is so little as that in his Letter qu. 4. § 22. he confesseth they come not home distinctly to the baptizing of infants nor do they prove any unreasonableness or uncharitableness in our objections against their baptizing of them whom the Dr. affirms not either Christ or his Apostles to have baptized who had reason and charity enough to have done it if thâ—â— had judged iâ— fit to have been done That Matth. 8 6. is ridiculously applied to little children in age is demonstrate Review part 2. sect 17. Augustins saving credit in altero qui peccavit in altero and his reckoning infants baptized among believers is besides the Book I mean the Scripture and to be judged as no better then a fond conceit The lawfull bâ—ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites is no colour â—o baptize non professors of faith 'T is rightly done that that which contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptising infants is put by him among the more imperfect probations and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14 is already shewed to be That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testifie the receiving our infants to Baptism to bee received from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself is so manifestly false that the very first of the Fathers who makes mention of it Tertullian in his book of Baptism ch 18. disswades it and useth arguments against it and those arguments as well are against the believers infants Baptism as the unbelievers whereby it is evident he opposed the Baptism of any infants whereto might be a dâ—d the case of Nazianzen together with his judgement forementioned as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgement and practice oâ— the universal Church for 1600. years The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholler and the Petrobuciani and Henriciani that sprung from them were opposers of it and therefore the Dr doth very much excâ—ed truth in making it the judgment and practice of the universal Church for 1600 years The term son of the Church used by the Dr. 〈…〉 by â—anonists and others and it is usual to term the Church a Christians mother and by the Church the prelates are usually meant and much advantage made of it to keep Christians under the yoke of Bishops 〈◊〉 But it is no Scripture term in it the Elders Apostle 〈◊〉 â—ermed Fathers 1 Cor 4â— 5 all Christians Brethren and Sister 1 Cor 〈…〉 â—hurch being no other then a company of Bâ—ethen and Sisters it is very unfit to call the Church a Christians Mother and therefore 〈◊〉 willing not to be accounted a son of the Church nor do I acknowledge that the judgement and practise iâ— there were any such of the universal Church for 1600 years letting aside the Apostles of Christ haâ—h any force or authority over me nor do I fear the incurring of Gods displeasure by oppugning or contemning it but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7 tels me that in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and the vain altercations about Easter in the 2d Century and many other mistakes and blemishes even in the Apostles times and much more after together with the prediction of the falling away 1 Tim. 4. â— the exceptions against the seven Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 our Lord Christ himself the imperfections that are in the writings of the first Fathers after the Apâ—stles the exceptions against the histories of the Church the imposing on the Church suppositions Treatises the coâ—rupting of authors I think iâ— the safest way to avoid Gods displâ—asure not â—o rest on the practise or judgement of the universal Church iâ— there were any such after the Apostles but onely on the writâ—ngs of the New Testament it being highly unreasonable as the Dr. saith that â—n institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should bee judged of by any other rule whether the phanâ—es or reasons of men but either the word wherein the institution is set down oâ— the records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture which comes home to the deciding 〈◊〉 câ—ntroversie of faith and manners and 〈…〉 to be obâ—erved and needs not the Drs records besides scripture however conserved or made known to us whether by unwritten tradition or in the writings of Fathers in which there is very much uncertainty but do deter men from adhering to this way as the inlet to many Popish and Prelatical abuses and errours yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths if they be read with judgement and do resolve to review what hath been brought for infant baptism by the Dr. out of other writers besides holy Scripture Sect. 3. the Dr. complains of mee as doing some injury to his Book in leaving out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their chiâ—dren Ans. But by the Drs. leave in this no injury iâ— done him For however he mentioned Letter of Resol qu. 4 sect 5 6. Baptism as a known rite solemnly used among the Jews in the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant yet both the words I allege Review part 2. sect 24. Out of his Letter q. 4. § 24. and all other passages I yet finde in his writings make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants to bee from the Jewish custome of Baptising Proselytes and children as the pattern basis or foundation of it no where the Baptism of native Jewes is made the pattern of Christian baptism though he say § 24. the baptism of the native Jews was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded Yea the Dr. in his practical Catechism l. 6. sect 2. saith that as among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane heathen practises which did not agree to the native Jews so by Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should bee received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times And in his Letter qu. 4. § 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed To which I may add that the proof which the Dr. brings for baptising of infants from Christs appointment is thus expressed qu. 4. § 22. receiving of Disciples was the receiving of Proselytes to the Covenant and faith of Christ a Disciple and a Proselyte being perfectly all one save onely that the latter denotes a comming from other nation c. which shews
appointed by God is will-worship But the ordinary baptizing of Infants of Believers Churched or unchurched though by a lawful Minister is worship not appointed by God Ergo. The Major is confirmed from the very definition of will-worship which is A worship of God nor appointed by him but taken up according to the command of man out of Mat. 15.9 The Minor is proved by demanding a Scripture wherein God appointed Infant-baptism In answer hereto in conference with me it was once denied that Infant-baptism was used as a worship of God But if so then it is no holy thing no Sacrament no profaneness to contemn it no matter if a Midwife do it with many more of the like absurdities Master Blake in his answer to my letter ch 13. pag. 92. Vindic. foed ch 44. denies Infant-Communion Bell-baptism to be will-worship he makes will-worship then when men devise an Ordinance but not when it is onely an abuse profanation misapplication of an instituted worship to a wrong subject And Master Marshall page 195. of his Defence would put me to prove 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 be expressely set down in the N. T. pag. 196. There is no absolute necessity that every circumstance of an Ordinance or the several sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to be applied must be set down in precept or Apostolical example equivalent to a precept found in the N.T. pag. 205. The point about Infant-baptism toucheth but a circumstance of age In which speeches Mr. M. seems to make Infant-baptism but an arbitrary circumstance and if so then much injury was in the first use of his Sermon in which he made the denial of Infant-baptism odious as if it were as bad or worse than the facts of Herod and Hazael in slaying Infants then much guilt of oppression lies on them that have denied place in the Ministery scourged imprisoned fined banished put to death men for opposing or not owning Infant-baptism and very unrighteous have been their declamations who in Pulpits and elsewhere have inveighed against them as Hereticks Sectaries c. censured their opinion as intolerable as Maresius qu. 6. their practice as Sacrilege as Master Blake vindic foed ch 4. If Master M. do indeed think the point of Infant-baptism to touch but a circumstance of age and that it needs no divine institution then it is an indifferent ceremony with him such as the power of the Church may appoint and if so it is no otherwise blameable to omit it than it is to omit any other Church-constitution But the truth is it is false which he saith That the matter toucheth onely a circumstance of age for indeed it toucheth the qualification of the person to be Baptized and the very end and use of Baptism which are the essentials of it as it is a Sacrament which is that the person Baptized do thereby testifie his profession of Repentance and Faith in Christ and covenant to be his as appears by the very phrase used of being Baptized into the name of the Trinity Mat. 28.19 compared with 1 Cor. 1.13 as I have proved before Part 2. Sect. 5. And were it a circumstance onely of age yet it being determined by Christ who are to be baptized to wit Disciples and Belieâ—â—â—s it is an arrogant presumption to alter it Rightly saith Chamieâ— Panstr tom 4â— lib. 8. c. 4. Sect. 32. quae non sunt institutae circumstantiae habeto sane sibi Ecclesia ut tempus locumque celebrandi si quae sunt similia At quae instituta sunt ea ne moveto As for M. Blakes speech that a misapplication of 〈◊〉 instituted ordinance to a wrong subject is an abuse or profanation of it but not will-worship 1. It is not right For though every misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance be not will-worship yet a misapplication to a wrong subject of an instituted ordinance is a will-worship when not onely the rite it self is made worship of God but also the application of it to that subject though it be but mens invention yea and such a one as alters the end and use of the ordinance as is in infant baptism bell-baptism altar-baptism infant-Communion Prayer sacrifice vows keeping solemn feasts offering incense building altars were instituted ordinances yet Jeroboams sacrificing and keeping a feast at another time than God appointed Ahaz his forming an altar after the pattern of that at Damascus Nadab and Abihu their offering strange fire prayer to Saints for the dead vowes to Saints monastick profession after such a rule keeping of holy dayes to Saints and many other things among Pagans and Papists are condemned as will-worship Generally Protestants even the Assembly in their Conffession of faith chap. 29. art 4. make the lifting up reserving the elements in the Eucharist Contrary to Matth. 15.9 and chap. 21. they say the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited to his own revealed will that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men or suggestions of Satan under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holyâ—scripture yea the non-conformists have gone further in so censuring the three ceremonies cross at baptism kneeling at the Lords Supper the wearing the Surplice in holy ministrations to be will-worship as the Abridgement of the Lincolnshire Ministers petition and other writings shew and D. Morton in his Defence and D. Burges in his Rejoynder to the reply chap. 2. and elsewhere acquit them onely from will-worship in that they placed not holiness in them made them not necessary parts of worship which I presume M. Blake will not say of Infant-baptism the denial of which he counts though vainly to be sacrilege Vindic. foed chap. 40. And sure baptisms were instituted ordinances among the Jews Heb. 9.10 yet our Lord Christ applies the Prophets censure of will-worship Isai. 29.13 against the Pharises placing holiness and fear of God in their washings of hands and other things so often and in the manner they used Mark 7.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Secondly were it granted that it is not properly will-worship to misapply an instituted ordinance to a wrong subject yet if it be an abuse or profanation the matter is no whit mended with M. Blake if I put in my argument instead of the term will-worship the term profanation or abuse I presume Paedobaptists will not justify a profanation or abuse which Infant-baptism is acknowledged to be if it be not after Gods appointment or Christs institution Wherefore M. M. and the most of the paedobaptists not trusting to these evasions seek for an appointment of Infant-baptism in the institution of Infant-circumcision Gen. 17. Yet M. Baxter in his pâ—â—in Scripture proof part 1. chap. 4. c. declines the command of Circumcision for proof of Infant-baptism
which directs in this 4. If a probable judgment of charity that a person is elect and in covenant be the rule to direct in baptizing then suppose a salvage in new England or elsewhere seeming to be affected in the the time of preaching should be judged in charity to an elect person in covenant he ought to be baptized by the Minister so judging afore he owns Christ by profession It is promised that the Israelits shall be graffed in again and all Israel saved Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and we may charitably judg it will be shortly shall we baptize any of them or their Infants upon this charitable judgment of their election and being in Covenant afore profession 5. If a charitable judgement of election and being in covenant had been the rule to baptize then sure John the Baptist and the baptizers appointed had somewhere propounded that question or made inquiry into that thing but it was not so they required repentance Acts 2.38 inquired into the faith of the baptized 6. if this had been the direction baptize those that are elect or in Covenant had been a blind derection unfit for men to follow and so our Lord should have imperfectly instructed his Apostls and others or rather have mocked them putting them to do a business not feasiable by them But this is not to be said of Christ especially the rule being so plain to baptize believers and Disciples by profession As for Mr. Chuch his conceit that shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing onely as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the paties to be baptized are in the promise I deny it For the rule is not baptize persons in the Covenant but Disciples or believers of all nations To that of the Devils making a verbal profession I have answered before That which he saith that the judgment of charity meaning that they were in Covenant was the rule by which John Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing is not true for they baptized upon their profession which they certainly knew And though they had no infallable knowledge of the individuals election or being in Covenant but baptized hypocrits not a few yet they had an infallible knowledge of individuals confessing sins brofessing repentancc and faith for they heard them and this was their rule not the conjectural knowledg of a persons interest in the Covenant or election of grace SECT VIII Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance MR. Church brings in a Second objection which is in effect what I allege Exam. pag. 62. a right to Evangelical promises is not the adequat reason of baptism for the Jews were in the promise Acts 2.38 39. yet not baptized without preceeding repentance To which he answers thus A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace as in those of riper years or by the meaning a species in the promise without restriction of which the parties to be baptized are individuals as the Infants of visible professors are is a sufficient reason for baptism To which I reply If visible right ro the promise by shews of grace be a sufficient reason for baptism then the rule I set down for admitting to baptism is yeilded to be aright But for the new made rule of Mr. Church it is but an humane ivention without Scripture warrans He supposeth the Infants of visible professors to be in the promise without restruction and the promise I conceive he means is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 But it is most false that that promise is made to any meer visible professors but to Abraham not to any true believers natural seed much less to any meer visible professors natural seed but onely to Aâ—rahams seed who are onely elect and true believers of the Gentils according to the spiritual part of it as is proved before Yet were it granted that not onely the Species but also the individuals were named expressly in the Covenant I should deny they were to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they were known Disciples and believers The Jewish people are in covenant Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and yet not to be baptized till they believe and Peter Acts 2.38 39. requires repentance for baptism of whom he sayth the promise is to you But he tels me The learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an Infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it I answer whatever others do yet I disclaim that confession I have granted sundry times as Examen part Sect 15. part 3. Sect. 3. that regenerate justified adopted persons born into the world who have the inward grace are not to be debarred baptism if it be known by special revelation for they are then known Disciples and believers But I never said this of an Infant in Covenant For an Infant may be in Covenant even then when he is unregenerate being in covenant nothing no more then having the promise made to him which may be afore he is born and therefore I should not yeld that of being in covenant which I would do of actual regeneration But Mr. Church makes some shew of answering the argument from Acts 2.38 39. He tels us those Jews rejecting and crucifying Christ and Atheistically mocking â—at Gospel truths ceased to have a visible right to the promise untill they regained it by repentance Answer Mr. Church pag. 18. saith being in the promise is the reason rendred by the appostle for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38 39. therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized pag. 20. Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism Doth not thus plainly assert that the Jews then were righly judged by Peter to be in the promise and their right thereby to batism How then is it true which here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise till they raigned repentance But it is not once onely that this Author is off and on saying and unsaying at a little distance Here he requires a visible right in the promise regained by repentance a little before he saith the species being named without restriction in the promise as a sufficient reason of baptism However I take his confession that notwithstanding what he said pag. 5.6 7. from Acts 2.38.39 of the promise to them and their children and thence inferring their Infants tittle to baptism as being the children of visible professors to whom God had promised to be a God and to their seed yet here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance which the Apostle supposeth they then had not even then when he said The promise is to you and your children For he exhorteth to it as a thing to be done But Mr. Church flutters like
be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we For though God should reveal that this or that person were elect and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future yet he were not to be baptized till God revealed that he were a believer or disciple For if so than if God did reveal concerning any as he did of Isaac and Jacob that he were a child of the promise though yet unborn in the Mothers womb he were to be baptized which is absurd None are to be baptized afore born therefore any principle whatsoever in Scripture demonstrating a person to be in the Gospel covenant is not sufficient to intitle to baptism much less such an uncertain doubtful guess called charitable presumption that he is in the Covenant as is without any particular declaration of Scripture or other revelation from God concerning the person or any shew of his that he is Gods child which yet Mr Geree makes a sufficient warrant to baptize nor is his reason of any force for we might in like manner say They have the election of God which is the greater who can inhibit the sign which is the less It is not whether that which they have is greater much less that which is conjectured or hoped they have which is the rule to baptize but the manifest having of that qualification of faith or discipleship which is prerequired to baptism according to the institution and primitive practice of it But Mr. Geree hath more to prove his Major Besides saith he we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed whom God had thereby separated then to be his church and evidenced it by an outward seal there was so near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation whereby men were externally separated from the world that circumcision was called the covenant and the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. to shew us how the seal did follow the Covenant and therefore when any were aggregated into the Jewish Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision To which I answer letting pass his Phraseology this reason goes upon these suppositions 1. That by Circumcision God had administred his Covenant to Abraham and his seed and separated them to be his Church and evidenced it by Circumcision and that the seal did follow the Covenant when any were taken into Covenant they were circumcised and therefore it must be so in baptism But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcised he administred the covenant of grace which sense alone serves his turn it is not true Ishmael was circumcised yet the Covenant not administred to him nor he separated to be of his Church not this evidenced by an outward seal but the contrary declared concerning him afore his Circumcision Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. and he in the event cast out and so the seal did not follow so the Covenant but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made and not imparted to them to whom it did belong as v. g to the females nor were the Prosâ—lytes all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Israel nor 〈◊〉 the calling circumcision the covenant or a token of the Covenant which are all one Gen. 17.10 11. prove that all that were circumcised had the Covenant made to them but this that Circumcision was a memorial that such a covenant was made with Abraham and God would perform it 2. That it must be in baptism as it was in circumcision But for proof of that there 's not a word brought by Mr. G. and what others bring is examined in its place M. G. goes on thus Now for your exceptions against the connexion which we put between the Gospel-covenant and the Sacrament of initiation annext to it in any administration they will cleerly be wiped away for what though as you say the Covenant made with Abraham were not a pure Gospel covenant but had some external additaments yet a Gospel covenant it was and for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached before to Abraham and as circumcision was the seal of initiation under that administration so is baptism under the Christian administration neither is the Gospel covenant now so pure as to exclude all temporal promises For godliness even under the Gosspel hath the promises of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 Answ. The distinction of a pure and a mixt covenant was brought in by me to shew that Paedobaptists do but mislead people when in their writings and sermons they express themselves as if they would have men conceive that the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. is all one with the Covenant of grace and so that there is the same reason of baptizing infants because of the Gospel covenant as there was of circumcising infants because of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Now how doth Mr. Geree wipe this away He tells his Reader That I say the covenant made with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant but had some external additaments But neither do I so speak in my Exercit. pag. 2. nor Exam. part 3. s. 2. nor any where else I know I say the promises were mixt Exercit. pag. 2. Exam. part 3. s. 2. now promises are not external additaments to the covenant but integral parts the covenant being nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises yea I prove that the peculiar promise to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting of the Land of Canaan c. is frequently called by the name of the Covenant Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 c. And for what he saith That the covenant made with Abraham was a Gospel covenant this is true according to the more infolded and hidden sense of the spirit but not according to the outward face and obvious construction of the words which in the first meaning spake of things proper to Abrahams natural posterity though the Holy Ghost had a further aim in those expressions And whereas he saith The covenant made with Abraham was for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 Though that promise mentioned Gal. 3.8 be no in the Covenant Gen. 17. to which Circumcision was annexed but that Gent 12.3 and the term substance be ambiguous yet I grant the Covenant made with Abraham according to those Gospel promises which in the hidden meaning declared justification by faith as the new covenant sealed with Christs blood doth is the same in substance meaning by it the intent purport and meaning of the Holy Ghost though not in words or expressions yet I deny that it was every way or in every respect in substance the same For the promise according to that sense in which they contain domestique or civil
reason thus None but these who are Christ 's are Abraham 's seed and none are Chiist 's but real believers and therefore none but they must be baptized For though it is true that before God none have right to Baptism but such yet sith the Minister of Baptism cannot distinguish between a believer in reality and one in profession he is without fault in baptizing a believer onely in profession whom he takes to be a believer in reality If any say Baptism knows no flesh the meaning likely is that Baptism is not alotted to any for its natural birth though of a believer So that I need not answer Mr. Sidenhams arguments to the contrary sith I do not assert that none but Abrahams seed may be baptized Nor is it true that we have the same ground of charity to act on infants of believers as on grown men For though infants may be Christs yet we have not the same evidence that they are Christs which we have of grown persons whose words and actions shew that the Spirit of God dwels in them Nor would God have us 1 Cor. 7.14 to account the children to be holy as visible professours are for the parents faith but to be legitimate from the lawfulness of their generation Nor can it be proved that any one infant of the most godly person is taken into the same Covenant with the parent nor doth Christ 's respect to infants when brought to him give warrant to any to judg better of a believers infant than of a visible professour or to account of such an infant as baptizable Nor is it true that a general Scripture-assertion and the ground of an indefinite promise is more than all our Reasons to judg a visible Professour Christ 's or Abraham 's seed or a subject of Baptism sith the words and actions of such a one do shew more of Christs spirit and faith than any speeches of God or promises do of infants now existent and he that baptizeth a visible professor of faith proceedeth uppon certain knowledge according to a certain rule of baptizing Disciples which is more to assure the conscience in the doing the will of God then any Charitable judgement or any probable likelyhood of an infants being Christs or in covenant for the present or certain revelation of the infants election and being in covenant and so will be a believer hereafter can be to warrant a man to baptize it at this instant Nor is it true that he that baptizeth a visible professor goes by the purblind eye of his probable judgment For he baptizeth upon an unerring rule of baptizing manifest disciples according to an unerring knowledge that those he baptizeth are such under the Gospel the Jewes are Abrahams fleshly seed though they be not visible professors of faith in Christ no meer Gentile visible professor is Abrahams seed nor any true believers natural seed as such nor doth the covenant make every believer in reallity or any except Abraham much less every visible believer a spiritual Father I confess the spiritual seed of Abraham takes its denomination from the covenant I mean the future seed and from their believing the actual but the natural seed takes not its denomination from the covenant but Abrahams begetting nor is it true the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed is renewed in the new Testament with believers and their seed neither formerly nor now are infants of believers non-elect Abrahams seed nor is there in the word of God one passage either in the old or new Testament either of those alleaged by Master Sidenham or any other I know wherein infants of believers are visibly owned as we own visible professors There will be found visible subjects of baptism though neither infants of believers nor meer visible professors be Abrahams seed I conclude my animadversions on this chapter of Mr. Sidenhams with these considerations that none but elect or true believers of the Gentiles are the seed of Abraham with whom the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is made nor are persons to be baptized for their interest in that Covenant except it be made manifest by their profession of faith and therefore neither can we say of any infant of a believing Gentile that he is in that covenant nor if we could were it to be baptized till by profession or other waies its faith did manifest it to be a Disciple of Christ. In the 4. chapter Mr. Sidenham tells us of a being in Covenant according to the purpose of election in Gods heart which I allow and of being in Covenant in the face of the visible Church by the persons own visible profession which I deny not but for the other sort of being in covenant with God as in a political moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise to him and his heirs it 's a meer figment there being no such kind of being in Covenant in the time of the new Testament nor doth Mr. Sidenham bring one text of Scripture to prove it and for his reasons they prove it not 1. Saith he If men deny an external as well as internal being in covenant none can administer an external ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings But this reason is nothing to prove a political moral being in covenant without any act of Covenanting by either of the parties in Covenant I deny not but that all the elect are in Covenant with God in his purpose and so infants are in Covenant with God by Gods promise eiher to his son when he gave them to him or at some other time And I grant that visible professors of faith in Christ are in Covenant externally by their own act of covenanting and such may be baptized they being Disciples of Christ. 2. Nor did I ever say that no Ordinance must be administred to these which are not internally in Covenant 3. Nor do I count it any absurdity to say we may set a seal to a blank though I like not the expression in this sense a man may lawfully be baptized to whom God hath not promised to be his God 4. And I have shewed we have certain evidence of visible professors being in covenant for we hear their profession and see theiâ— actions and their rule by which baptism is to be administred but of infants we have no evidence of their being in covenant by profession of faith according to which we are to be baptized yea we have evidence to the contrary and their being in covenant according to election is uncertain and if it were certain yet till they be actual believers or Disciples of Christ we have no rule to baptize them by nor is there a jot brought by Mr. Sidenham to prove they are in Covenant by their parents faith onely in Gospel times Nor doth any thing Mr. Sidenham hath said answer that which he saith is the great question I and we all urge that if God made the
baptism So that Mr. Sidenhams answer is onely to the Consectary infer'd from the Conclusion deduced not to the premises no nor the first conclusion it self For the argument is this If Abrahams natural children had not right to baptism without their own faith and repentance But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently noâ— infants to be baptized Again if Abrahams children were not in the covenant without faiâ—h and repentance neither are ours for we have no more priviledge for our children then Abrahams had But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently a believers child is not in covenant because a believers child Yet once more If persons circumcised and descendended from Abraham were not therefore admitted to baptism then the same thing doth not intitle to baptism which did intitle to circumâ—ision nor the command of circumcision a command concerning baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently infants are not to be baptized because they were to be circumcised Now Mr Sidenhams answer is to the allegation of John Baptists not baptizing infants not at all to any of these arguments drawn from his refusing the Pharisees though coming to his baptism and conceiving they might having Abraham to their Father Yet what Mr. Sidenham faith takes away the force of the argument if it had been thus made Those we are not to baptize whom John did not baptize but Iohn did not baptize infants Ergo. Yea his answer strengthens the argument For if Johns baptism were at the first institution of baptism and infants were not baptized then neither are they to be now For the first institution is the rule of observing it as the Lord Christ himself urgeth concerning marriage Matth. 19.4 and Paul concerning the Lords Supper 1 Cor. â—1 23. If baptism were a new institution and did require actuall visible believers as the first subject of it then it is not all one with circumcision which admitted infants at the first institution then such onely are to be baptizâ—d except some further Institution can be shewed the institution for infan-circumcision is not sufficient for infant-baptismâ— for that was in force as much at the first institution of baptism as after It is false that they could not baptize their children first that is at the first institution John Baptist and the Dâ—sciples of Christ might have baptized infants at first as well as Abraham circumcisâ—d them yea ought to have done it If Paedobaptists say true that the command of circumcision was the Rule in force concerning baptism nor need the parents be neglected no not though they had baptized the children first in order of time yea the right of the child being contemporary with the parenâ—s faith if they say true they should have been baptized as soon as ever â—he parent was a believer or the child in covenant Gods Covenant with Abraham was to him and his seed but his covenant was never made to every believer and his seed In the new Testament God renews the Covenant wiâ—h Abraham in respect of spirituall blessings but for the promises domestick or civill he doth not renew it He adds to the new Covenant the sâ—al of Christs death whose blood confirmed it and the initiating seal of his Spirit I know no other initiating seal added to it It is not true that the â—nâ—w covenant or covenent of grace was entail'd before to a certain line though the covenant with Abraham in respect of the civill domistick promises were entail'd to Abrahams naturall posterity and is now cut off Nor is the covenant every way of the same nature with Abrahams covenant nor upon a believers entering his name is the promise to him and his seed nor is it Acts 2.38 39. said that upon their repenting and being baptized themselves that the promise is to them and their children but the being of the promise to them and their children is urged as a consideration fit to move them to repent and be baptizd He next sets down 4 affirmations 2. That no man must be baptized or receive an ordinance by any fleshly prerogative Answer Then no infant is to be baptized by vertue of birth from a believer for that is a fleshly prerogative as the birth of Christ was but a fleshly prerogative to David the virgin Mary though there were an entail of a promise to them of this thing so is the imagined birth-priviledge of believers infants and yet there is no promise to retain it to a believers child 2. That no person grown up to years of udderstanding hath right to a sealing ordinance but upon his own personall qualification Answer Then Mr. Blake did erre in intituling unbelieving Jewes to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessing them in the prerogatives of Gods visible people 2. There is no other right to an infant to baptism than what a grown person hath The third affirmation I grant and the fourth too if there were any such old priviledges of the promise to be conveyed to those which do really embrace the Gospel and their seed And this grant that those Pharisees and Sadduces had demonstrated themselves to be onely the children of the flesh and not of the promise and that they were excluded shews the covenant as Evangelical not to be made to a believers naturall seed nor they thereby have right to baptism SECT XXX Of the meaning of Mr. M. his second Conclusion the ambiguitie of which is shewed I now return to Mr. M. whose second Conclusion was thus expressed Ever since God gathered a distinct select number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie houshold in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdome citie houshold of Satan he would have the iâ—fants of all who are taken into covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the Devils This conclusion bâ—ing the main pillar upon which he settles Infant-baptism the Antecedent of his Euthymem I examined with great diâ—igence after the exact manner of Scholastick Writers in their Disputes Which dealing of mine being indeed the oneâ—y way to clear truth and approved by a learned member of the Assembly Mr R.C. of P.C.O. and known to be one of the most accurate disputants in his time in Oxford yet Mr M. pag. 105. of his Defence in a most injâ—rious though frivolous way traduceâ—h as an indirect Artifice To which some answer is given in my Apologie sect 5. pag 23 I shall now view the reply he makes First he compares my dealing with an unnam'd person in Cambridge whose faculty was to make a clear text dark by his Interpretation whereas my way was the true and onely way to clear his meaninâ— by distinction which is by Logicians called the light of speech and in all consideration of things to be first as Keckerm Log Syst part 2. lib. 1. c. 1 spâ—aks Noâ— hâ—â—h Mr M. shewed in his Defence that any of those
and have those that have promised as sureties the infant should believe and obey Christ which they have not been able to perform but have taken on them Christs prerogative Heb. 7.22 Nor is the baptism of the infant his sign or seal he being meerly passive as they say and so doing no act nor engaging thereby and if the parent do engage for the child the parent should be baptized for the child if baptism be the baptized party his seal But as I said I do not call baptism a seal of the covenant and therefore am not tied at all to answer this Argument except to shew the fuciâ—ity of it For which end 1. the mannâ—r of speech is liable to exception in the use of the term Proper Covenant which I imagine Mr. B. useth unskilfully for Properly so called 2. There is no proof of the Major from this that Baptism or the Sacrament is a mutuall engaging sign or seal For that proves rather that baptism or the Sacrament it self is a proper covenant than that that which is sealed by the Sacraments is a proper Covenant 3. Nor doth it follow That if the very definition of a proper Covenant be that it must be a mutuall engagement that which is sealed by the Sacraments must be a proper covenant but onely proves that upon supposition that the covenant sealed to by the Sacraments must be a proper covenant that then it must be with restipulation or mutuall engaging 4. though Lawyers do determine that a covenant properly so called is a mutuall engagement yet this proves not that which in Scripture is termed the covenant which they say baptism seals is such Yea in all the places that I know where the covenant of grace is mentioned there is no restipulation at all mentioned neither Gen. 17. nor Jer. 31. nor Luke 1. nor Heb. 8 10. But where there is a restipulation it is rather the covenant of the Law than of the Gospel 5. That which is a meer prophesie or promise is as properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Covenant as a mutuall engagement as I shall shew hereafter against Mr. Bl. 6. Nor do I know why that may not be a mutuall engagement if the absolute promise were sealed to by the Sacrament as well as if the conditionall For if the engagement in the conditionall covenant on Gods part is that if he believe he shall be justified and on mans part that he will believe or rather in baptism he testifies he doth believe The absolute promise is to give faith Is not God and Man in like manner engaged by baptism in sealing this as well as the other 7. I know not how it can be truly said That Baptism as given is Gods seal and as accepted Mans seal For neither doth God give baptism to be accepted but his promise nor is the baptized said to accept baptism but the promise Nor is there any act of God which may be called his Seal but he covenants and I presume they will not confound Covenant and Seal 8. Nor doth the infant accept or seal or engage and therefore in infant-baptism there is no covenant or seal 9 By this description of Mr. B. there should be a mutuall seal and so a severall seal and not baptism Gods and Mans seal too For according to the manner of sealing Covenants which are mutuall as the one party seals with his own seal so the other party seals with his own distinct seal and so if baptism be Gods seal the party bapâ—ized should have another seal to signifie his engagement 10. Mr. B. tells me that Grotius de jure belli and other Lawyers will inform me that the very definition of a proper Covenant is that it must be a mutuall engagement But he doth not tell me where it is in Grotius nor in what other Lawyer I have lightly looked over the â—1 Chapter of the second book of Grot. de jure belli ac pacis which is de promissis and some other following and find not that which Mr. B. saith but find ch 11. sect 5. that he determines that of an infant is no promise because the use of reason is required to a promise and therefore in infant-baptism there is no restipulation or mutuall engagement and so no proper covenant by Mr B. his doctrine But what ever other Lawyers say I am mistaken if it be not usuall with the Lawyers in conveyances to use this expression That the seller is said to covenant to and with such a person who makes no restipulation or reciprocall engagement And both in the Scottish covenant and in our solemn League and Covenant I find covenanters engaged to do many things without any restipulation or reciprocall engagement and therefore do not conceive it necessary to a covenant that it be a mutual engagement or with restipulation Mr. B. adds 2. If it were the absolute promise of the first grace that is sealed by the Sacraments then the Sacraments must be given to no man or to all men but that is absurd therefore so is the former The consequent is manifest because that absolute promise or prophesie is onely of the elect and that before regeneration Now no man hath any sign given him so much as probable by which to judge of the unregenerate elect so that it must either be given to all or none Answer The whole frame of this Argument depends on these mistakes 1. That a person hath title to baptism by vertue of its interest in Gods covenant of grace and that accordingly a Minister is to baptize 2. That a probable sign of such interest warrants the baptism of the party so interessed which I have often proved to be false and that nothing but manifest discipleship certainly known to the baptizer warrants him to do it And indeed if we must baptize according to that rule of persons interest in the covenant probably signified Salvages in New England are to be baptized upon the probable signes they give of being wrought upon by a Sermon afore they know and profess the faith of Christ and few or no infants are baptized there being either no sign given to any man of their being in covenant or at most but of very few of the baptized Mr. B. Ap. to his Aphor. p. 70. If a Minister adventure to administer it upon probability then should he be guilty of prophâ—ning the ordinance 3. Saith Mr B. Or we may argue thus It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments But it cannot be known before the fulfilling no not at all to whom particularly that absolute promise doth belong therefore that absâ—lut promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments Answer 1. By denying the Major 2. By retorting the argument thus It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments But it cannot be known ordinarily in this to whom particularly the conditionall promise
according to men children of the promise as Mr C speaks Heb 4 1 4 proves not that the promise of grace and glory may be to one as his legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short For though there be mention of a promise left yet not of a promise left to any that come short of it unless by being left be meant propounded or tendered onely Antipaedobaptists do grant they admit false brethren to baptism and the Lords Supper called by Mr Cobbet seals of Church and Covenant fellowship but it is not in them to admit them into the fellowship of covenant meaning the covenant of grace for that is Gods peculiar We admit them to baptism on this ground not because to us they are in covenant we suspend any judgement about their interest in the covenant as being out of our cognizance and no Rule for us to admit or keep back from baptism but because we know them to be professors of faith in Christ. If by Blanks be meant such as to whom the promise of the covenant of grace is not made and by Seals Baptism and the Lords Supper we think we do ordinarily put seals to a blank nor do we make scruple thereof or think it true that the seal must follow the covenant or that Gen 17.9 10 11 13. Acts 2 38 39. 1 Cor 11 25 prove it That it is not taught Gen 17.7 10 11 13 Ast 28 39 is shewed in the fore part of this Review Sect 5 and in this part Sect 5 8 13 20 21 22 23 37 and elswhere 1 Cor. 11 25 the cup in the Lords Supper is called the new Testament in Christs blood but that all or onely those who are in the covenant of grace must have the the cup is not proved thence and the falshood of it is shewed above often We do not say when we admitted persons to baptism we judged them to be in the covenant of grace else we had not admitted them but we knew they professed faith in Christ and so were Disciples of Christ and thereupon admitted them according to our Rule Matth. 28 19 leaving it to the Lord whether they be in the covenant of Grace or no we being not directed to enquire whether they were in the covenant of grace but whether believers and disciples by profession I for my part agree not to it that either according to Scripture or the best Protestants any are said to be children of the promise or that the covenant of Evangelicall grace in the N. T. confirmed by Christs blood is made to them or belongs to them besides the elect Such Doctrine gives great advantage to the Arminians undermines perseverance in grace and the Polemicall Doctrine of our choice Divines as I shewed Exâ—men part 3. Sect. 4. and elswhere in this part of the Review Mr. Norton Mr C. his Colleague commended by Mr Cotton with Mr Cobbet as a prime writer in the New English Churches Resp. ad syl quaest Apollon p. 30. saith Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi objectum faederis Ecclesiastici sunt tum electi tum reprobi My own Tertulliâ—n in his book de Anima chap. 21 22 when he urgeth that Texâ— 1 Cor 7 14 for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed means not the federall holiness Mr C. teacheth but holiness by reason of the freedom from that unholiness in their procreation which the Infidels children had from the many gross idolatrous superstitions by which they were defiled and as it were dedâ—cated to the Divell as I shew in my Apologie Sect 16 page 85. Paraeus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancthon Mr. Philpot are all Neotericks Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerom Austin though they did plead for Paedobaptism from the Argument of Circumcision yet did not mâ—inâ—ain Infants covenant-estate as Mr. C. but a necessity of baptism to Infants ready to die because of the Text The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people Gen 17 1â— Instances whereof in Augustine and others are many cited by Chamier Pausir Tom 4 l 3 c. 3 Sect 39 40 41. And they thought the Infant dying baptized was infallibly saved whether believers child or not As for others they denied their entring into the kingdom of heaven as I shew you in my Examen part 1. Sect 7 8 9 10. I have often considered Zech 11 10 and I conceive the sense as Mr C. makes it of the covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9 and their externall right in that his covevenant to be very vain For if it be meant of the covenant of grace then it is as much as to say That I might not write my Lawes in their heart forgive their sins c. as I â—romised them Jer. 31.33 and then God should break his promise theâ—e should be falling from the covenant of grace c. If the sense be of the covenant of grace in respect of externall administration thereof amongst them and their externall right in that his covenanâ— then it is as if he had said That I might take away Circumcision the Passover and the rest of the Temple-service and the peoples right to them For what is the externall administration of the covenant of grace but the seals as they call them and the rest of the service of the Sanctuary Now this neither agrees to the phrase for Circumcision is never called Gods covenant with all the people and to break circumcision what is it but either to draw up the fore-skin and to forbid circumcision If this be referred to the time of Christs coming this had not been a prediction of an evill to them but of a benefit to be eased of that yoak verse 9 mentions not externall administration of the covenant of grace or externall right there o. But whenever it was accomplished whether at the siege of Jerusalem or at some other time it was the taking away of some who might be their protectors whereby they were exposed to destruction which whether they were the Maccabees or some others may be doubted However it is so frigid an interpretation to interpert it as Mr C. doth that methinks he should be ashamed to blot paper with it The Covenant ch 10. whether it were that Gen. 17. or that Exod. 19. or 24. or Deut. 29. â—t is certain it is meant not of the Covenant of grace common to all believers Gentiles or Jews but of the covenant which he made with the Israelitish nation which he brake by taking away their Leaders whether Governors or Teachers Maccabees or some other and so exposing them to ruin by the Grecian or Roman Lords or some other Psal. 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31 32 33. to deal falsly in Gods Covenant and to forsake the holy Covenant and to do wickedly against the Covenant do not intimate that Mr. C. would infer that there are some said
That the Apostles reasoning Rom. 9.4 6. compared mentions any such Church-seed of Abraham or takes them in as such but onely the elect Mr C. doth falsly charge his adversaries doctrine as denying any interest at all to any believers infants in the covenant I have often granted it to the elect but to none as believers infants Mr Baillee charged me with this thing to which I answered in my Letter to him Sect. 1. our doctrine is as comfortable as theirs when they speak truth It is no Gospel but a dream to affirm what Mr. C. doth of Abrahams fancied Church-seed though it be Gospel to say God will be a God to Abrahams spirituall seed elect and true believers SECT XL. Animadversions on Sect. 5. of the same Chapter shewing that Mr. C. his supposed visible interest in Gods covenant is not the rule in baptizing SEct. 5 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion That the Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the covenant of grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the covenant to guide her in the application thereof Nor is the saving interest of persons in view which is her rule by which she is therin to proceed Concerning which I say that I grant it if the terms be altered into plainer expressions as thus The baptizer in the admitting a person to baptism is not bound to stay baptism till he know a person hath saving interest in Gods covenant of grace but it is sufficient if he be a visible disciple or believer to admit him to baptism And that M. C. may cease his wonder he who confessed that it 's not to be denied that God would havâ— infants of believers in some sense to be counted his to belong to his Church and Family not to the Divels as true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis c. doth not oppose his fourth Conclusion reduced to the plain terms I have set it down 〈◊〉 Yet there are sundry things in which I oppose him 1. That he makes it the Churches business to dispense the initiatory seale as he calls it of the covenant of grace which I â—ake to belong to him that is sent or used to make disciples by preaching the Gospel not to the Church 2. That he maketh the rule of baptizing to be visible interest in the covenant which according to the institution is visible discipleship or faith 3. That he takes that person to have visible interest in the covenant of grace so as to have right therby to baptism who neither by extraordinary revelation from God nor by any act of his own but barely by his parents profession hath a pretended visible interest in the covenant But let 's examine what he saith because he seems to be the selected man in New England to plead for Infant-baptism Whether John the Baptist did admit to baptism those which he knew would prove false and frothy is doubtfull Mr Norton Mr Cs. Colleague Resp. ad Appollon c. Prop 1. seems to hold the negative and cites to that purpose Paraus and Aretius I agree with Mr. C. in his position That personâ— may be baptiâ—ed upon visible profession without knowledge of the saving state of the party yet I do not think Ananias and Sapphira or Simon Magus were known hypoâ—â—ites when â—hey were bâ—ptized nor do I think the Texts Mr C. allegeth Acts 21.20 c or 22 20 c. or 23 12 13 prove that any of those baptized Acts 2.41 or 4.1 2.3 4. were of the number of them that opposed Paul or proved false If Christ did say to Iudas that his body was broken or given fâ—r him and his blood shed it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of universall redemption I think it the safest and most likely tenent that Judas went out afore the Lords Supper For the Passover it was not administred to Judas by Christ nor do I know what warrant we have to make it a seal of the covenant or to belong to a Minister of the seals as they speak It was a rite instituted to remember the delivery out of Egypt ond appointed to be used by each family without any other administration than the providing slaying dressing and bringing to the Table If the Prist did any thing in it it was at the Temple not at the Table each person was to take himself according to his eating Abraeham and Isaac did circumcise Ishmael Esau rightly according to Gods command which is the rule in administring ordinances not covenant-inâ—erest But that they did circumcise as Prophets or Priests at that time to the Church in their families it is said without proof The business of circumcising was not the work of a person as a Prophet or Priest to his family but did belong to the parent or some other in his stead though no Prophet nor Priest Chamier Paustr cath tom 4 l 5 c. 14. sect 9 10 saith We read of no certain Minister of Circumcision either in the institution or elswhere so that there 's no obstacle but that Zipporah and the woman in the second of Maccabees c. 6. might circumcise So there is nothing read by which the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was wont to be done in each family is prohibited though no Priests were used Ishmael and Esau and Iudas were not visibly interessed in the covenant being discovered by God and Christ to be such as had no interest in it That a Minister cannot of himself admit to baptism or reject from it regularly but by and with the Churches consent is dictated without proof I grant that if particular persons saving interest in Gods covenant and promise of grace were the Rule to baptize by administrators could not observe the rule in faith but doubtingly But that such visible interest in the Covenant as Mr C. means is therefore the rule to baptize by follows not What or where A. R. suggests to the contrary I find not nor doth Mr C. tell us What he adds I say visibility of the parties interest in the covenant I say not meer visibility of faith and repentance is quite besides the Scripture which never appoints persons to be baptized because of their visible interest in the covenant but their visible faith and repentance He tells us The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mens faith and repentance or obedience but of Gods covenant rather the seal is to the covenant even Abrahams circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousness but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant yea to the covenant it self or promise which he had believed unto righteousness Hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith Rom. 10.6 7 8. The righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise v. 8. and the word of faith Hence albeit Abraham must walk before God who is now about to enlarge the covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church-reference Gen. 17.1 c. yet the
of the Covenant of grace in Gospel times And Jer. 34.18 19 20 is ridiculously alledged sith it speaks not of the Covenant Evangelical but of the particular Covenant which Zedekiah and the Princes of Judah made to let their Hebrew servants go free which they brake contrary to the Law Yet to shew Mr. Bls. futility in arguing there is no consequence in this reasoning In mens Covenants there are that enter Covenant and keep it and others that in like manner do enter into Covenant and not keep it and so men enter into Covenant with God and some keep it and some not therefore they that hold that God makes his Covenant of Evangelical grace onely with the elect regenerate do confound the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or the duties required in it or the entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it For the distinction remains still between all these though they be eonjoyned in the same persons as heat and light are distinct though together in flame and justification and sanctification though conjoyned in the same persons Yea sith Mr. Bl. holds some that enter into Covenant are stedfast in it he makes according to his own superficial arguing the same confusion we do and so falls into the same imagined absurdity The 2d absurdity Mr. Bl. would fasten on the tenet that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times is limited to the elect is that then there is no such thing as an hypocrite in the world as in reference towards God For an hypocrite is one that personates the man that he is not an hypocrite respective to religion and in Scripture use of the phrase is one that pretends for God and is not Gods now according to this opinion that onely regenerate men are in Covenant there is no such thing as an hypocrite no such sin as hypocrisi where the Gospel is preached God makes tender of himself in Covenant and in case none but regenerate persons enter Covenant then onely they take upon them the persons of people in relation to him Answ. If Mr. Bl. and other Paedobaptists had any will to deal â—onestly as men that sought to clear truth and not to pervert readâ—rs they would being so often particularly in my Postscript § 6. admonished distinguish of being in Covenant by their own aâ—t of covenanting and Gâ—ds act of promising I never denâ—ed that in respect of their own act of â—ovenanting mere visible professors may bâ— said to be in Covenant with God but denied that in respâ—ct of Gods act of promising which alone was in question sith the question being of infants they cannot be said to be in Covenant with God by their owâ— act of covenanting but only by Gods act of promising any other â—hen elect persons are in Covenant with God Now I grant it that of them to whom the Gospel-covenant is made by God there is none an hypocrite but there be hypocrites of those that enter into Covenant with God that is of those that promise to be Gods and are noâ— to whom though God tenders himself in Covenant yet he makes no Covenant or promise to them of Evangelical grace and therfore notwithstanding this imagined absurdity yet the position is true that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times as made by God to men is limited to the elect The 3d. absurdity is then no Minister in any Church may baptize any person for none can now discern infâ—llibly whether a person be regenerate and Mr. Bl. findes Christ giving charge to disciple Nations and to baptise them but findes him not giving Commission that when in the judgement of charity men have cause to conceive them to be disciples then to baptize them The Apostles staid not for observation of those signes that might in a well-grounded chariâ—y perswade that they were regenerate persons And these that fix it here â—oo ordinarily make interests the chief ground to carry their charity to a more favourable construction They that are most like to make a party with them or drive on interest their way must be â—udged persons meet for baptism of this in a shorâ— time we have large experience Those that gather up Churches and initiate them by baptism the way of the Apostles I confess in case that they would make good that they have to deal with Heathens and therefore a way of more colour then theirs that set up new Churches and retain the old baptism we see what manner of saints are received among them such that civil persons respective to sobriety chastity or upright dealing with men cannot without stain of their reputation make their companions Answ. Paedobaptists do usually plead that infants are in the Covenant of grace therefore they are to be baptized The antecedent can be meant of being in the Covenant of grace no otherwise then by Gods act of promise to be the God of a believers seed therefore they make the being in Covenant by Gods act of promise to be a persons God the rule of baptizing Now I assert that God hath not promised to be a God to any man or his seed in respect of Evangelical grace but the elect Therefore this absurdity is justly charged on the Paedobaptists that according to their hypotheses no Minister can baptize any infant in faitâ— Foâ— he must â—aptize according to them onely those infants that are in Covenant and whom he knowes to be in Covenant but those infants onely are in Covenant who are elect and no Minister can know which infant is elect or in Covenant with God which not all infants are not no not of believers not all Abrahams or Isaacs Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. Therefore according to this rule no Paedobaptist can baptize any infant in faith and a judgement of charity Mr. M. Mr. Bl. and others agree and that according to truth is not it we are to baptize by So that this absurdity doth unavoidably follow on Paedobaptists opinion which Mr. Bl. endeavours but in vain to fasten on us who do often disclaim baptizing persons upon their being in Covenant with God by his act of promise to be their God as our rule and do continually assert our baptizing persons because disciples by profession and by reason of their own covenanting to follow Christ which Mr. Bl. confesseth to be according to Christs Commission and the Apostles way in dealing with Heathens and therefore the absurdity follows not our opinion but the Paedobaptists who can baptize no infant by their rule because they cannot know any infant whom they are to baptize to be in the Covenant of grace As for Mr. Bls. confession that our practise is the way of the Apostles in case we would make good that we have to deal with Heathens I wonder Mr. Bl. a learned man should require us to make good that which of it self is so manifest For sure we have to deal with Heathens or with Jews siâ—h all the men in
may be said oâ— Mr. Bl. answering me afore he had studied my writings he hath said enough to shew his folly and to work his shame My candour p. 23. is ordinary where there is the like cause I conceive the election of bodies societies or nations in the sense I have often given may bee as well into the invisible Church of true believers as into the visible Church of true professors and that the election of the Gentiles by which they were ingraffed was into the invisible Church of true believers Of Calvins and Bâ—cers words I shall say no more having not â—he books Mr. Bl. p. 314. adds Mr. G. syllogistically concluding that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy outward Church priviledges Mr. T. sect 4. replies that it is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved which is that the Christian Jews and their seed were in infancy to be baptised But by his favour he that concludes the whole concludes the parts of the whole Outward Church-priviledges is the whole baptism is a part of the whole concluding Church priviledges he concludes baptism as hee that can conclude Mr. T. is at Lempster or Sudbury concludes also that his head and shoulders are And if any priviledge bee concluded then baptism is concluded which is the leading one among Church-priviledges Answ. Omitting Mr. Bls. snarling at my dwellings in Lemster and Ledbury for so hee means I observe how well he pleads for Mr. G. who would have him conclude that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy in infancy outward Church-priviledges as a whole and consequently Baptism as a part Which if it were Mr. Gs. arguing hee should by the same reason have concluded their enjoying the Lords Supper and Church office Nor is the other plea much better For some priviledge may be concluded as laying on hands for a sign of prayer as Christ did and yet not baptism For though baptism be the leading priviledge after a person is brought to the faith yet afore a person is a believer if there be any leading Church-priviledg competent to infants it must be laying on of hands the Scripture giving no hint of any other The distinction I give in the first part of my Review sect 4. p. 28. is handsome being set down as it is by me there though Mr. Bl. carp at it for those priviledges which Mr. G. termes Gospel priviledges and I term so in answer to him as keeping his term I may say of them if they may be so called and not rather legal Mr. Bs. words the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Churchmembership and the repealing of the ordinance therfore where there is no breaking off from the Church there is no such revoking or repealing do justifie the title of the 6th sect of the first part of my Review That the breaking off Rom. 11.17 was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning infants visible Churchmembership as Mr. B. conceive which Mr. Bl. opposeth with me And his first reason the deserving cause of that breaking off is unbelief now unbelief is not in infants much less proper to infants serves to prove that the infants of unbelievers are not broken off for unbelief is not in them and that infants of believers are not graffed in For as the deserving cause of breaking off iâ— unbelief which is not in infants so the means of graffing in by the rule of opposites is faith which is not in infants And when in his 2d reason he saith this breaking off was of the general body of the Church of the Jews that is the major part Now infants were not the generality they made not up the major part of that body this serves to answer what Mr. Bl. before p. 307. and elsewhere would infer that if the Gentiles or the body of them be elect then all must be so whereas the body according to himself may stand for the major part or generality which he denies infants to be and therefore the body and genâ—rality may be ingraffed and not infants Mr. Bls. exceptions against my distinctions of breaking off because breaking off implied a former union are vain for there may be a breaking off from that union which they had not in their own persons specially when the breaking off is of a people nor is it usual to term thâ—se acts privations of habits which take not away habits that were but might have been as when we are said to be redeemed delivered from hell to be cast out into outer darkness Matth. 8.12 though never in heaven But were not this right but non-sense yet Mr. â—ls exceptions against the distinctions is frivolous For in those distinctions I do not set down the wayes of breaking off that were actually but such as are imaginable which is necessary when we go about to argue by a disjunctive syllogism as all Logicians know Yet what Mr. Bl. saith excommunication is not the breaking off meant Rom. 11.17 20. For that is the act of the Church on some particular member But this here is the act of God which is by taking away the Kingdome by removing their Candlestick departing with his presence is right if understood of the subtracting of the presence of his spirit as well as his word Which is to be conceived for the word was offered and preached to them when they were broken off and therefore they were not broken off barely by subtracting that Besides the ingraffing is not by bare outward ordinances for they were vouchsafed even to the broken off and consequently the fâ—tness of the Olive is not the bare priviledge of outward Ordinances And if it be not the Churches act but Gods by which there is ingraffing then infants are not ingraffed who have no act of God to ingraff them but onely that of the Church or administratour of Baptism Mr. Bls. talk of the Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership begun in the great Charter of heaven and continued is but vapouring Mr. Bl. mis recites Mr. Bs antecedent which was not as hee repeats it That the Jews were cast off for unbelief but that none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief which I denied and Mr. Bls. exceptions is frivolous But the text assignes unbelief Mr. T. assignes no other cause then that must stand To which I reply and so it doth by my answer and yet I do assign another cause Gods act of executing his decree of reprobation To what I said that the unbelief being positive Rom. 10.21 if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant no infants no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off he saith we easily yeild his conclusion if he frame it in a syllogism that the infants of infidels that never heard of Christ were never broken off They could never be broken off that were never taken in A branch of a bramble was never broken off
Pemble vind Fidei sect 2. c. 3. sect 4. c. 1 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham who had not to glory before God nor was justified by works Rom. 4.1 2 c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former when he saith Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith But of this by the way That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house 1 Tim. 3.15 2 Cor. 6.16 and separate Act. 13.2 2 Cor. 6.17 that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament though it were true yet proves no more but this that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described the Old Testament is necessary but not that which is to be proved that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old Mr. C. adds p 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.24 Mar. 10.14 Acts 15.10 Mat. 28.19 which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review I need onely to refer the Reader thither Yet I add it is but said without any proof that 1 Cor. 7.14 that children are termed holy because they come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth and separateth from that which is common or unclean For 1. there 's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents 2. Nor that the scope analysis allusion in the Text leads to such an exposition 3. Nor doth it follow that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth God blessed Noah and his sons Gen. 9.1 yet all of them were not sanctified yea many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons Psal. 107.38 Ierem. 12.1 much less is it true that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy yet not blessed 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24 are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers or that they are to be accounted holy by us till God hath purified their hearts by faith Acts. 15.9 And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation till they profess the faith such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation without profession of faith by each person so accounted there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples upon their own profession so judged no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith though wee know not them to be inherently holy or in the Covenant of grace Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy because they are not onely within the Covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate 1 Cor. 7.14 that it had been but affirming the thing is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards or that he â—scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11 and 9.12 is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect 11 c. to the end of the Book that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered without shewing the insufficiency of the answers if hee meant candidly as one that endeavoured to clâ—er the truth But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building that upon this account not onely children of believers but also nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations To this he answers The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for nations they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy Ref. I reply the objection in form stands thus They which come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. must be reputed holy This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. â—04 and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism I subsume But nations yea all nations come under the word of bâ—essing from God in as much as that word was not onely confirmed unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. and if the word families bee taken as Mr. C. seems to take it for housholds and all housholds then the same objection is concerning all in housholds servants wives as well as children they come under the bleâ—â—ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition Ergo according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition
repent and then to be baptized no rule by which the baptizer is to administer it or the baptized to claim it as his right without his personal repentance and declaration of his faith in Christ into whose name he is to be baptized He adds So Act. 10. Peter saith there is no let to their Baptism and thereof he maketh the visibility of that Covenant grace although common to reprobates also in those first times his groundwork gathering thereby that they were not as formerly prophane unclean and outlaries from the Covenant as Ephes. 2.11 12. but clean and nigh as they themselves were Ans. It is true there was no let to Cornelius his Baptism and those other who were with him yet not meerly because of their extraordinary gifts but because those gifts were manifested by their glorifying God and as may be gathered from Act. 11.17 18. their glorifying God contained expressions of faith in Christ and repentance which whosoever should do as they did it is without doubt they should be baptized But Mr. Cs. Covenant interest of infants who make no shews of faith and repentance as they did Act. 10.46 yeelds no warrant for their Baptism He goes on Washing of regeneration is not grounded on any thing in us or without us so much as on Gods grace and so Covenant favour Tit. 3.5 Answ. It is true this is the inward impulsive cause why God regenerates but Gods grace and Covenant favour is no rule to a Minister to baptize by sith it is an unknown thing which agrees not with the property of a rule Hence also saith Mr. C. by Baptism persons are not sealed into any thing in them so much as into the name of the Father Son and Spirit even into the Covenant name of grace whereby he is known and into Covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinity to which every baptized person prove he elect or reprobate yet is thus externally sealed Answ. The terming of baptizing sealing and the name of the Father Son and Spirit the Covenant name of grace are Mr. Cs. new-minted phrases if this be his meaning that every person rightly baptized whether he be elect or reprobate is sealed by God that is in Baptism assured of fellowship with the Trinity according to the new Covenant of Gospel grace I deny it if onely that he professeth his communion to be with them I grant it but this proves not that Covenant interest of infants who make no such profession intitles them to Baptism Again saith he That fellowship with Christ as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgement of verity or charity such it is all but Covenant grace and blessing Answ. Be it so yet what this is to prove such fellowship to be a rule to baptize infants I see not Of old saith Mr. C. the consequent cause of the seal was grace in them and theirs but the antecedent cause was Gods Covenant grace to them and on them Gen. 17.7 8 9. Deut. 30.6 and so now that part of Abrahams Covenant was not then appliable to infants scil walk before me c. but yet that was then appliable I will be their God I will circumcise their hearts and that sufficed them as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now Answ. What may be said to be a consequent cause I do not yet conceive the rule of Logick I have learned is that the cause is before the effect Yet what ever it be Mr. C. means though it might suffice for Circumcision it doth not for Baptism nor is that to be regulated by Analogy of Circumcision as is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 2 3. Yet again In a word the seal is a seal not of nor to the commandment but covenant this therefore is the main and principal in the application of it Answ. If Baptism be a seal it seems to me not a seal of or to the commandment or covenant but the profession of the baptized and therefore this is the main and principal in the application of it Yet more It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force in the fruit of the initiatory seal and the application of it Ephes. 5.25.26 and why shall not the external interest in the covenant have chief influence into the external interest as well of the application of the initiatory seal Answ. I understand not what fruit of the initiatory seal he means nor what is the external interest in the Covenant the word Ephes. 5.25 26. Is meant of the word preached which is not instrumental to infants for any santification or cleansing their meant The want of Gods appointment is the reason of not applying Baptism to infants Once more By external interest in the Covenant persons so interested come to have external interest at least to the final causes of Baptism as Covenant mercy and blessing the Spirit Christ resurrection c. Tit. 3 8. and 1. Cor 12.12 13. 1. Pet. 3.21 And therefore as well so farre inrighted in the initiatory seal of it whether they are adult or infants Answ. 1. External interest in the covenant external interest in the final causes of Baptism are notions I understand not 2. Covenant mercy and blessing the spirit Christs resurrection are not final cause of Baptism for then when the end of Baptism is attained they should be effects of Baptism for the end in intention is the effect in execution But this is too absurd 3. An inrighting so far in the initiatory seal which intimates a man may have an inrighting so far to such a measure and no further is another new notion I understand not 4. If Mr. Cs. antecedent had sense or truth yet the consequence is to be denied no other interest external is inrighting to Baptism but that which is according to the institution Matth. 28.19 discipleship or profession of faith To the 8th Sect. I answer by denying that the Covenant priviledge of grace Evangelical hath such distinction of principal and less principal counter parties as Mr. means C. unless he understand by Christ the principal and the elect and true believers the less principal as Gal. 3.16 and that the Covenant priviledges of grace Evangelical belong to any other then the elect yet I grant the Covenant Gen. 17. and many priviledges of Divine grace which were not Evangelical did belong to many of the Israelites who made no good use thereof The Covenant Evangelical was never sealed personally to Ishmael That which Mr. C. dictates without proof about the everlasting covenant and the initial seal in its generical nature is answered here sect 80. and the point about the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed sect 50 c. and the non-inclusion of infants Matth. 28.19 under the term nation is shewed there and in the second part of this Review sect 9. The position of Mr. Cs. sect 9. may be granted though Acts 2.38 39. make nothing for it Sect. 10. Mr. C. proves nothing but that parents were to
take care that their children were circumcised that which he saith of the children begotten on prohibited women Ezra 9. and Timothy begotten on a Jewish woman by a Grecian husband that they were circumcised Act. 16.1 2 3. proves this that the children who were not of the Congregation of Israel and so no visible Churchmembers were to be circumcised nor had Covenant interest The case controverted 1 Cor. 7.14 was onely concerning the persons unequally yoked not concerning their children Acts 2.33 39. Is not a word to prove parents are to take care of the infants baptism nor Gen. 7.1 with 1 Pet. 3.21 there being not an infant in the Ark nor typical Baptism being a rule concerning formal Baptism of Christians if it were Masters must take care to baptize their house yea their married children though as prophane as Cham and their wives with them How impertinently 1 Cor. 10.2 is alledged is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 21. What Mr. C. observes out of Exod. 12.44 48 49. that a stranger was not to eate the Passeover except all his males were circumcised if it be right yet it makes nothing for proof of parents duty to see their infants baptized there being no such institution about Baptism and the Lords Supper as was about Circumcision and the Passeover It is granted that the words Exod. 12.40 Will keep the Passeover to the Lord are meant onely of an adult person yet it is true also which I say in my Examen part 4. sect 6. That males not come to years of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper were to eat the Passeover and consequently if Mr. Cs. dictates were of any of any validity parents should see they eate Lords Supper I grant That God made Abraham Gen. 17.7 a common person as well in reference to us inchurched Gentiles as to the inchurched Jewes and Proselytes in point of Evangelical covenant interest but that hee should be so made in point of ingagement from covenant interest unto the receiving of the initiatory seal by parents and children Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11. is but Mr. Cs. fancy sufficiently refuted by this that if it were true then we Gentiles are bound to circumcise our infants which is the onely initiatory seal there meant contrary to Acts 15.24 Gal. 5.1 2. That which is true of Abraham and his natural seed must be applied to Abrahams spiritual seed true Believers of the Gentiles and their natural seed is but Mr. Cs. vain dream dictated without proof My grant in my Examen part 3. sect 1. pag. 37. as the words shew was not that children might be baptized vertually in their parents in exact speech so as to receive it in their own persons but onely in that sense in which Mr. M. said women were circumcised vertually in the males yet so as they might not be circumcised in their own persons which being considered my words yeild Mr. C. no advantage To the 11th section I grant that Matth. 28.19 ties not the Baptizer to know the baptized to be internally and savingly interested in the covenant But that it sufficeth that that sort or species of infants scil such like infants are in deed and truth of Christs Kingdome I utterly deny For then any infant in the world might be baptized because he is of that sort or species of infants scil such like infants are in deed and truth of Christs Kingdome Dare any say of no unbelievers infants is Christs Kingdome However it is true of Belivers though not inchurched and yet Mr. C. denies the right of the child if the parent be not inchurched Mr. Cs. reason are vain neither is our Lord Christs saying Luk. 18.16 any rule to us about baptizing nor was the rule of circumcising infants that some of that sort had the internal saving interest and efficacy of this promise I will be the God of thy seed but the command of God without which it is better to exclude all infants then upon our own heads to bring on our selves the guilt of will-worship by taking them in Which must of necessity fall on infant Baptizers after Mr. Cs. rule For Christs appointment was to baptize infants no otherwise then persons of years There is no difference in the words Matth 28.19 between the reason of baptizing one and the other But persons of years were not to be baptized by Mr. Cs. rule in that they are of that sort or species of persons scil such like persons are in deed and in truth of Christs Kingdome but onely upon their own discipleship or profession of faith as the practise thoroughout the Acts of the Apostles shews Therefore neither are Believers children to bee baptized after any other rule And yet infants are no more left in the wide wilderness or any whit less folded up in the Church by their non-baptizing then they are by their baptism If they of N. E. do fold them up in the Church why do they keep them from Church-communion till they bee made members by Church-covenant If it be better 99 who happily have not so peculiar a title thereto be folded up in the Church then that one of such lambs be left out in the wide wilderness are not they guilty of too much strictness in leaving out of the Church in the wide wilderness many weak lambs who are weak in faith because they do not satisfie the Church in the declaration of their experiences But this is the guise of men who are strict in their own inventions as in Church-covenant declaration of experiences for admission to Church-communion c. to bee loose about Gods commands as this of baptizing disciples of Christ is Enough in answer to these cloudy dictates of Mr. C. SECT LXXXVI The 13th and 14th Chapters of Mr. Rutherfords first part of the Covenant are examined and found to make nothing for Infant Baptism AFter the finishing the most of this part of the Review my learned and godly brother Mr. John Skynner of Weston in Herefordshire who hath written a solid Treatise against Infant Baptism entituled Corruption corrected in answer to one Mr. Woodward acquainted me that Mr. Rutherford had written for infant Baptism in a Book of his of the Covenant of grace part 1. chap. 13 14 which having read I found as he foretold me no more strength then others had brought for it and it is written rather like a Sermon then a Scholastique Dispute and with so many unproved dictates such a number of obscure expressions many of which I cannot discern good sense in so that they have need rather of construction then resurâ—tion so many incoherencies and inconsequences as that I do not jhdge it worth while to answer him Yet because of the name of the man and my words sect 1. of the 2d part of this Review I shall add some animadversions on those two chapters Ch. 13. he tels us that 〈◊〉 are in Covenant with God externally by visible profession which I 〈◊〉 if meant of their own
Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. c. 23. de Genes that the custome of our mother the Church in baptising of little ones iâ— in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolick tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from Joh. 3.5 unless one be born again of water and the spirit c. Answ. It was granted in my Examen that the greatest points of faith though written were by the Ancients called Apostolical traditions but in this point that the words ascribed to Origen meant an unwritten tradition I alledged 1. that the phraieâ— pro hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit and secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times To this is nothing replied by Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Homes or M. Cr. to shew that these phrases are applied to any other then unwritten traditions when they are used of riâ—es for the use or institution of which they alledge no text of Scripture 2. That there is no text of Scripture cited for the use or instiâ—â—â—ion of infant Baptism To this it is replied that Origen layes the ground on the Scriptures But those Scriptures are brought for the proof of origiâ—al sin and the necessitâ— of infant Baptism which were reasons of the Churches observance not proofs of the use and institution of it And that the Scriptures do not give any proof of the use or â—nstitution of infant Baptism but onely grounds of the reasonableness and why the Church took it up is shewed to have been the judgement of many learned Papistâ— and Protestants of later and elder time in my Praecursor sect 20 which may bee easily observed because they alledge nothing out of Scripture about â—nstiâ—uâ—ion or practise of it but of neceâ—â—â—ty to save thâ— infant which being a mistake it appears â—he tradition waâ— not from the Apostles Besides as Augustin alledged Joh. 3.5 for infâ—nt Baptism so he also alledged Joh 6 53 for infant Communioâ— which hee and the Ancients observed aâ— an Apostolick tradition 〈◊〉 many Churches observe even to this day yet we conclude it is but an unwritten tradition and so judged by the Ancients All the places of the Fathers which cite Scripture for infant Baptism infant Communion Easter Lentâ—â—ast and many other things which the Ancients observed shewing rather the reason of their observation then the institution as Mr. Cawdrey speaks in another case Sabb. rediv. part 4. chap. 1. § 24. To the 20th section of my Praecursor Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator saith The Ancients took infant Baptism as you say for an Apostolical tradition but not unwritten The warrant they supposed written but not the history de facto Answ. The ancients must needs take infant Baptism for an unwritten tradition when they supposed the History neither de facto noâ— of the institution to be written though they â—ook the custome of the Church as Austin tom 3. l. 10. de Genes ad litteram c 23 terms iâ— having suâ—h reason from the necessity of it to save them perishing upon the mistake of Joh. 3.5 for their warrant But how poor a matâ—â—r was taken by the Church for a reason to coâ—tinue a custome may â—ppear even by those words of Austin in that place which shew also it was taken onely for a custome of the Church taken up by them and not appâ—inted by thâ— Apostles For having spoken as doubtfull and uncertain what to say about the question before agitated by him concerning the creation of the souls of the children from the parents becâ—usâ— of thâ— objection fro◠〈◊〉 Baptism of little ones he â—hen adds Yet the custome of ouâ— mother the Church in Baptising little oneâ— is not to be dâ—spâ—sed nor by any meanâ— to be accounted superfluous nor aâ— all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical tradition For that little age hath great weight of testimony which first meâ—ited to shed bloud for Christ. Whereby it may appear 1. That Austinâ—ook â—ook iâ— for a custome of the Church without example or institution written 2. That he took such a frivolouâ— pâ—â—â—ence as the death of the children of Bethlehem slain bâ— Herod Matth. 2. to have great weight of testimony for the believing of infant bapâ—ism to have been an Apostolical tradition It would be counted arrogance in me to censure the Fathers yet when I find such silly reasons as Austin here and elsewhere and Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fidâ—m gâ—ve aâ— warrant for infant Bapâ—ism so slightly passed over by Mr. B. and otâ—ers aâ—d theiâ— testimonies still urged for the credit of infant Bapâ—ism which do wiâ—h any that is willing to see the weâ—kness of them discredit it I cannot but for the truths sake say that as in many other things so in this of infaâ—t Baptism the Fathers speeches are so vain as thâ—t there is more need to bewail the errour they have led peâ—ple into then to the continuance of thâ— deceiving of people by them to alledge them for proofs or to magnifie justifie or excuse them Mr. B. adds You might have spared all the 86. page where you prove that Papists take it for an unwritten tradition We know they are desirous of any pretence to set tradition above Scripture Yet you know Bellarmin and others commonly prove it by Scripture The words of Becanâ—s not § 24. as you say but § 12. yeeld the 〈◊〉 rightly interpreâ—ed to prove infant Baptism and that 's all that I desire I had thought that Chamiers answer to this might have satisfied you If you have forgot it peruse it again tom 7. lib. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l. 5. c. 9. § 32. Answ. I could not well have spared any part of that page Not onely later Papists engaged in the modern controversies but also elder and disingaged Papists and others were alledged by me of whom it is not meet to suspect that they did acknowledge that infant Baptism is an unwritten tradition out of a deâ—re to set tradition above Scripâ—uâ—e but out of cleer evidence of the tâ—uâ—h of what they say Nor do I think Mr. B. can shew one Author until Luthers day who made infant Baptism any other then an unwritten tradition although they produce many of them Scriptures for the necessity reasonableness and lawfulness of the Church to use it to whose authority they ascribed too much in the appointing such rites and interpreting â—criptures to that end I do not finde that the engaged Papists cited by me did set tradition above Scripture bâ—t that they make it equall I grant I know Bellarmin tom 3. l. 1. de sacram bapt c. 8. brings three arguments from Scripâ—ure for infant Baptism and c. 9. saith deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis uâ— diâ—imus but how he means it hee 〈◊〉 us thus in the same chapter that though the argument of the Anabaptists from defect
Besides the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a covenant and Church seal is covenant and Church interest Hence called by the name of covenant when yet it is but a sacramental sign and seal of it Gen. 17.13 Act. 7.8 that is first hâ—ld out and sealed as the convoy of all other desired good 2 Pet. 1.4 But especially in that initiatory seal the signation of the covenant is of more considerable weight then the external symbole ceremony and circumstance either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered If washing of a person in the name of the Trinity be a clearer and easier symbole then that of cutting the flesh yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and the other And to shew that the covenant is the main thing considerable therein hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the ground-work of the commandment it self as of Circumcision so of Baptism and much more of the application of either to any in covenant Gen. 17.9 10 11. Therefore scil because I have said I will be your God I command you to do thus and thus not because I have commanded you that I therefore promise to do this for you or do you thus and thus at my command and then on therefore I will do so and so for you Answ After the rest of his dictates he here tels us the main in the initiatory seal to be attended is the covenant which I grant but deny that it follows therefore that the rule which the administrator is to observe according to which he is to administer it is the persons interest in the Covenant so as that he must administer it to all and onely those who are in Covenant or to whom the promâ—se is made by God For besides the many reasons to the contrary even concerning Circumcision before given Mr. Cs. own reason is against him For if the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal is Covenant and Church interest and therefore infants in Covenant to be circumcised and baptized by the same reason infants in Covenant are to be admitted to the Passeover and to have the Lords Supper sith they are seals they are Covenant and Church seals infants have Covenant and Church interest in the initiatory seal these things are to be attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal and therefore in every Covenant and Church seal as well as the initiatory As for what he saith about Gen. 17.9 10 11. though I have sundry times observed that the reading v. 9. therefore is not necessary yet omitting that exception I grant what he saith of that Text but withal note 1. that the command is inferred not onely from the promise to be their God but also from the promise of the land of Canaan v. 8. and therefore it might as well follow They to whom God will give the land of Canaan are to have the initiatory seal as that they to whom he promiseth to be God 2. That which is said Gen. 17.9 10 11. is onely of circumcision 3. If it were granted that the covenant is the groundwork of the command it self as of circumcision so of baptism yet it follows not much more of the application of either to any in covenant For though the covenant were Gods reason why he would appoint circumcision yet that 's no rule to us but his command onely a reason of the will of the commander is not always a direction about the command certainly not about each point in the command as Mat. 28.18 it follows not All power is given to me therefore preach and baptize all over whom power is given to me Besides in this very thing the covenant could be no direction whom to circumcise ordinarily sith ordinarily the circumciser could not know to whom in particular the promises whether Evangelical or domestical did belong when they were to circumcise them Yea though Abraham knew Ishmael had no covenant interest there being no promise made to him in it but the contrary declared Gen 17.19 20 21. yet he was to circumcise him and did so The like may be said of Esau and others Mr. C. adds So the Gospel prophesie and promise is prefaced and put in the preamble to that injunction of their baptism by John Luk. 3.3 4 5 6 c. Answ. It is true that the prophesie of John Baptists comming and work and of Christs comming Isa. 40.3 4 5. which I acknowledge to be a Gospel promise are set down as the warrant of Johns preaching the Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins but this doth noâ— prove that this was his rule in baptizing to baptize every one even infants and those onely who had this interest in the Covenant of grace that to them and each of them God promised remission of sins Yea sith Johns Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance it is clear he required repentance of the baptized as the antecedent to his Baptism and therefore not barely such Covenant interest as Mr. C. ascribes to all infants of believers onely in profession He goes on thus Hence the Gospel and so the Covenant of grace held out as grounding Baptism Act. 2.38 39. And childrens Covenant right was held out as one branch of that Gospel as we proved and from the same principle that they were also to be sealed by Baptism yea albeit the Apostles urged repentance yet the seal is propounded as to the promise Peter said be baptized for the promise is to you And this was no meer moral motive but a Scriptural groundword inforcing it as it was a Scriptural groundwork virtually injoyning and requiring them to repent for the promise is to you Answ. Hence should if there were any good sence in Mr. Cs. speech refer to something precedent from whence that which he speaks is derived which I discern not but a dark way of dictating fitting such as love to puzzle not to inform a reader It is before largely shewed that neither childrens Covenant right external from parents faith hath been held out by Mr. C. as one branch of the Gospel sect 44. of this part of my Review nor that barely from this principle they were to be baptized but that repentance in each person to be baptized is made the antecedent to Baptism sect 22 23 and elsewhere That Peter said not as Mr. C. sets down his words is apparent from the Text Act. 2.38 39. that the promise is urged as a motive to those to whom Peter spake to do their duty of repenting and being baptized is so plain as that Dr. Thamas Goodwin upon the reading the first part of my Review sect 5. did acknowledge it and it is proved so sect 21. here and elsewhere Nor doth Mr. C. here or elsewhere shew it to be any other Scripture groundwork then as a motive to the baptized each of them first to