teach or make disciples in all nations Norton resp ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make disciples Joh. 4. 1. Cameron in his Lecture on Mat. 19. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a proselyte is as Mat. 28. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said for to make a disciple This is confirmed in that what is said of Joseph Mat. 27. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the vulgar Latin Beza our English c. who also himself was Iesus disciple is Iohn 19. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being disciple to Iesus Whereby it is
from the words to Paul Acts 22. 16. where he is commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arise baptise and wash which all require voluntary action on his part as well as ministration on Ananias his part out of which this argument is formed They are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers and Spirits Name who do not perform the acts required in that expression But infants of believers do not perform the acts required in that expression therefore they are not baptized into Christs Name or his Fathers o◠Spirits according to the meaning of it in the institution So that this argument is not a petty reasoning but a solid reason to prove infants baptism not such as Christ appointed As for Mr. Ms. frivolous question Were not the infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision though they could not actually devote themselves Though I am not bound to answer his impertinent questions yet I will tell him they were yet this is nothing to the business in hand about the meaning of the Phrase to be baptized into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit which manifestly implies the party baptized his act which infants cannot do Whereas no where there is such a command Be ye circumced in the Name of Jesus Christ nor is it all one to be circimcised as to be baptized which is still supposed but never proved 4. I further urged Christ bids the Apostles presently after Baptism Teach them to observe what ever he commanded But this direction could not pertain to infants they could not be taught to observe Christs commands therefore neither were they appointed to be baptized Mr. M. denies that they were enjoyned presently to teach them to observe what Christ commanded But the Text knits these together Baptizing and Teaching so as that they that were baptized should be taught that by them that baptized them which the Apostles could not do being to go up and down from place to place to plant the Churches in all Nations if they had been to baptize infants for then they must have staid many years till they came to understanding to be taught to observe what Christ commanded No man me thinks should imagine Christs appointment to be thus Make infants disciples and baptize them and then after five six or ten years when they are grown to some understanding come again and teach them to observe what I have commanded but that Christ did appoint them to teach them presently after Baptism that is in so many hours or days after that Ordinance was administred as it could be well done Nor doth Mr. Cobbet avoid this objection by saying pag. 179. then they must be presently taught the whole minde of Christ which is impossible For presently is not restained to an instant but comprehends a just latitude of time for the doing of the thing onely it notes that the beginning of it is to be not long after Baptism but sooner by much than it could be done to infants Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof pag. 341. argues thus What Christ hath conjoyned man must not separate but Christ hath conjoyned Discipling and Baptizing I add and Teaching therefore we must not separate them 5. The institution of Christ is best understood by the command of the Apostles the resolution of Philip the practice of John Baptist the Apostles and other men sent by God to baptize but the Apostle Peter commanded first Repentance and then Baptism Acts 2. 38. Philip resolved the Eunuch demanding What hindereth me to be baptised If thou believest with all thy heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou maist it is lawfull or allowed thee Acts 8. 36 37. John the Baptist the Apostles and other holy men sent by God to baptize baptized none but Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ as may appear by the Texts mentioning their baptizing Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Luke 3. 10. Acts 2. 41 8. 12 13 38 9. 18. 10. 47. 11. 17 18. 16. 15 31 32 33. 18. 8. 19. 5. 22. 16. Therefore Christs institution is of baptizing onely Professors of Repentance Faith and being Disciples of Christ and therefore not infants of believers The major cannot be denied by those that confess that Scripture best expounds Scripture and that the Apostles knew Christs minde and did observe it The minor is manifest from the Texts alleged And Mr. Rutherfords words are express to that purpose Divine Right of Church government cap. 5. q. 1. pag. 257. We reade that John Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sins and professed faith in Christ Jesus To this Mr. M. Defence pag. 227. says that it would be a hard task for me to prove that John baptized none but upon profession of Repentance I reply 1. It is proved already and confessed by Mr. Rutherford 2. I did think Mr. Ms. own words Sermon pag 44. that John did teach before he baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism did amount to as much till Mr. M. to help himself referred then to the time untill Parents were converted not to the time of Johns and the Apostles ministry of which the objection was to which in those words he answered For the objection was that they always taught and made them Disciples by teaching before they baptized any and Mr. Ms. words in his answer were John and Christs Disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptized because then no other were capable of Baptism which if not understood of the time of their Ministery it was an answer besides the objection 3. Mr. M. hath not yet shewed any other but such baptized by them and therefore it is probable in the highest degree of probability that no other were baptized by them 4. I think an argument in this matter from the Evangelists relation negatively is good proof unless we will suppose John Baptist and the Apostles were defective in their duty or the Evangelists in their narrations of that which frequently if it had been their duty would have occurred and their story lead them to mention and it was of much concernment to the Churches of God in after Ages they should 2. He saith It would be hard to prove that John did impose or require confession of sin before baptism Reply I think not 1. what they did sure was required of them else it had not been an acceptable thing and by John else he had failed in his duty Luke 1. 17. But they confessed sin afore Baptism Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Ergo. 2. He that preached repentance to them that came to be baptized required confession of sins which is a chief part of it afore Baptism But so did John Matth. 3. 2. Ergo. 3. He that preached to them to prepare the way of the Lord required confession of sins afore Baptism for that was the preparing the way of the Lord by bringing persons to confess sins and then to baptise them But
of newness of life and hope of resurrection Becman Exer. Theol. 17. pag. 257. Baptizari in mortem Christi dicimur quatenus stipulamur nos credere in Christum pro nobis mortuum ipsius exemplo veluti enâ—care peccatum ne nobis dominetur But this could not infants do therfore no insants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 1. Cor. 12. 13. For even by or in one Spirit have we been baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks whether bond or free and have been all made drink into one Spirit or as some copies have it have been all made to drink or drench into one drink into one Spirit That here baptism with water and the drinking the cup in the Lords Supper are meant is manifest the Apostle arguing from the end of those two rites for the union and communication between all Christians as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. he had done in the Lords Supper and Eph. 4. 4 5. he doth from baptism And without that allusion the phrase is not intelligible And the exception of the Antibaptists is vain that it is Spirit-baptism not water-baptism For it is indeed both Spirit-baptism from the Spirit as the cause and water-baptism together as the outward element Now hence three Arguments arise against infant baptism 1. All that were baptized into the body were baptized by one Spirit as the Concurrent cause as Mr. B. saith rightly in his plain Scripture proof c. page 342. that is together with the word as Ephes. 5. 26 is declared by preaching of which the Spirit was given Gal. 3 2. and this was presumed of all as 1 Thes. 1. 2. 4. and elsewhere And Mr. B. truly saith in the same place That it was all that were thus baptized into the body But I subsume infants were not thus baptized Ergo no infants were then baptized and consequently ought not to be now 2. All that were thus baptized were also made to drink or did drink themselves or were drencht by their own act in the receiving the cup in the Lords Supper unto one Spirit in communion and testification of one Spirit as 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. But infants did not thus drink Ergo infants were not then baptized 3. All that were counted members of the body of Christ or the Church were thus baptized and made to drink But infants were not thus baptized and made to drink for if so they received the Lords Supper therefore were not then visible Church members and consequently ought not to be so counted now Gal. 3. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Where the Apostle proving that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ because they had put on Christ must needs intimate that it was by faith in Christ Jesus that they had put on Christ and then the Apostles speech is this As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have by faith in Christ Jesus put on Christ and consequently so many as were baptized were believers and therefore no infants were baptized for want of faith Ephes. 4. 4 5. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling one Lord one faith one baptism Whence I argue 1. They that have one baptism have also one faith But infants had not one faith Ergo they had not one baptism and consequently are not to have it now 2. One faith is placed before one baptism therefore faith went before baptism in the Apostles daies and consequently infants were not baptized 3. They that were counted of one body had one faith But infants had not one faith therefore they were not counted of one body that is Church-members Mr. Bs. words p. 342. confirm this Ephes. 4. 5. As the whole Church is one body and hath one Lord and one faith so hath it one common baptism Eph. 5. 26. That he might sanctify it cleansing it with the washing of water by the word whence Mr. B Plain Script proof p. 342. inferres the whole Church of Christ must in duty be washed with water Now I argue 1. They who were washed with water were cleansed with the washing of water by the word which word is the word preached as where mention is made of baptism there mention is made of preaching of the word going before it and the word doth no where signifie the covenant or promise of God taken precisely or abstractively from the narration of Christs comming and invitation to repentance but altogether as it was preached as may be seen in Peters speech Acts 10. 36 37 38 c. But infants were not cleansed by the word therefore they were not cleansed by the washing of water 2. The whole Church was cleansed with the washing of water by the word But so were not infants therefore they were not parts of the Church and consequently are not now Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism wherein ye have also been raised together through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead Whence I argue They who were buried with Christ in baptism were also therein raised together through faith and consequently were believers But infants were not in baptism raised together through faith therefore they were not buried with Christ in baptism that is they were not baptized and by consequence ought not to be Tit. 3. 5. is usually expounded of baptism as by Mr. B. pag. 342 so by many others But if the washing there be meant of baptism it is such as was with regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost therfore not of infants whose regeneration and receiving was unknown Heb. 6. 1 2. Where the foundation is mentioned this order is observed first repentance then faith then baptism then laying on of hands then resurrection of the dead and lastly eternal judgement now if the Apostle kept a right order here used in teaching and according to the event of things as he seems to have done then repentance and faith went before baptism and so no infants baptized 1 Pet. 3. 21. The baptism that saves is accompanyed with the answer of a good conscience towards God This saith Beza in his annot on that text alludes to the Custome of stipulating or promising at baptism by the baptised which if right as is probable then it is manifest that the baptized did answer at baptism which infants could not and therefore were not baptized SECT VI. Mr. Blakes exception against the Major that such institution or example as I require for infant-baptism is unnecessary is refelled AGainst these arguments chiefly the two first brought to prove that infants are not to be baptized according to the institution Matth. 28. 19. and the practise of the Apostles besides what is alleged and refuted already many things are alleged Mr. Blake Vindic. foederis page 411. construes the objection
those believers had signs following them verse 17. Answ. The rule is disciples by profession are to be baptized to which is equipollent believers by profession I say not that believers only who are such as those Mark 16. 16. are to be baptized by us But yet comparing Mark 16. 15 16. with Mat. 28. 19. I gather that a disciple and believer are terms equipollent and so it helps me to understand the term disciple as answerable to the term believer And though by reason of the matter predicated Mark 16. 16. the believer there is only a true believer yet the term often is given to believers only by profession and we find such warrantably baptized and that is enough for our direction though we are to require more yet we are not to forbear baptism till we know there is more We acknowledge only true believers have right before God to baptism but in the face of the Church believers by profession have right to baptism and are to be taken by us for true believers upon their profession till they be discovered to be otherwise As for verse 17. it doth not say these or some of these signs shall follow every of them that believe but they are true if they followed some of them that believe sith the terms being indefinite in matter contingent the Proposition is true if onely particular Indefinita propositio in materia contingenti aequipollet particulari say Logicians But there is an objection ad hominem against my self that I have said that if I knew an infant were actually sanctified c. I would baptize him if so then an infant is not excluded out of the institution Answ. I grant that an infant barely as an infant is not excluded out of the institution but as ordinarily not known to be a disciple or believer If an infant were known to be a disciple or believer I would baptize him as I would one who having his tongue cut out who is known to be a believer otherwaies But then I have added that this would be upon extraordinary manifestation onely and so not according to ordinary rule and therefore justifies onely that extraordinary fact not the ordinary practice of infant-baptism which hath no rule ordinary or extraordinary But then saith Mr. M. page 215. shew us your extraordinary â—ule Answ. When I do thus or challenge this I shall in the mean time it is enough that my concession doth not infringe my argument against baptizing infants ordinarily without ordinary rule Mr. M. hath yet another exception in his Sermon page 44. That no other are mentioned to be baptized but disciples or believers because a new Church was to be constituted and then all were to be baptized upon profession of faith after the children came in by their right by vertue of the Covenant Ref. 1. when I come to examine Mr. Ms. Conclusions I shall shew that there is no such Covenant as to give right to believers infants to be baptized yea that title to the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision and therefore this is a vain pretence 2. He assigns that for a reason why no other were baptized which was not a reason For in the Jewish Church which was already constituted and which Christ did join himself to and to whose children they say did belong the Covenant yet while other were baptized all the time of John and Christs Ministery on earth no one infant was appointed to be baptized no not those infants Mark 10. which Christ blessed and which were if Paedobaptists say true believers infants in Covenant 3. It is a vain pretence that there is no mention of baptized infants because they had no right till their parents were converted For neither when they were converted is there any mention of the infants baptism 4. The institution Mat. 28. 19. expounded by the practice of John Baptist c. is the standing rule for Churches at first planting and after increasings nor can any other rule be produced distinct from this and therefore neither at first conversion nor after settlement of Churches are any to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they be disciples of Christ or believers by profession SECT VIII The exceptions of Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake c. against the order of teaching afore baptizing of Mr. M. Mr. Hussey that baptizing is discipling are refelled AGainst the argument from the order of teaching first and then baptizing it was excepted that it is said Mark 1. 4. John did baptize and preach which objection in my Examen was removed by the words of Beza par 4. s. 1. To which I add that the reason is manifest from the text why the one was put after the other not because he did baptize any afore he had preached but because Mark having expressed his baptism it was needfulhe should shew the difference between Johns baptism and the Jewish or Phasaical baptism To this Mr. M. returns thus much Christs order is say you teaching should go before baptizing is not that the same with this That men must be made disciples by preaching before they be baptized To which I only say 1. That the arguments are not the same as I made them the first being taken from the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the other from the order of teaching afore baptizing 2. However I take that which Mr. M. grants that it is the same to teach and to make disciples by preaching before baptizing But Mr. Cobbet just vindic part 2. ch 3. sect 2 allegeth something against this argument He grants some things in this order of Christ are perpetual but he will not have all to be presidentiall to all Churches and times because it is said Mar. 16. 17. in the same speech that miraculous signs should follow them that believe But if this were good then the rule should only hold while such gifts remain which no churches now have and so he must fall into the opinion that makes water-baptism a temporary ordinance and those things which he grants perpetual as viz. preaching the Gospel before baptism is to be administred by such as preach discipled inchurched persons are to be baptized that in founding churches the first members are to be visible professors of the faith in reference to church estate that baptism is with water applyed to the persons baptized and that into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost must be temporary as well as teaching before baptizing If the one be perpetual notwithstanding this reason so is the other and presidential to all churches and times But saith Mr. Cobbet there is a distinction to be made in baptizing at the gathering of Churches and when they are gathered the order must be observed at the former not the later Answ. 1. If it was to be so at first gathering of churches why did not those in New England observe it then when they first gathered their churches surely they were not rightly gathered for want of baptism if this be the
both of that age or any other and I allow that Christ meant those and other humble ones and that the term of such is both inclusive including more than those particular little ones and exclusive of those that are not elect or blessed by Christ. And though I maintain by firm Arguments in my Postscript to Mr. Blake sect 20. that by the Kingdom of Heaven as in Matth. 19. 14. or of God as Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. is meant the Kingdom of Glory which Mr. B. denies not yet were it allowed Mr. B. that it is meant of the visible Church it is not true of all infants of believers that of them is the visible Church for infants in the womb as Jacob are of the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church yet not of the visible much less of the species of infants as Mr. B. speaks For then every individual infant should be of the visible Church though the Parents be unbelievers which Mr. B. me thinks should gainsay and therefore there is plain reason necessitating to restrain the speech of Christ as I do 3. Saith Mr. B. When Mr. T. maketh their docibleness the thing intended by Christ he forgot that he judged them uncapable of being Disciples Why may not those be Disciples who are not onely docible but exemplary for their teachableness Answ. Mr. T. tels Mr. B. he did not forget but thinks Mr. B. did not heed The docibleness allowed to infants was in things natural such as are to know the Nurse imitate gestures to be stilled from crying when rebuked c. but not in things spiritual to know Christ to be the Son of God the Messiah c. which are necessary to denominate them Disciples of Christ. Yet such teachableness and humility onely negative in not ambitiously affecting preheminence are sufficient for Christ to propound them as examples or similitudes rather to direct his Disciples to imitate in another kinde Their second Objection saith Mr B. is that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven And I think so too but then if the Kingdom of Heaven belong to such much more a standing as members in the visible Church For what is it to be a member of the Church visible but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven For the Church is but one and the difference respective as I shewed before therefore both visible and invisible both military and triumphant are called in Scripture the Kingdom of Heaven or of God If a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members 〈◊〉 the Church so that this proof is more full for infants Church-membership than if it had been said they may be visibl◠Church-members For it saith much more of them which includeth that Answ. Mr. B. thinks it seems with me that by the Kingdom of God is meant the Kingdom of Heaven that is of Glory or the invisible Church which if true then of no infants but elect is the Kingdom of God for no other are of the invisible Church or enter into the Kingdom of Glory And if so not the the very species of infants but particular persons and of these not all perhaps but a few of the infants of believers perhaps more of the infants of unbelievers are of the Kingdom of God But however he thinks it will follow à majori that if of infants is the Kingdom of God that is the invisible Church or Kingdom of Glory then much more they have a standing in the visible Church To which I say 1. If this Argument were good it could onely prove those infants to be of the visible Church who are elect 2. It can prove it onely of those who in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of men do belong to the invisible Church or be known to belong to the invisible Church But no infants in particular are known to belong to the invisible Church nor is there any note whereby any infant in particular may be discerned to be of the invisible Church which may make it seem or appear to the judgment of man Ergo there is no infant no not according to Mr. Bs. own description hath a standing in the visible Church The minor of this Argument I expect should be denied but it will concern them that do deny it to shew us out of Scripture where God hath given us any sign though but probable to judg such an infant to be of the invisible Church of the elect such a one not If any say Gods covenant and the Parents faith I reply God hath plainly declared Rom. 9. 7 8 9 10 12 13 18. that he hath not made any promise to the natural seed of Abraham that he will be their God in respect of saving grace much less to the natural seed of every or any believer of this time but that notwithstanding any covenant he hath made he takes the seed of unbelievers to be his children and leaves the seed of bellevers to be hardened and this appeared plainly in Jacob and Esau of the same Parents believers born together yet one loved the other hated and the Gentiles called when the Jews were rejected We say truly the book of life is a secret which belongs to God who hath hidden it yea hath so ordered it by the strange variations of his calling that his judgments should be unsearchable and his paths past finding out Rom. 11. 33. And therefore no man hath warrant from Gods Word to frame any judgment concerning this or that infant to be of the invisible Church But because Mr. B. says somewhat to prove his consequence let us consider what he brings That which he sayth is 1. The Church is but one and the difference respective 2. He that saith that they belong to the invisible saith much more even that which includeth that they are visible if I understand his obscure expressions Church-members 3. That to be a member of the Church visible is to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgment of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdom of Heaven Answ. 1. It is true the universal Church of the elect is but one and the difference respective yet the difference such that all the invisible are not of the visible Church nor all the visible of the invisible nor by any good consequence can it be made good they that are of the invisible are much more of the visible no not when they are known to be of the invisible Church The first is manifest by instances the spirits of the just made perfect elect persons yet unbegotten yet uncalled called but not yet shewing it are of the invisible Church but not of the visible on the other side secret hypocrites are of the visible but not of the invisible And the last
that they shall be saved SECT XIX Animadversions on Mr. Cobbets Just Vindic. part 1. cap. 5. and the arguings of Dr. Homes Mr. Bailee Mr. Fuller Mr. Sidenham from the words and actions of Christ to little ones are answered HAving answered Mr. B. Mr. Bl. my two eager Antagonists I shall add animadversions on Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just Vindic. part 1. ch 4. sect 1. 1. He says without proof that they that brought the infants mentioned Luke 18. 15. were pious minded parents 2. He denies of such is the kingdom of God to be meant of the Kingdom of glory the contrary whereof is proved in the next section before against Mr. Blake 3. He supposeth that these words suffer little children to come to me being granted to contain a rule of suffering little ones of that sort such as those are to come to him and the words of such is the Kingdom of God being expounded of the invisible Church it must be conceived that Christ must direct them to suffer members of the invisible Church to come to him and then that they may be known But this is his mistake they that expound thus the words suffer these little children and other little children in age if any hereafter be brought to my person to be touched to come to me and forbid them not as ye have don these For however they are persons that are not fit to be my hearers yet of these now brought and of some other infants which may be brought and men of years like them in quality is the Kingdom of God the invisible Church or the Kingdom of glory belongs to them may avouch this exposition without supposing their election must come under the cognizance of men nor need they say that onely such who were elected were by this rule so expâ—unded to be permitted to come to Christ. 4. That Christ spake of those infants not as an extraordinary inspired Prophet is said without proof not is it likely sitâ— such blessings were never given but by extraordinary inspiration and Christ appoints not the admitting of little children to any no not to his Apostles but himself 5. That he delivered an ordinary rule of ordinary practise and use afterwards is said without proof nor is it likely sith we reade no more of that practise by any of the Apostles nor any rule concerning it after this one act of Christ Sect. 2. Hâ— denies that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven might be spoken in reference to the future that is that they were elect ones and should in time be of Gods Kingdom that is believers or that they were such as God would bless For Christs words are not of such may will or shall be the Kingdom of God nor that they were of his Kingdom because such as he would bless but rather that they should not be hindered from being blessed of him because of such is the Kingdom of God To which I answer that by the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19. 14. and the Kingdom of God Mark 10. 14 15 Luke 18 16 17. must needs be meant the Kingdom of glory is proved before then the sense can be no other than of such is the Kingdom of Heaven that is the Kingdom of glory belongs to such as Mat. 5. 3 10. and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth of signifie as Mark 9. 14 c. And then it must needs be an enallage of tense as Mat. 18 1. as Pisc. sch on Mat. 18. 1. est pro futurus est enallage temporis or as Pisc. sch on Matth. 5. 3. ipsis destinatum est dabitur and this is all one as to say they are elect which is Piscators term in his observation on Matth. 19. 14. as I shewed above in answer to Mr. Blake and thus of such is the kingdom of God refers to the present estate as elect to their future as possessours of glory hereafter And so to Mr. Cobbets objection I answer Matth. 5. 10. it is not said theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven but is and yet it must be understood of present title and future possession so here And for his exception at my words that the reason may be given why these infants did belong to Gods Kingdom because they were such as Christ would bless is not avoided by saying they were blessed because of Gods Kingdom For both ways the reason is good they should not be hindered from blessing because theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven the end of blessing or they should not be hindered from blessing because he intended to bless them and therefore theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven Either way that I intended to prove Examen pag. 147. is evinced that the reason why theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven is not from their parents faith which should have been if it were meant as Paedobaptists would of interest in the visible Church but Gods election or Christs blessing I have often said that if Christs minde had been that infants should be baptized he would have commanded these little ones to have been baptized for an Example To this Mr. Cobbet answers that according to our principles they were elect heirs of the kingdom of glory now why should not or were not these infants at least baptized Answ. Because though elect yet were not believers or Disciples by profession But You would allow saith he such to be baptized if of grown years Answ. No untill they were believers or Disciples not barely because elect and heirs of glory But You say saith he that if by extraordinary revelation you knew an infant to be sanctified you would baptize it because the extraordinary revelation would authorize it and the words of Peter Acts 10. 47. and the institution Matth. 28. 19. And then it would follow 1. That persons may be Disciples without being outwardly taught 2. It is agreeable to the rule that persons without personal profession of faith should be baptized Albeit extraordinary things done besides rule cross not ordinary rule yet neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule 3. It was the minde of Christ they should be baptized as that they should be instructed though it be not expressed Answ. 1. It is true I grant in my Examen p. 142 158 160. upon the grounds mentioned that an infant regenerated united to Christ sanctified by the Spirit upon extraordinary revelation of this might be baptized and the like is said by Mr. Blackwood Apostolical Bapt. p. 51. And for those that have the thing signified let them make it appear to any Church of Christ and they cannot deny their baptism But yet it follows not that these infants might be baptized which are mentioned Matth. 19. 14. For though their election be mentioned yet not their regeneration and sanctification Now Praedestinatio nil ponit in praedestinato and therefore it makes not Disciples or believers at present but assures it as future but we are to baptize actual Disciples and
meaning is to be taken a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh So that this is the thing that I except against Mr. Bl. for that whereas by the consent of all that I know interpreters besides himself they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. in the apodosis there even so it is now do note legal Justitiaries who are there called the children of the bond-woman not called Abrahams seed for those he had determined before to be those of the faith Gal. 3. 9. Christs v. 29. nor to inherit but cast out he on the contrary makes them Abrahams seed as Arminius doth in his Analysis of Rom. 9. And ascribes to them the inheriting of outward privileges as to be members of the visible Church in that they are born after the flesh Whereas the term born after the flesh is taken in the worser part precisely from the birth from the bond-woman abstractively from generation by Abraham and importing no privilege but a privation of privilege As for Mr. Bayn though he interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham and proves there that it notes not legal Justitiaries because it is applyed to Esau who is considered as having done neither good nor evil Yet Mr. Bl. wrongs him in two things 1. In that he saith Mr. Baine interprets it of a natural seed inheriting outward privileges whereas though Mr. Baine doth interpret children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. of a natural seed yet not as inheriting thereby outward privileges 2. That he makes his exposition of children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8 to be his exposition of those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. whereas he expresly saith though children of the flesh in some other Scripture which can be no other than Gal. 4. 29. doth note out Justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law I confess Cameron in his Conference with Tilenus in the place before cited makes Ishmael not onely a Type of Justitiaries Gal. 4. 23 29. but also Rom. 9. 7 8 9. and Isaac a Type of believers in both places and Esau and Jacob Types not of Justitiaries and believers but of uncalled and called non-elect and elect and so the resemblance to be different of the two former brethre◠from the later which to me seems not right for me thinks the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have this sense that the thing he had sayd before did not onely appear in Ishmael and Isaac but also more fully in Esau and Jacob which me thinks imports that the Apostle meant to prove the same thing by Esau and Jacob which he did by Ishmael and Isaac and me thinks the long Parenthesis he imagines from v. 10 to 30. agrees not with that expression v. 10. Not onely so but also they being connexive particles and so not agreeable to a Parenthesis But Cameron and all others I know understand by those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4 29. legal Justitiaries Mr. John Cotton Grounds of baptism c. pag. 158. By such as are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. the Apostle doth not mean such as are born by ordinary course of nature but such as are born and bred of the carnal seed of the Covenant of the Law which as it bego◠by Ishmael carnal confidence of his own strength or else he would never have slighted and mocked the promised seed so it begat in Cain and Saul and Judas an utter despair of grace and salvation My fourth exception was whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants to be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a childe interest into the Church of Christ. To this all that Mr. Bl. replies is this If Mr. Tombs his Gloss borrowed from Arminius must stand for the sense of the place that to be born of the flesh is to be under the covenant of works then it will hardly be avoided but in case Mr. Baines interpretation may stand of a birth in nature according to the flesh then the Argument is valid Answ. That Mr. Baines doth interpret no otherwise the term born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. than I do is shewed above yet if it were true that he did as Mr. Bl. mis-allegeth him interpret born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. of those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham yet it is false that either there or Rom. 9. 8. he conceived this term children of the flesh to import a natural seed by virtue of it inherititing outward privileges and therefore the Argument of Mr. Bl. is not valid though Mr. Baines were granted to be rightly alleged by him And for that he sayth I borrow my Gloss from Arminius I answer I have shewed that I have deduced it from the Apostles own words and have the concurrent judgment of many Divines of best note to whom it is no disparagement that in this Arminius joyns SECT XXIII Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Hebr. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled THere is another Text to wit Hebr. 6. 2. from which Dr. Homes Animad on my Exercit. pag. 58. and after cap. 10. would prove infant-baptism and with him Mr. John Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Poedob pag. 76. c. which if their arguing were good would not onely prove the practice of infant-baptism but also that it is a principle of Christianity and part of the foundation The arguing is to this effect If the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms cannot be expounded of any other than the laying on of hands for confirming the baptized in infancy than the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms presupposeth infant-baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent The Antecedent is proved by parts 1. It cannot be understood of laying on of hands for healing or miraculous gifts of the Spirit For then the knowledg of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be put among the Principles of Christian knowledg which is absurd To which I answered in my Exercit. pag. 22. that it is no absurdity to put that among the Principles of Christian knowledg those gifts being though by extraordinary power yet frequent in those days and necessary to be known to confirm young Christians that Jesus is the Christ because the Spirit thus given was the great witness concerning Christ that he was the Son of God and shewed that he was gone up to the Father else the Spirit had not descended it was it by which the world was rebuked and the Saints established To this sayth Dr. Homes that I by and by as good as confess it a eogent reason because I go about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for Ordination because it was still in use and to continue to be used Answ. The Doctor misallegeth my