the token of Abrahams Covenant and yet the command Gen 17.9 â—0 1â— 12 13 4. bindâ—th not Nor is the other speech true For by the same authority according to Mr. C. the Passeover the Lords Supper were made tokens of the same Covenâ—â—t and yet â—or duties in stead of Circumcision 7. If when circumcision ceased there was 〈◊〉 be a duty in stead thereof by vertue of the command Gen. 17.9 and because of the promise of an everlasting possession v. 8. it must extend to the New Testament to the spiritual seed and be of a spiritual blessing by the same reason Circumcision being made an everlasting covenant v. 14. the command Gen. 17.9 should be of a spiritual keeping of Gods Covenant and the Circumcision that comes in the stead of Circumcision in the flesh should be Circumcision of the heart and obedience which the New Testament seems to intimate Rom. 2.26 28 29. 1 Cor. 7.19 Phil. 3.3 Col. 2.11 8. It is supposed but not proved that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision But Mr. C. thinks to prove it onely by the way he takes in to illustrate his conceit about Gen. 17.9 something about the Sabbaâ—h Exod. 20.8 11. of which he saith thus The like manner of institution we have concerning the Sabbath therefore those who deny infant Baptism oftentimes deny the Sabbath and not without cause for there is the same reason of both and we may illustrate the one by the other The Lord intended in time to change the day from the 7th day to the first of the week as he intended in time to change the token of Abrahams Covenant Therefore in the 4th Commandment also the command is not primarily fixed upon the 7th or any day to be remembred and kept holy but upon the general duty that the rest day of the Lord be remembred and kept holy what ever that day fall to be Remember the Sabbath day that is the rest day to keep it holy and the Lord blessed the rest day and sanctified it And the remembrance and keeping of the 7th day is in the Commandment made a duty for this reason because that was declared to be then the day wherein God had entred into his rest after his making of the world And upon the same account when after the travel of his soul in the new creation he entred the second time into his rest as is declared that he did Heb. 4.9 10. because that was upon the first day of the week when he rose from the dead therefore by vertue of that command Remember the rest day to keep it holy the first day of the week is now to be remembred and kept holy in as much as that is now the rest day of the Lord our God as formerly the 7th day Answ. That those who deny infant Baptism do not or need not deny the Sabbath is shewed in my Examen part 2. sect 8. in my Praecursor sect 15. in the second part of my Review sect 3. and what Mr. C. haâ—h said for his opinion of inferring the Lords day Sabbath from Heb. 3 4. hath been examined before and shewed insufficient for his purpose That which now he brings from his conceit of the command Exod 20.8 11. is to me very doubtfull and yet were it certain would not answer Mr. Cs. expectation His conceit is doubtfull to me for these reasons 1. because if his conceit were right when it is said Remember the Sabbath day and the Lord blessed the Sabath day the term Sabbath day should be conceived as a genus or species comprehending under it the rest day of the Jews and the Christians and such other rest days as God should appoint to be observed Bâ—t against this are these things 1. That I find not where the term Sabbath day is meant or applied to any other then the 7th day of the week I grant that other days are termed Sabbaths Sabbaths of rest Levit. 23 24 32 29. but no where that I yet find is any day besides the last of the week termed the Sabbath day 2. The blessing of the Sabbath day Exod. 20.11 was the same with the blessing Gen. 2.3 For it is a narration of what God did in the beginning and that day was the seventh in order after the six days in which he created his work 2. Me thinks the Evangelist Luke 23.56 when he saith they rested on the Sabbath day according to the commandment which commandment is that Exod. 20.8 11. and that Sabbath being by the confession of all the last day of the week doth plainly expound the fourth Commandment of that particular Sabbath which was the seventh day in order from the creation and the last day of the week I confess there are difficulties from this exposition concerning the evacuating of the fourth Commandment which being besides my present business I shall not now insist on it being sufficient for my present purpose to shew why I conceive Mr. Cs. exposition doubtfull 2. Yet were hiâ— interpretation granted it would not serve his turn here For 1. keeping Gods Covenant Gen. 7.9 is without any example or colour of reason reâ—trained to seals as they are termed of the Covenant and made the genus to Circumcision and Baptism as the term Sabbath may be to all Festivals 2. If it were yet there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism as of the Sabbath and the â—orns day the one being a moral command and the other meerly ceremonial 3 If the meaning were Gen. 17.9 that a duty were commanded in general to keep the token sign or seal of the Covenant then it is a command concerning any token of the Covenant the Passeover and Lords Supper as well as Circumcision and Baptism and if so then they are to be observed according to the rule there v. 10 11 12 13 14. and if so they are to be applied to male infants of eight days old as well as Baptism or according to the rules delivered in the institution of each rite and if so the command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. will make nothing for infant Baptism unless it can be proved ouâ— of the institution and practise in the N. T. But to prevent this Mr. C. saith SECT LXXXI The succession of Baptism to Circumcision and their identity for substance to us is shewed to be unproved by Mr. Carter Mr. Marshal Mr. Church Dr. Homes Mr. Cotton Mr. Fuller Mr. Cobbet from Col. 2.11 12. or elsewhere 2ly FOr answer further it is to be considered that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision and is the very same for substance to us as Circumcision was to them before Christ namely the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed as appeareth Gal 3.27 29. As many of you as have been baptixed into Christ have put on Christ. And if ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise By which we see that whatever we have as Abrahams
either the rest is not a believers personal rest by faith or that it is of the same kinde with a meer weekly Sabbath dayes rest but rather the contrary It is distinguished from the seventh day Sabbaths rest and so it is also from the rest which the Israelites had by Joshuah's conduct in the land of Canaan which the Authour mentions v. 8. as well as the seventh dayes rest v. 4. and therefore the seventh dayes rest opposed to the rest v. 7 9. doth no more prove the day of rest to be a day of the same kinde as the seventh day Sabbath was then the day of rest in Canaan by Joshuahs leading Yea sith the seventh days rest mentioned Heb. 4.4 is onely Gods rest it is apparent the day of rest is of different kinde from an ordinary Sabbath dayes rest Neither doth the term although impart any such identity of kinde but that God spake of another rest of his athough hee had rested long ago when his works were finished from the foundation of the world Yea the words Heb 4.10 Hee that is entred into his rest hath also ceased from his works as God did from his which expresseth the rest for the people of God yet remaining v. 9. do shew that the day of rest is not till a mans works bee ceased which I know not how to understand of any other works then his works of labour and sufferings which are not till the end of this life and therefore the sabbatism or day of rest is not here the keeping of a weekly sabbath but a day of rest as is meant Revel 14.13 which though it bee not every dayes enjoyment yet it may bee a Christians personal test by faith onely that is that rest which by faith onely is entred into or obtained And though it were entred into by all believers from the foundation of the world yet it was not so conspicuously as when Christ entred into the heavens However those Hebrews and the believers to come after had not then entred into it That the Sabbath days rest was in use before proves against Mr. C. that the rest was not of the same kinde unless in manner of a type or shadow as one thing like that 's resembled by another may in a Catachrestique manner be termed of the same kinde with that which resembles Mr. C. adds Fourthly it is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in Gods house in his worship So the Apostle concludeth v. 9. There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the celebration of a Sabbath for the people of God a word comprehending the Sabbath and worship put together as was before observed And the coherence of the words Psal. 95. implieth as much Psal. 95.6 7 8. It appeareth also from the Apostles wherefore chap. 3.7 His house are we wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith To day if yee will hear his voyce c. So as if the question bee what voice Or what day The answer from the Psalm and from the Apostles inference must bee this the day of worshipping the Lord our Maker and of resting with him in his house and his voice whose house we are inviting us to it Answ. Sabbatism in the notation of the word imports no more then rest what it imports in the use of it I cannot discern but from this place sith I know not where it is used in the New Testament but here nor in any other authour afore this Here it appears not to import any more then rest sith it expresseth but what is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 8 10 11. though I conceive that the matter shews it to bee meant of a holy rest it being thâ— rest of Gods people But that the word comprehends rest and worship put together I do not conceive For the word aâ—ludes to the Sabbath Gen. 2.2 3. quoâ—ed Heb. 4.3 4. Now Gods â—est imported not worship though his appointâ—ng us to rest on the Sabbath and to sanctifie it doth import our worship of him Nor do I think the coherence of the words Psal. 95.6 7 8. doth imply that Sâ—bbatism Hâ—b 4.9 comprehends the Sâ—bbath and worship put together or thaâ— Psal. 95.7 To day if yee will hear his voyce is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his woâ—shiâ— sith in those words there is not the word Sabbatism and the Exhortation To day if yee will hear his voyce doth not appâ—ar to have been on the weekly Sabbath daâ— the Psâ—lm being not as the 94th Psalm intituled A Psalm for the Sabbath and it is more likely that to day if you will hear his voyce intimates the day at the end of every seven years in the solemnity of the year of release in the feast of tabernacles when all Israel was come to appear before the Lord in the place which he should chuse and the Law was to bee read before all Israel in their hearing Deut. 31.10 11. at which time of the year every year they had gathered in their Corn and Wine Deut. 16.13 and then they had no harvest and so it was the fittest time to resemâ—le the rest remaining â—o Gods people yet so far was it from being the weekly Sabbath day that as Ainsworth notes on Deut. 31.11 The Jewish Doctors say that if the day of the assembling of the people happened to bee the Sabbath day the reading of the Law was put off till after Yet were it the Sabbath day it doth not follow that it is meant of a day of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his worship for the weekly Sabbath was not celebrated in the house of God that is the Tabernacle or Temple but in their dwellings Exod. 16.29 And therefore if the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore Heb. 3.7 did refer to whose house ye are v. 6. though I conceive the inference is made from the words if wee hold fast the confidence and reâ—oycing of the hope firm unto the end yet it proves it not to bee a weekly Sabbath of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship For the weekly sabbath was not celebrated in Gods house and if it were each Christian or the Church were not fit to answer Gods house in which it was celebrated sith they are not the place where that made the worship of God accepted as the Tabâ—rnacle or Temple that is proper to CHRIST and his body John 2.19 Heb. 8 2. but the persons by whom it is celebrated and who worship God Lastly were all this granted that Heb. 4.7 were meant a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship yet this might be meanâ— of the rest in heaven often called Gods house where the Elders cast down their crowns before God and worship and praise him and not the weekly Sabbath Fifthly saith Mr. C. Because the Apostle understands it of a day to be kept upon the same ground in
be baptizable That the Covenant Deut. 29.14 15. should â—e made virtually radically with us Gentiles is a doâ—age with a witness not onely the express words v. 1. but also the passages all along Ch. 29 30. shew it was the legal Covenant renewed with the people of Israel and their posterity to engage them to observe all the Law of God given by Moses not the Covenant made to Adam Abraham David the New or better Covenant If the Covenant may stand in one then it is not necessary that a people nation seed body should be in covenant and consequently it may stand without infants The Apostle saith not Rom. 11.16 the Fathers were the root But Mr. Rutherfurd adds Hence Anabaptists without all reason say that hee speaks not of federal and external holiness but of real internal and true holiness onely of the invisible body predestinated to life for though invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were without doubt a part of the rooâ— Answ. Anabaptists if we must be so named do say that the holiness Rom. 11.16 is meant of real internal and true holiness and consequently the persons there said to be holy are all of the invisible body predestinated to life and no other but such there meant yet they deny not that the holiness of the Covenant and Church theâ—e meant were made visible by its working the collective body of the Jewes predestinate to life and that it is not said without all reason might have appeared to Mr. Rutherfurd if he had read my Examen part 3 sect 7. my Apol. sect 14. pag. 67. Review part 1. sect 1 c. part 3. sect 75. yea if there were nothing else said but what Mr. Rutherfurd here yeilds that invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were withoue doubt part of the root that which Anabaptists say is not said without reason and that demonstrative For if invisible holiness cannot be excluded then it is included and if included together with external visible holiness then the holiness there meant is not external holiness alone nor they who have meerly external federal holiness are there said to be holy and consequently no reprobate but onely the predestinate to life And if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be part of the root and therefore invisible holiness cannot bee excluded then the rest of the root and the branches which are made in the text alike holy must have invisible holiness also But Mr. Rutherfurd ads Yet he must be taken to speak of that holiness of the Covenant and Church as made visible and of the visible collective body of the Jews not of onely real and invisible holiness 1. Because this was true in the days of Elias If the root be holy the branches are holy And it is a New Testament-truth of perpetual verity If the Fathers be holy so must the sons The Fathers have Church-right to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Supper so have the children but it is most false of the invisible mystical body and root onely and of real and internal holiness For neither in Old or New Testament is it true if the Fathers be predestinated to life justified and sanctified and saved so must the children be Answ. The term holy Rom. 11.16 notes onely real and invisible holiness in that place though the persons said to bee holy have it made visible and it agree to the visible collective body of the Jewes And the proposition of Mr. Rutherfurd to the contrary If the Fathers be holy so must the sons is most false not onely being understood of invisible but also of visible holiness of Churchright to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Suppâ—r Though the father were holy visibly by profession of the God of Israel yet had not hee nor his child right thereby to Circumcision and the Passeover without being a Proselyte of righteousness taking on him the precepts of Moses to observe and joyning to the policy of Israel and yet even then the child of age who did not avouch the God of Israel had no right thereto Nor by Paedobaptists own principles hath the child of age right to Bapâ—ism or the Lords Supper without his own profession though the parentâ— be Christians nor the infant of a believer baptized as they conceive right to the Lords Supper Mr. Rutherfurd is grosly mistaken in making every believing parent the root meâ—nâ— Rom. 1.16 and every natural child a branch For then every believing parent should beare his child v. 18. and every natural child shouâ—d derive holiness from his believing parent Abrahams naturâ—l children at this day are not in the Olive nor shall be till re-ingraffed Abraham is the root not as a natural father but as Father of believers and â—one are branches or holy as the Apostle there means but through â—aith according to election Nor are hereby the distinctions of Jew inward and outward child of the flesh and promise taken away nor whole Israel certainly saved Nor by the branches be meant all the visible body of the Jews old and yong which â—e miâ—ht have imagined would be replied to hiâ— argument pag. 114. Nor is it new Divinity but old That none are to be baptized but such as are under actual exercise of their faith which may be discerned by their profession in those that are come to age It is neither my Divinitâ— nor follows though Mr. Rutherfurd câ—nceives it doth on it that predestination to life and glory must bee proâ—ogated and derived from the lump to the first fruits he meant from the first fruits to the luâ—p from the root and parents to the branches and children But this I say that faith and righteousness are propagated and derived from â—braham as an exemplary root to all his spiritual branches or seed by conformation to him I do not say that the Apostle Rom. 11. speaks of an invisible body but this I say the Apostle by branches means two sorts of people the one Jews who were then broken off from the Olive tree which is the invisible Church of the elect the other Gentiles then graffed in yet not all the Gentiles nor one nation wholly and entirely but a great part of them in comparison of what were formerly in the Olive very numerous How these branches were an elect seed and yet fell away were preached to had a national election and external calling were in the room of the Jewes â—id partake of the fatness of the Olive is so fully opened in the places before cited that I think it unnecessary to add here any more Onely whereas he makes it an absurdity that the infants of baptized actual believers should be all heathen as well as the casten off the Jewes it is to me and absurdity unfit for any learned man to vent that knows that Heathen in English is all one with Gentiles and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
that command is in force to all persons in Covenant as it was then Answ. The command in force then to all persons in Covenant is expressed by himself in the words before pag. 22.23 the command of Circumcision Gen. 17.11 12. when he saith All the Infants of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first signe or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord which was Circumcision so that if he mean as his words are this is his meaning in his conclusion that command which is Gen. 17.11 1â— to Circumcise the flesh of the foreskin of Abrahams males of eight dayes old is now in force to all persons in Covenant as well as it was then which neither hath nor can have any other sense taking words as they are used by other men but that still all in Covenant with God are bound by thâ— command Gen. 17.11 12. to Circumcise their male children of eight dayes old which is to maintain that which the Apostles have abroâ—â—ted Act. 15. to intangle us with the yoak of bondage which the Apostâ—e saith would make Christ unprofitable to us Gal. 5.1 2 3. But it will be said he means not the command of Circumcision but the command of signing with the first sign or seal of the Covenant Ans. If he means so he rather juggles than disputes For the words speak of the command which is Gen. 17.11 12. and that is no other than of Circumcision no such command of signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant in the Old Testament besides that of Circumcision is either there or any where else that I know of if there be let it be shewed But this is the manner of Paedobaptists in their disputes to imagine a command of sealing as they call it with the first seal the Infants of Covenanters abstractively or distinctly from Circumcision in the Old Testament Gen. 17. which is indeed a meer fiction with which they mock their auditors and readers who unwarily take what they say without examination Now this were an answer sufficient to this argument yet because this mans reasoning is so commended let 's view his proofes For proof of the Major thus he writes For when God giveth the reason of any command that reason is the ground of the command and till that reason ceaseth he is very bold with God that dare exempt himself from the practice And again If the first proposition be denied viz where there is the same reason of a precept continued there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God and who can say unto him what doest thou For the Lord commands nothing without a reason if there be no reason exprest the reason of his will is implyed which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world till he makes it appear that it ceaseth This is very clear Answ. The reason of a Command may be understood either of the reason why Cod commands a thing or the reason why we are bound to observe that command The reason why God commands is various sometimes one thing sometimes another sometimes expressed sometimes concealed And sometimes the same reason is given of very various commands as I said before I am the Lord your God is Levit. 19. the promiscuous reason of moral and ceremonial and judicial commands yea that the very reason which 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. is given for the command to be obedient children not fashioning themselves according to their lusts in their ignorance but to be holy in all manner of conversation is citâ—d from Levit. 11.44 45. and is the very reason why he forbids the Israelits to eat certain meats or to touch certain things unclean by the Law And therefore by Master Drew's reasoning the reason of the precept not ceasing we are bound still to the precept Levit. 11. of abstaining from meats unclean by the Law and from touching things legally defiling But though there may be many motives to do it the rather yet the onely formal adequate reciprocal reason why we are bound to observe any thing is the command of our Lord revealed to us besides which we are to look no further nor are we to neglect it till by some declaration of his will it appears we are discharged Thus Abraham was bound to offer his son Isaac on the Altar because of Gods command without knowing any other reason yea though he had known the reason from the end to be fulfilled yet he had not been discharged till God signified it by the Angel that he should not slay him Now then to Master Drews argument Iâ— he understand the reason of the precept in the first sense his major is false the reason why God gave a precept may continue and yet the practice is not to continue as Levit. 11 44 45. On the otherside the reason of a precept may not reach and yet the precept reach as though God brought not us out of Egypt which is the reason of the command Deut. 5.6 7. yet the command pertains to us and vers 15. It is said Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day Where I presume Master Drew will say the command reacheth us though the reason of it do not And as for his inference That if it be denied where there is the same reason of a precept there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God it is true if by the same reason of a precept he understand the reason of a precept in the second sense for the reason why we are bound to observe his precept to wit the declaration of Gods will it should continue but if he understand it in the first sense for that reason which God gives why he declared his will and bound us to observe it though it continue yet the precepr may not be in force nor on the other side doth the precept alwayes cease to binde though that reason cease as is proved before Now that reason of the precept Gen. 17.11 12. which is vers 4 5 6 7 8. is a reason of the first sort and not of the latter And indeed in more positive rites which are by institution the precept continues not in force however rhe reason God used to inforce it remaine except the institution be continued Rightly Pareus comm in Gen. 8.20 to an Objection That sacrifices are to be continued because the cause is perpetual Answereth The perpetual cause of a thing necessarily co-hering with the thing as a Cause continued with its effect makes the same perpetual But the said causes or ends do not so co-here with the sacrifies of the Ancients but onely by appointment that is divine ordination which was that those sacrifices should be the confirmation of the faith of the fathers and a signification of gratitude unto the coming of
this was the reason why even the Jewes circumcised what ever their interest in the promise should be were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come But this though true and such as shewes a manifâ—st difference between ciâ—cumcision and baptism in their use and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet sith thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance nor is thereby any reason given of râ—pentance being required by Peter afore baptism Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jewes then of their unripe children onely he tels of their practice in New England that when any are received to fellowship with them though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches are admitted upon their former church-ingagement yet desirous to be fixed Members they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed not so of their children not sui juris nor capable of personal satisfaction so it was with them Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way But setting aside the question whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient the defilement being alike in both 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles but openly opposite to Christ and the christian church Nor was that which those Jewes perplexed did propound that they might be of their church as a purer church but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-priviledges but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences which was an act of doctrine not of jurisdiction 2. If it had been so yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jewes to baptism then formerly nor that he did it because they were to be incoâ—porated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism nor is the argument infringed that if covenant-interest intitle to baptism of it self without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child yea in priority to the child who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest then it should much more intitle the Father to baptism without repentance Idem qua idem semper facit idem so that after so many shifts absurdities unproved dictates vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jewes afore baptism against the connexion between covenant-interest and right to baptism Master Cobbet goes on thus nor must that needs follow that because it 's said they were added to the church that therefore they were not of the church before but after Peter spake those words v. 39. the promise is to you c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized as after that mentioned of their receiving the Word gladly and yet will our opposites conclude that therefore they were not of the church nor in the covenant before they were baptized but came into that estate by baptism If baptism were the form of the church or that which they so much urge wholly failed that a person must be first discipled and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized Ans. Either I understand not the force of words or else it is a cleer argument Acts 2.41 And there were added in that day souls about three thousand v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church and these were of the Jewes therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day and that addition For what is addition to a company but a joyning or bringing one more to them then was before even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned And this argument seems so plain to me that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus they are not said to be added till after Peters speech v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly of which there is no cause to doubt sith the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then v. 41. shew it the argument is good after Peters words it is said then and that day were added therefore they were not before of the church Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church it being one means of addition to the church and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church but that there may be a church without baptism nor the onely way of adding to the church for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it yet this I say that neither is a church regular nor the addition as it should be without baptism And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate meaning in covenant by Gods promise to him and in church-estate that is so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it Master Cobbet proceeds thus Nor is that cogent which is urged against the childrens right in the promise and unto baptism that they should be so priviledged when they came to be effectually called and to be turned from their sins as if this were quoad homines their onely rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof or at least the onely way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches courâ— For besides that it was not so of old in applying of circumcision as Gods appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right even with us
Mr. C. tells us Hence c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion and minding discourse about it But how from any thing said before That Christ is the head of the visible Church that visible Professors though not sincere are united to Christ as visible head this follows That Parents profession unites the child to Christ so as to give him right to baptism is a riddle to me If it were formed into an Argument thus If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism But the visible professors c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas nor is there any proof in that which follows For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution None of the texts produced no nor any other do shew that the parents act of professing faith did entitle the child to circumcision much less to baptism Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision though he and his house feared God was a devout man gave much alms to the poor and prayed to God alway Acts. 10.2 Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onely from the command as I have often poved Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church but obliging to duty Deut. 16.16 17 there 's an injunction That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God but this was enjoyned not to parents onely but also to children married or unmarried And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would it proves rather the males act to stand for the females than the parents for the children More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak so the childs act went for the parents However here 's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent Deut. 26.17 18. there 's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church What is said Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God is not said to be done by the parents for the children nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents or Captains Elders Officers or men of Israel It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church but to bind them the more firmly to their duty and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship Yet if they had that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved till the rule about Circumcision and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism and the Church-membership of the Christian Church which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution Goverment but Judiazing notions opposiâ—e to the Gospel What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14 depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat Schol. in locum Diodati new Annot. Grotius c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus the male the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people my Covenant is broken Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose they that expound it as Aben Ezrae apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his It is true Iohn 4.50 51. Matth. 15.22 to 29. Mark 9.12 to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children and so Mark 2.5 the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Foâ—â— nor was it the confession of faith but reality though not known to men which Christ lookd on so that if this be a good reason the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism After many dictates without proof he tels us As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6 yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26 yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such Rom. 11.28 and hence made as a ground of their return v. 15 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church whence that respect of children of God and his church by vertue of that espousall covenant Ezek. 16.8 Even in the children of idolatrous members v. 20 21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed Albeit many unworthy members are giâ—t up in it to hold them and theirs in externall communion Jer. 13.11 untill either the church be divorced from God or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege Answer Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved and incoherent yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis I shal say somwhat to it 1. There 's not aword in the texts alleged that shews what Mr C. here asserts that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to
the accomplishment of this promise was all his salvation and all his desire although he did not make his house to grow in secular greatness I deny not but parents faith may be an occasionall means to stave off destruction from and to further the salvation of their children as Heb. 11.7.23 25 27 28 Jonah 3 4. But this I deny that barely in this respect in that the parent is such the infant of an inchurched believer whether professing or reall is a visible member of the Christian Gentile Church and capable thereby of Baptism or that this is any part of the Gospel But Mr C. tells us Shall it then be yielded that such benefit should come as was before spoken of to adult servants of the house c. And is here no reference to the poore Babes by reason of their tender age Hath the mercfull God revealed no ordinary help for them Answer It is yeilded that benefit came to the servant of the Jaylors house Acts 16.31 but not the benefit there mentioned barely by the Jaylors faith without their own Though we conceive infants not meant Acts 16.31 because the Texts v. 32 34 lead us to understand by the House the persons who heard the word believed and rejoyced yet we exclude not infants from salvation nor do we deny to the elect the ordinary help of the Spirit regenerating them and Christs mediation for them if they die in infancy although they have not the ordinary outward means of the Word and Sacraments And therefore he might have spared his pathetick interrogation sitter for an Orator than a Disputant and for a Papist than a Protestant Nor need we exclude them from salvation for want of actuall faith because of the words Mark 16.16 Heb. 11.6 For either those places may be understood of the act of faith in those to whom the word is preached or else if it be understood of all infants they may have faith in seed and act by immediate operation of the Spirit and yet they not to be baptized because it is undiscerned by the Minister of Baptism The Jaylor might have encouragement to hope for his Infants salvation though they were not meant in those words Acts 16.31 If the election of God be not any thing visibly to comfort him concerning his Children no more is the covenant of salvation which is comensurtae with election Rom 9.8 nor is discernable any more than election both are alike discerned by the fruits of repenting and believing As for Baptism it could not assure salvation nor the want of it debaâ— from it If it be not said That the Jaylors house believed before they were baptized yet it is said in the next verse and in the verse before that Paul spake the word to all that were in his house As for that he saith It follows not that what is applicable to the adult persons in the house scil that joy of faith must exclude children from baptism whereof they were capable no more than when it is said Deut. 12.7 that they and their housholds were to eat before the Lord and to rejoyce in all they put their hands to c. Because therefore their little children could not so actually express joy in what they put their hands unto therefore they were none of the houshould which did eat before the Lord Anabaptists would not like this arguing which urge the joynt communion of the Jewish Children in all sorts of Church-ordinances I answer â—f by little children be meant infants of a day or two or some months old at which age they baptize infants I affirm that they are not meanâ— by the Housholds Deut. 12.7 and that for the reason given because they could not 〈◊〉 before the Lord and rejoyce in all that they put their hands unto Nor do I know any whom he calls Anabaptists but would like of this arguing The Jewish Housholds were to eat before the Lord and rejoyce in all that they put their hand to therefore little children of a day or two or some months old are not any part of the housholds to whom that precept is given or of whom that which is there said 〈◊〉 there meant For though we all grant that â—nfants were circumcised and in my Examnen page 169. I say the males that could eat though not come to years of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper were to eat the Passover yet I know none of the so called Anabaptists which urge the joynt communion of the Iewish children infants of a few dayes or months old in all sorts of Church-ordinances What Mr C. saith further Suppose a mans houshold Men Women and Children all diseased and cured at the Bath and afterwards the houshold expresseth their joy for it by leaping dancing for joy and it be said such a man he and all his were washed at such a Bath and he his whole houshold afterwards even danced for joy none will say that because little ones could not so leap for joy and are excluded from the notion of the whole houshold in this later therefore they were not in the account of all his in the former if it were granted him yet the arguing from Acts 16 32. where it is said That Pâ—ul spake the word of the Lord to all that were of the Jaylors house and v. 34 He rejoyced believing in God with all his house with the constant narration of the Evangelist in the Acts of the Apostles mentioning baptizing of none but believers do evidently shew that by all his v. 33 were meant onely those that heard the word and believed It is true more or fewer of this or that sort of persons or things born or unborn are meant by the terms House or Houshold as the matters and circumstances of the speech lead to nor need I say that Gen 34.50 under the term House are not meant little children because of the words Gen. 35.1 2 3 4. Nor need I deny that Infants are often intended by the term House and Houshold an Gen. 30 30 c. or that they are chiefly meant thereby as 1 Sam. 20.15 c. or that they are intended when some parts of the family are expresly instanced in and children not withall mentioned as Gen. 14.16 or that children are ordinary instruments to build or hold up a house in naturall civill religious and Church-respects too as Exod. 1 21. or that the Covenant-expressions of Seed and Seed in their generations do more directly reach them as such than either Wives or Servants as such as Gen. 17.7 c. Yet all this doth neither take away the force of the reasons before given why under all his Acts 16.33 infants are not meant much less prove that which Mr C. should prove which he must do if he will prove his covenant-interest Ecclesiastical of believers seed thence that in the Iaylors house were infants and they baptized Ezek. 16.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. hath been often shewed to be impertinently alledged being meant
nations But infants natural fools mad-men in their fits are neither fit to consent nor to be members in the Christian visible Church no nor such ignorant people as do not competently know the Christian faith Mr. B. adds What then is this making them a Church in one day that Mr. T. so cloudily talks of If he say it is that then the infants were taken in I answer that is to prove the same by the same or else to argue circularly As to say their Church call did take in infants therefore the taking in of infants was peculiar to their Church call this begs the question Or to say their Church constitution is ceased because their Church call is ceased or their Church call consisting in the taking in of infants is ceased therefore their Church constitution is ceased and that Church constitution is ceased therefore the taking in of infants is ceased This arguing is like their cause Answ. I have sundry times told Mr. B. that the call in one day of the whole nation was by Abrahams authoriâ—y Gen. 17. and by Moses Exod. 19 c. otherwise then in the Christian visible Church which was by a daily addition of believers out of several families cities and nations by preaching to them the Gospel And how my arguing is framed without begging the question or any circle is before shewed And the call in one day I meanâ— of Abrahams and Moses act whether the hearts of the whole nation were bowed to consent to take the Lord for their God or no. I neither envy nor deny the enlarging of the Church by Christ nor do I think the converting or taking in more or less makes an alteration in the nature of the Church call or constitution but a call by preaching the Gospel makes an alteration in the Christian visible Church call and constitution from the Jewish sufficient to exclude infants from Christian visible church-membership But Mr. B. clamours thus against me And what means Mr. T. to talk of here one and there one To speak so contemptuously in such disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ Is not the wonderfull success of the Gospel one of our strong arguments for the truth of the Gospel and our Christian Religion And it seems Mr. T. will give this away to the Pagans rather then admit infants to be members of the Church Answ. I mean to speak as the Holy Ghost speaks 1 Cor. 1.26 27 28 29. James 2.5 6. Rev. 5.9 and as by the Histories Ecclesiastical may be made apparent which rashly Mr. B calls speaking contemptuously in disparaging language of the Kingdome and Gospel of Christ as he formerly did my denial of infant Baptism accusing of my own children Nor by my saying is the argument for the truth of the Gospel and Christian Religion a whit infringed For the force of the argument is not from hence that whole nations cities houses were converted by the Gospel but that though the persons were contemptible who preached their Doctrine likely to affright men without arms against opposition of great ones there was so great success over the world as to convâ—â—t so great numbers though few in comparison of the rest even in most barbarous countreys from their long accustomed idolatry to embrace a crucified Lord. Yet saith Mr. B. Was it but here one and there one when three thousand were converted at once and five thousand afterwards and many myriads or ten thousands even of the Jews that continued zealous of the Law did believe Acts 2.41 4.4 21.20 besides all Gentiles Was it but here one and there one when all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron turned to the Lord both men and women Acts 9 35. and all that dwelt at Samaria Acts 8. Answ. It was but here one and there one as I meant it 1. It was not any whole nation or city and perhaps few whole housholds sure I am not one infant in any of the places For in Acts 2.41 they who were baptized gladly received the word and Acts 4.4 they heard the word and believed and Acts 21.20 they believed and were zealous of the Law Acts 9.35 they saw it and turned to the Lord Acts 8.2 they believed Philip. 2. These three thousand five thousand ten thousands inhabitants might and liâ—ely were but one out of one house and another out of another house As God had much people in Corinth Acts 18.10 yet but few housholds the Husband a believer the Wife an unbeliever the Servant a believer not the Master 1 Cor. 7.11 12 16 21. So many miriads might be yet but here one and there one considering that Jerusalem especially at the Feasts was full of people anâ— that the myriads are not restrained to Jerusalem but â—ight be in Judaea or perhaps in remoter parts It is evident that the number of Christians was not able to match the Persecuters and that even in Jerusalem Yea it is said Acts 21.30 that all the city was moved against Paul and the people ran together all Jerusalem was in an uproar v. 31. much ado the souldiers had to rescue him from the multitude v. 35. even at that time when the myriads are said to have been of believing Jews v. 20. The Texts Acts 9 35. 8.12 say not as Mr. B. that all that dwelt at Samaria believed nor all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron both men and women but those that turned to the Lord as is shewed Sect. 50. before Yet more Let him shew me when three thousand Jews were made church-members in a day if he can before Christs time I say if he can let him shew it me Sure ever since Abrahams time and I doubt not but before too they were added to the Church by one and one as they were born Answ. If I cannot shew it Mr. B. gains nothing my assertion that the Jewish nation were a Church together in one day by Magistrates authority the Christian Church was gathered by Apostles aâ—d others preaching whereby one was made here one day another there a believer another day not a naâ—ion city nor always a house together stands good But sith M. B. wil allow me so much favour as to shew him any thing me thinks he should not deny that more then three thousand were made church-members in one day Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14 15. And if in the time of Solomons reign when Judah and Israel were many as the sand which is by the sea in multitude 1 Kin. 4.20 three thousand were born in one day by Mr. Bs. own grant there were three thousand added to the Church in one day Yet again saith Mr. B. And I have shewed you before that Christ sendeth his messengers to disciple all nations It is a base exposition that shall say he means onely Go and disciple me here one and there one out of all nations and no more Answ. And what childish vanity if not worse he hath shewed in his ridiculous including infants to be discipled in
way or other And though a special mercy may be given on a common ground or reason yet where there is no apparent proof of the restriction we are to judge the blessing common where the reason is common At least if a special blessing be superadded to Abrahams seed upon the freeness of Gods grace or the eminency of Abrahams obedience yet there goes with it a mercy common to all where the reason of the mercy is found It being therefore the case of every true believer to be faithfull and obedient yea to prefer that before his own life and not a son onely it may be hence gathered that God who blessed Abrahams seed on that account will bless theirs on the same with the same blessings in the main as to his favour and acceptance of them though not with the same in the variable superadditionals or overplus of external things Answ. Mr. B. like another Procrustes though in vain would fain rack the Texts Gen 22.16 17 18. 26.3 4 5. to his purpose Though I deny not but a common mercy may be granted on a special reasâ—n and a special mercy on a common reason God being a free agent yet in this business the reason of Abrahams mercy and the mercy it self are both so special and proper that it is extream violence to the Texts to apply Abrahams singular obedience in offering his son so signally eminent Heb 11.17 Jam. 2.21 to every believers obedience and the blessing granted to his seed that it should be as the stars of heaven as the sand on the sea shore that in it all nations should bless themselves or be blessed to every believers natural seed and their visible Churchmembership This kind of arguing is too ridiculous to deserve a serious refutation Yet he hath not done In Exod. 12.48 saith he there is a law for the circumcising of all the males of strangers that sojourn in the land that will keep the passover which comprehendeth their Churchmembership as is shewed Answ. I grant there is but not a law unrepealed SECT LXI Covenants promises and speeches in the Old Testament of Israel the righteous prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed THe promise saith Mr. B. to the whole people of Israel infants and all that they should be a peculiar people a Kingdome of Priests and a holy Nation Exod. 19.5 6. you cannot deny This is a promise and not a transeunt fact which made no promise And the people are called to keep Gods Covenant that they might have this promise fulfilled to them Yea if you had said that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise reaching but to the persons then existent and dying with them though you had spoken more sence yet no more truth then when you denied the law and promise and substituted a transeunt fact For 1. it is expresly a promise de futuro to a nation 2. Yea and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel intimating the fulfilling of the promise even to them as the promise to Abraham was to the faithfull who were his uncircumcised seed However here is a Covenant granting by way of confirmation the blessing of Churchmembership to infants with the rest of Israel For certainly this peculiarity and holiness and priesthood here mentioned containeth their Churchmembership It is undeniable therefore that such Churchmembership is here granted by promise or Covenant not as a thing then beginning but by way of confirmation of the like former grants And it 's to be noted that though this promise is made to all Israel yet not to be fulfilled to any of them but on condition that they obey Gods voice and keep his Covenant ver 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing and therefore so may do now Answ. I never denied promises to be to the whole people of Israel but deny that they were by a promise as the sole efficient cause Gods visible Church and their infants members The promise Exod. 19.5 6. presupposed their Churchmembership and promiseth continuance of it in an eminent manner The Israelites were Churchmembers without the condition of obedience before the Law was given yea Ahaz Manasseh c. were visible Churchmembers though they were Idolaters but they lost that peculiarity holiness priesthood upon their disobedience which was there promised and so did the people they lost the dominion temple priesthood Urim and Thummim and other priviledges which are meant thereby and should have been continued if they had not broken Gods Covenant by Idolatry Yet no other nation could have had that state though they had been obedient and kept the Laws God having given those laws peculiarly to that nation and confined that honour to that people till the Messiah came And though Peter 1 Pet. 2.5 9. apply these to believers yet not in the same manner as they are meant Exod. 19.5 6. nor is any infant now of a believer a visible Churchmember by vertue of that promise In Deut. 14.1 2. The infants saith Mr. B. with the rest are called the children of God and a holy and peculiar people to the Lord their God Answ. Be it so yet this is not ascribed to a promise or precept but to Gods choise of them And saith Mr. B. Deut. 26.17 18. the Covenant is expressed thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his ways and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. and that thou mayest be an holy people c. Is here no promise when the promise is exprest and is here no Covenant where the mutual Covenant is described And I think you grant that infants are included Answ. There is a promise of God to them but that did not make their infants visible Churchmembers though I deny not their avouching the Lord for their God which was a transeunt fact did shew them to be visible Churchmembers nor do I any where deny that our Covenant or promise to God doth make us visible Churchmembers but Gods Covenant or promise to infants upon the parents faith as Mr. B. asserts Mr. B. adds So Deut. 28.4 9. where the promise to the nation is that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandements they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies and the Lord will establish them a holy people to himself as hee had sworn unto them Here is not only a Covenant and promise for the future but also an oath confirming it as annexed to the same before Is this establishing Covenant or promise but a transeunt fact or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised which was received before by the same means Answ. It doth but the benefit promised v. 4. is not infants visible Churchmembership but encrease health
for the purpose I alledge it and I cross interrogate Mr. B. Is it possible that an humble sober man and a tender conscience should make such foul work as he hath done by his writings upon such a pâ—lpably unreasonable pretence as a Law of infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed no where extant and a mediate Discipleship hatch't in his brain My reproach is a small matter did it not tend to darken the truth I should neglect it nor should I have answered these questions so fully had not these things been imparâ—ed to the Preacher and others at Bewdley ere they came to my hands Though my reproach were not finis operantis yet must it needs be finis operis I thank Mr. B. for his compassion on me and my followers I have the like on him and his followers I do not scorn his compassion but pitty his prejudice and pertinacy If I have injured and troubled the Church my Antagonists have compelled me the Lord knowes I had not a resolution to print till the Assembly neglected the matter and determined against me and the truth unheard That I have injured the Church by printing I believe not it is certain Mr. B. hath extreamly injured me and the truth and troubled the Church of God by printing his Book of Baptism I should not have peace in my conscience did I not endeavour to detect his aâ—d other Paedobaptists fallacies which I crave liberty to do and shall easily pass by personal reproaches Qu. 8. Can you prove that ever there was one age or Church particular on earth since Adam till about 200. years ago that the Anabaptists rose wherein infants were not de facto taken for members of the Church If you can do it Let 's hear your proof Answ. I can and for proof look back to Sect. 50 51 52 57. besides Constantin Augustin mentioned by Mr. B. p 329. Nazianzen Hierom c. unbaptized though of Christian parents till adult Qu. 9. Can you bring us proof of any one infant of true Church-members that was not rightfully a Churchmember himself from the creation till Christs dayes or from the creation till this day except the Anabaptists who reject the benefit whose case as I said before I will not presume to determine Answ. I can for proof look back to Sect. 50 51 52 57. Qu. 10. Seing that infants have been de facto Churchmembers from the creation to this day as far as any records can lead us is it likely that the Lord and head and all-sufficient Governour of his Church would have permitted his Church till now to be actually made up of such subjects as in regard of age he disallowed and suffer his Church to be wrong framed till now Or is it a reasonable modest and lawful undertaking to go about now in the end of the world to make God a new framed Church as to the age of the subjects And is it not more modest and safe to live quietly in a Church of that frame as all the Saints in heaven lived in till the other day as a few Anabaptists with vile and sinful means and miserable success did attempt an alteration Answ. This question ariseth from these suppositions 1. that infants have been de facto Churchmembers from the creation to this day 2. That all the Saints in heaven lived in a Church that had infants visible Churchmembers till less then 200. years ago 3. That the Anabaptists in Germany in less then 200. years attempted the alteration first of of leaving infants out of the visible Church 4. That they did it with vile and sinful meanes and miserable success The first of these is not true as is shewed in the fore-going Sections chiefly those in which the 8th question of this Letter of Mr. B. is answered the second is shewed to be false Sect. 52. wherein it is proved the Apostles lived in a Church that had not infants The third is false for both Christ altered it and when the corruption of infant Baptism had overspread the Western Churches many besides the late Anabaptists as Petrus de Bruis and many other Saints in heaven did alter it The fourth is in part false For I think the Anabaptists so called did not alter infant visible Churchmembership with vile and sinful means but some of them not all did by vile and sinful means seek to set up a temporal dominion of the Saints as I fear some now called Quinto-monarchians do which is not to be imputed to all that are of the same way in point of discipline and ordinances and that though this thing of erecting a temporal dominion had miserable success yet the restoring of Baptism hath had success as other reformations as of the Waldenses Hussites Non-conformists and others who though by clamours of Preachers and violence of Princes they have been for a time suppressed yet a remnant have been preserved who have in time revived and we hope notwithstanding all the clamours accusations and practises used to corrupt suppress them will spread grow up through the blesing of God And to Mr. Bs. questions I answer my aim is not to erect a new framed Church to God but to reduce it to the frame Christ and his Apostles left it in though it were after some ages altered by the corruption of infant Baptism which had its original from the gross errour that by it Gods grace was given and otherwise the infants should perish And though in that Church who were for infant Baptism many were Saints now in heaven yet it is not safe to continue that errour any more then to continue the errour of infant Communion now by Papists and Protestants rejected though it were many hundreds of yeares practised in the same Churches And sure I wonder if he condemn mee for seeking reformation of infant Baptism how Mr. B. could justifie himself for not living quietly in the Church of England as it was under the Prelates though there were among them in that Church Saints now living in heaven but seeking the reformation of discipline and ceremonies of humane invention though greater troubles followed thereon then I think hath followed this reformation I endeavour and then I hope ever will Surely if the way I take and propound and prosecute were followed the reformation would be easie and safe and that it is not followed will be laid to the charge of Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists as their sin nor can all his or their wit bee able to cleer them from it nor from the guilt of breaking their solemn Covenant to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to Gods word Hee concludes Sir pardon the weakness and bear with the plainness and freeness of Your faithful Brother though not as is meet Rich. Baxter May 14. 1655. Answ. I pray the Lord to pardon Mr. Bs. violent and clamourouâ— though I hope not wilful opposing of the truth and I love him not the worse for his plain dealing yet cannot
no proof of its being taken otherwise here Yea by rejecting such exposition without reaâ—on Mr. B. may be mâ—re truely said to make his own Creed without Scripture to make the Scripture unintelligible humane language useless to fortifie Biddle aâ—d other deceivers in their gross opinions of the Anthropomorphites and others insomuch that I think if the Arians were refuted no better then Mr. B. doth here the expounding of Kingdoms and Jerusalem synecdochically Arianism would quickly prevail and errours easily take especially with Schollers 4. Lastly were it granted that by Kingdoms were meant the visible Church and that infants were a part of the Kingdom thus meant yet this very text and that according to Mr Bs. own reasoning would prove the repeal oâ— their Churchmembership till the accomplishment of the thing meant Rev. 11.15 which whether it be yet or shall be till the day of judgâ—ment is very uncertain For Mr. B. here reasons thus it cannot be meant of Christs kingdom in the larger sense for so the kingdoms of the world were ever the kinâ—doms of the Lord and his Christ and it could not be said that now they are become so In like â—anner I may say if the visible Churchmembership of infants were meant Rev. 11.15 then it was not so before the 7th trumpet sounded for it is said then the kingdoms of the world were become the kingdoms of Christ if they were then become they were not before and consequently infants visible churchmembership not before Now when the 7th trumpet sounded is uncertain Mr. Brightman makes it to begin at Qu. Elizabeths reign the New Annotations when Antichrist is weakened Mr. Mede at the imperial reign of Christ in the great day of judgement which v. 17 18. do favour And if infants be not visible Churchmembers till then when perhaps there shall be no infants at all Mr. B. will have but a very cold suit of it if the deciding of the whole controversie whetheâ— infants must be Churchmembers be referred to this text alone But enough if not too much of these ridiculous though confident allegations of Mr. B. SECT LXVI Mr. Bs. 9th 10th 11. Arg. concerning infants better condition in the N. T. in his 14th 15th 16th Chapters part 1. of Bapt. to prove their visible Churchmembership are answered CHap. 14. saith Mr. B. my 9th arg is this If the beliâ—ving Jews children and consâ—quently the parents in point of comfort be not in a worse condition since Christ then they were before then their children ought still to be Churchmembers And consequently the gift and ordinance is not repealed But certainly the believing Jewes children and consequently the parents in point of comfort are not in a worse condition since Christ then they were before Therefore their children ought still to bee Churchmembers The antecedent I scarce take him for a Christian that will deny Christ did not come to make believers or their children miserable or to undo them or to bring them into a worse condition This were to make Christ a destroyer and not a Saviour Hee that came not to destroy mens lives but to save them came not destroy mens happiness but to recover them He that would not accuse the adulterous woman will not cast out all infants without accusation 2. The consequence a man would think should be out of doubt If it be not I prove it thus it is a far worse condition to be out of the visible Church then to be in it therefore if the believing Jews children be cast out of the Church then they are in a far worse condition then they were before and so Christ and faith should do them a mischief which were blasphemy to imagine Answ. If Mr. B. had set down as I desired him in my Letter what the benefit or priviledge is of infant visible Churchmembership which he asserts unrepealed and what infants lose by not being in the Christian Church visible the Reader with my self might have considered this argument more exactly But till that be done no man can exactly tell how to compare their former and later conditions wherein they are better or worse nor how from the equall goodness of their condition their Churchmembership is inferred And for my part I think such kind of arguings as these to infer things that onely are by Divine institution are meer devices of mens wit and Mr. B. in using them as indeed they are his onely strength he hath in this point for all the texts hee brings are quite from the matter and some so manifestly impertinent that a good text man would bee ashamed ever to produce them as hee doth doth but shew that he rests more on popular arguments which moves mens affections then Scripture proofs though most deceitfully like an Impostor he entitle his Book Plain Scripture proof of infants Churchmembership and Baptism when there is not a text that is plain for it scarce any that hath any shew of it But lest this argument be thought unanswerable I shall examine it A worse or a better condition are comparative terms and as Aristotle saith in his Categ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing is said to bee great or small by it self but as compared with another so nothing is better or worse by it self but as compared with another It is necessary then that we examine the estate of bâ—lieving Jewes children before and since Christs comming The estate of the believing Jewes children before Christ may be conceived to bee either in actual possessions or in promises In actual possessions they had this priviledge that they were a part of that nation which was then Gods people separated from other people by circumcision lawes temple inheritance in Canaan priesthood and the children of the priests had this priviledge that the males were to succeed in the priesthood and their children to be nourished of the tithes offerings first fruits the poor by a tithe and other wayes The promises were either of special priviledge as that Christ should come out of that nation or of temporal blessings as that while they kept Gods laws they should dwell in Canaan and prosper there or of saving blessings These did belong onely to some believing Hebrews children not to all to Isaac not to Ishmael to Jacob not to Esau the rest were onely temporal benefits and were accompanied with a yoke of lawes and rites intollerable The children of believing Jewes condition since Christ is either in respect of saving blessings and so it is either the same which was before or better in respect of the easier way of comming to the knowledge of Christ in respect of the temporals So it is in some respect worse they are liable more to persecution with their parents in some respects better in that they with thâ—ir parents aâ—e exempt from the legal bonâ—age which they and their parents as paâ—â— of that nation oâ— visible Church were obnoxious to So that in some sense the antecedent or minor is granted in some sense denied
the Dispute which though imperfect yet both agree that the argument then was â—his They who solemnly entred into Covenant with God were visible churchmembers But the infants of the Jews in the wilderness uncircumcisâ—d did so Ergo. Mr. B. himself in his Corrective sect 5. The Text in Deut. 29. was brought to prove that God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God and consequently made them churchmembers The form here used doth vary the conclusion and the medium and particularly the term who solemnly entred into Covenant with God into this were entred into Covenant with God and in his Correct sect 5. into this God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God between which there is so great a difference that as the argument was framed in the Dispute I should not deny the major but as there it is framed I should deny the consequence it being certain God may enter into Covenant with some to take them for his people and to be their God who neither are nor ever shall be visible churchmembers as elect peâ—sons dying with death-bed repentance not manifested c. But I shall keep to the form as it is here used And 1. I grant that the churchmembership of the infants which did pass into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12. is not repealed For it being an individual accident can neither in congruous sense be said to be repealed nor it being nonâ—ens now is it capable of repeal if the speech were right 2. I grant also that Gods Covenant of grace or his Gospel covenant is not repealed that is changed into another Covenant 3. I grant also that invisible churchmembership is built on the Covenant of grace or the Gospel covenant or is inseparably conjunct with it But this I deny 1. that any law of infants visible churchmembership unrepealed is contained in Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That the mutual Covenant entred into there was the Gospel covenant of grace 3. I say that if it were yet it follows not that infant visible churchmembership is not ceased or in Mr. Bs. dialect repealed But let us view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he Mr. T. denied long together in the face of many thousand people that the infants were entred into any such Covenant against the plain letter of the Text Yet he persisted to deny it without any reason as you may see in the Dispute if out If plain Scripture will not satisfie these men why then do they call for Scripture The words are Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Officers Elders and all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and the stranger that is in thy camp from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be to thee a God c. He that saith infants did not pass into this Covenant I question whether he believe this to be the word of God For how should it be spoken plainer Answ. The thing which I denied was that infants did visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant which Mr. B. affirmed and I gave the reason because they did by no visible sign declare their assent to the Covenant And when Mr. B. replied that the parents did it for them I answered the parents act for them might bind them but yet it is not their act nor that which makes a visible churchmember and sure had I conceived his minor so meant that the infants did by their parents visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant I should have granted it and denied his major They who visibly and solemnly entred into Covenant with God by their parents act for them were visible churchmembers Now this answering of mine he endeavoured then and since to represent with as much disparagement as might bâ— to me though what ever imperfection there were in my answer which I do not deprehend to have been such as Mr. B. hath made it it was in a great part from Mr. Bs. ambiguous use of words and his captious taking advantage from my words and not explaining his own which made me answer somewhat perplexedly But the matter being now in print let 's view the Dispute as iâ— stands in the Books I had said in my Sermon and after in my Antidote sect 5. that thou v. 12. doth not necessaâ—ily comprehend the little ones To this Mr. B. in his Correct pag. 249. replies 1. that he either sets a low value on my conscience or judgement which is not worth answering 2. Do you not know saith he that thou is a collective term usually through the Books of Moses spoken of all the people except any be particularly excepted Answ. I do know it is a collective term yeâ— often used with exception of infants by the matter of the speech though not pâ—rticularly And for this I need go no further then Deut. 29.2 3 4 5. Deut. 30.1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. And in some of these v. 2. thou and thy children v. 6. thine heart and the heart of thy seed v. 19. thou and thy seed Deut. 29.29 us and our children are so expresly distinguished that I am much confirmed that thou Deut. 29.12 doth not compreheâ—d the little ones v. 11. 3. Saith he Are not little ones here named and yet are they excluded Answ. Tâ—ey are named v. 11. yet not meant by thou v. 12. 4. Saith he Why should Moses say here stand your children and wives that not they but you might enter into Covenant Answ. 1. Why should the strangers stand there v. 11. and yet Abraham Isaac and Jacob not their fathers v. 13. 2. I conceive God would have a general appearance for the more solâ—mnity of the thing but that some should act in the name of the whole people and therefore menâ—ion of all v. 11. yet the act of covenanting which was personal v. 12. restrained onely to the representatives 5. Doth not Mr. T. confess that the Jews infants were in Covenant why else were they circumcised which is the seal of the Covenant Answ. 1. Circumcision is no where called in Scripture the Seal of the Covenant and how far I allow it may be seen sect 31. 2. Infants were circumcised not because they were in Covenant those who were not in Covenant were to be circumcised 3. The Jews infants were in the political or domestical Covenant made to Abraham all of them upon condition of their obedience to the law some of them in the Covenant or promise of saving grace made to the elect none of them in the Covenant by their own personal act of covenanting or promising which is that alone which I deny and which
makes visible churchmembers in the Christian Church 6. Saith Mr. B. I desire no means to convince any man of your strange abuse of the Text but onely that he will read it Ye stand this day all of you c. and that he may be to thee a God He that can considerately believe Mr. T. that the word thou v. 12. doth not necessariâ—y comprehend the little ones if I knew him I would tell him that I will not undertake by Scripture to convince him of any thing at all And I say again in sobriety that if the Papists had as plain Scripture for their Religion as it differs from ours I would not delay a week but would turn Papist c. Answ. Mr. Bs. words onely express his confidence in his conceit which in this and many more things I conceive to come from his hasty determinations without weighing all objections to the contrary But I desire both him and the Reader to let me know what that entring into Covenant is which may be termed the infants act afore he censure my interpretation of thou as not comprehending little ones necessarily but as noting some instead of the rest as a strange abuse of the Text sure it was no act of words or sign shewing any consent or assent to the Covenant or Oath of God And if as Piscator conceives in his scholie it were by passing through as the word in the Hebrew is the â—arts of the divided living creatures in testimony of the covenant I say again surely neither little ones nor all the rest did pass between the parts of the the beasts divided but some in stead of the rest I think they will not say it was their bare presence which was the entring into Covenant for their standing there was before it and the entring into Covenant a consequent of it I do not accuse him as he knows who hath done of being a Papist nor dare I absolve Mr. B. from yeelding too much in some of his writings for Papists Arminians and Socinians advantage in sâ—eking to avoid Antinomianism and Anabaptism But I hope both Mr. B. and his Reader will be more sober and wise then to go over to the Papists upon this declaration of Mr. B. who if he did not suggest to the people as if it were my impudence to deny it at the Dispuâ—e I was mistaken and so were others and I intreat him to pardon my mistake But Mr. B. adds Where he saith that you v. 14. is distinguished from them that stand c. I answer 1. I think not but from them that were absent q. d. not with you onely but both with him that is here that is you and him that is not here Answ. I find no interpreter who doth not render â—â— v. 15. by the adveâ—sative and the Tigurine Divines render it sed et but also which shâ—ws a plain distinction of you v. 14. from him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God and if I understand any thing in this kind Mr. Bs. exposition is not good sense to expound not with you onely but with him that is here with us that is you For v. â—5 him that standeth here is opposed to you v. 14. and you onely being an exclusive terme must exclude the rest and when it is said with us meaning himselfe and you v. 14. it is meere non-sense to expound it thus him that standeth with us if us comprehend him that standetâ— there as it doth according to Mr. Bs. exposition Besides the different numbers of him that standeth here with us and you do shew that they are not the same And I thinke I may say as Mr. B. I desiâ—e no meanes to convince any man of Mr. Bs. strange exposition but onely that hee will read the Text. But he saith 2. Were it otherwise yet it were onely from the people of other nations that stood among them Answ. 1. If Mr. B. mean thy stranger which is in thy Camp v. 11. I expect some reason why you onely v. 14. should exclude them more then the little ones and wives rather me thinkâ— you onely should include those menâ—ioned v. 10. and him that standeth with us here this day should mean those v. 11. And the plain sense seems to be this that though the Captains Elders Officers men of Israel who were to enter into Coâ—enant did by themselves onely covenant yet Moses in Gods stead did make that Covenant and Oath not onely with them to whom his speech was directed but also with the rest v. 1â— 2 If he mean the strangers not of that congregation or Church of Israel surely the Covenant was not made with them as here Moses saith it was with him that standeth here with us this day Mr. B. adds of me Where he saith some entred into Covenant in behalf of the rest I answer 1. God entred into Covenant on his part immediately or by Moses the Mediatour with them all and not with some onely Answ. Be it so yet on the other part some entred into Covenant in behalf of the rest and so thou v. 12. comprehends not little ones v. 11. for sure if in behalf of any some entred into Covenant and thou comprehend not them them they were the little ones 2. Saith he I doubt not but the parents entred their children into Covenant and not the infants themselves which shews that God hath given parents this interest and authority Answ. 1. This is a confession of what I aver and of which Mr. B. and his followers have made such exclamations against me For if thou v. 12. entred themselves into Covenant and infants entred not themselves into Covenant then infants are not comprehended under thou v. 12. But so it is Ergo. The consequence is plain of it self the minor is for the first part the words of the Text unless Mr. B. will say that thou shouldest enter into Covenant is not that â—hou shouldest enter into Covenant thy self which is a gross absurdity and the other paâ—t is Mr. Bs. own and thus Mr. B. hath justified me in that which he counted so strange an abuse of the Text. 2. For my part I doubt whether the parents entred the children into Covenant and do rather conceive that the Captains Elders Officers v. 10. did enter into Covenant by some solemn act of passing between the parts of a beast divided or otherwise in stead of the children wives and servants v. 11. and not the parents for the infants 1. because the distinct mention of those v. 10. under the titles there used do intimate that they were representatives of those v. 11. now v. 10 persons are not expressed under the tiâ—le of parents but under other relations 2. Because it being a national covenanting it seems most suitable to the end of it that it was done by national Officers 3. If there were any other then those persons the solemnity could not be likely done with decency the number being so great as could not
it follows not the children born are not tenants or subjects actually because the unborn are not but it follows the lease and compact of themselves do not make actually tenants or subjects because if they did they would do so the unborn as well as the born so in this point though the arguing be not good the unborn are not actually visible churchmembers therefore the born are not yet this which was my arguing was good By the Covenant which was made with the unborn they were not actually visible churchmembers therefore by the same Covenant of it self without any other cause neither were the born infants actually visible churchmembers and consequently Mr. B. cannot from the making of this Covenant prove the Jewish infants actually visible churchmembers To my saying that an entring into Covenant by parents doth not make a visible member in the Christian Church however not as Mr. B prints it though it did in the Jewish he saith much in the compass of a few lines all which is answered before in several sections chiefly 50 51 52 57. But he saith 3. That this was a Covenant of grace is all the question To which I say though it be a question between us yet it is not all the question For both in the Dispute and in all my writings I denied that the Covenant of grace doth make visible churchmembers and therefore Mr. B. if he would have made good his argument he should have proved that visible churchmembership and the Covenant of grace are inseparably conjunct which Mr. B. failing to do fails in proving the chief point of his argument But let 's view what he saith Correct pag. 251. You add saith he this proves not the Covenant a pure Gospel-covenant not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish nation I answer if by pure you mean that it is not onely a Gospel covenant but that and more it yeeldeth as much as I need for if it be a Gospel covenant no matter though there be more But if you mean that it is not essentially a Covenant of grace I could heap up abundâ—nce of arguments against you you may find many in Mr. Baâ—â— of the Covenant I add That Covenant wherein God taketh them to be his people and engageth himself to be their God is a Covenant of grace for since the fall God entreth himself into no such Covenant with any but in Christ and upon terms of grace But such is this Covenant made with the Israelites and their little ones therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. I mean by pure Gospel Covenant that Gospel Covenant which was without mixture of domestick or political benefits proper to Abrahams seed inheriting which is set down Heb. 8.10 11 12. out of Jâ—r 31.33 and I say that though there is perhaps an Evangelical promise or two intermixed in the enlargement of Moses his discourse yet Deut. 29.13 14 15. the Oath or Covenant there made was noâ— purely Evangelical or essentially a Gospel Covenant but a political legal national Covenant such as God doth not enter into now with all those to whom he vouchsafes Gospel grace And I prove it thus 1. That Covenant which contains promises of the land of Canaan the inheritance of it and prosperity therein is not essentially a Gospel Covenant or a pure Gospel Covenant But so doth that Deut. 29.13 14 15. Ergo. The major is manifest For the Gospel Covenant doth noâ— promise those things The minor is plain from the words as he hath sworn unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But that was a promise of Canaan as appears from Gen. 12.7 13.15 15.8 17.8 22.17 26.3 28.13 14. Deut. 34.5 and many passages in Moses his speech Deut. 29.16 21 23 24 27. Deut. 30.2 5 9 10 16.18 and most evidently the conclusion of it Deut. 30 20. 28.11 2. The Covenant and Oath made then was the same which was said to them before Deut. 29.13 But that was the Covenant of the law in Horeb Deut. 29.1 Now that was not essentially the Covenant of grace as is proved before sect 43. 3. That Oath and Covenant which was of being God to them upon condition of their obedience to his laws given by Moses that is not a pure Gospel covenant but a legal Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 But such is this Deut. 29.8 29. 30.2 8 10 11 14 16. where the judicial and â—eremonial are meant as well as the moral 4. That Oath and Covâ—nant which had the legal threatnings annexed to it was not a pure Gospel covenant or essentiâ—lly the Covenant of grace Gal. 3.10 Buâ— such was this as appears from Deut. 29.20 21 25. 30.18 19. Ergo. What Mr. Ball hath written to prove Mr. Bs. position I omit 1. Because Mr. B. hath not set down the place 2. Because I conceive Mr. B. hath produâ—ed the chief To the first I answer by denying the major and the proof of it and aver that since the fall God did enter into a Covenant with the Jews which was not in Christ upon terms of Gospel grace The minor is true but God covenanted to be their God upon condition of their obedience to the law of Moses as the words Deut. â—9 13 imply that he may establish thee to day for a people to himself by keeping the laws according to the Covenant they entred into He adds 2. That Covenant wherein the Lord promiseth to circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they may live was a Covenant of grace for the Apostle to the Hebrews ch â—0 16 17. so describes it But this was such a Covenant as is written Deut. 30.6 Therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. Besides the exceptions following it should be proved that the promise Deut. 30.6 was the Oath or Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.13 14. and not rather an interlocutory promise on a special occasion to erect their hearts in expectation of mercy upon their return from captivity 3. Saith Mr. B. That which St. Paul makes the words of the righteousness of faith was the Covenant of grace But this is such as is evident by comparing Rom. 10.6 7 8. with Deut. 30.12 13 14. But to this you give two sorry answers being resolved to say somewhat 1. It is sâ—oken of the command Answ. 1. And is it not also of the promise foregoing 2. And is not this from as great a mistake as the other to think that Gods command is no part of his Covenant That he will be their God is his promise but is that all the Covenant That they shall be his people and so take him for their God and resign themselves to him this is both commanded by him and covenanted by them Answ. The answer was right that the speech of Moses Deut. 30.12 13 14. however accommodated by Paul to another purpose is meant of the word of the law the commandments and
have cause to repent of our judgements â—nfants may be inwardly sanctified and God hath taken them into Covenant with their parents and would have us look on them as separated to himself which is ground enough to build our charity on as to esteem them holy as grown persons There is no difference but this in it That concerning the holiness of persons at age we trust our own judgements and in judging of infants we trust Gods word who hath comprehended them under the promise with their parents there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgement of those of riper years as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith on infants And Gods promise though never so indefinite is a surer ground for hope then my probable judgement which is the most I can have of the generality of professors of ripe years is much of it false as that God hath taken infants into Covenant with their parents thay are comprehended under the promise with their parents God would have us to look on them as separated to himself by the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers we onely account them holy by a judicious charity and all impertinent forasmuch as professors of faith are accounted visible Saints not by a judgement of charity but of certainty from their profession which is visible and so are qualified for Baptism not from hopes of real holiness or faith of Covenant holiness which do not entitle to Baptism without certainty of profession What he adds That holy is a pure religious word that in my sense it would be no considerable medium for argumentation that else were c. hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue to be in a peculiar state of seperation to God visible Churchmembers with the believing parent contains nothing but unproved dictates often before refuted What he adds of cold comfort in my sense and of strength and sweetness in his is alike frovolous For the speech of the Apostle was to be no otherwise consolatory then so far as it might satisfie their consciences of the lawfulness of their continuing together which is clearly done by my Analysis and exposition of the Apostle and not done at all by his way For what is a priviledge of the children which perhaps they shall never have or if they have it is nothing to take away the defilement by the infidel for satisfaction of their consciences concerning living together in disparity of Religion I have done with this scribler I shall a little examine what some others have said with as much brevity as the maintenance of the truth will permit and hasten to an end SECT LXXVII Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7 9 10. is shewed to be succesless and so useless for proof of Infant Baptism THere is a Treatise intituled The Covenant of God with Abraham opened by Mr. William Carter which pretends to clear the duty of Infant Baptism and in his Epistle to the Reader saith the root of this matter is the Covenant of God with Abraham which because of the eminency of the Author and the publishing it in observance as is said of the commands of the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London rather then for any shew of strength in the discourse I shall examine that if this Review come to their hands they also may discern their mistakes Which I think necessary to be done because he also as other Paedobaptists use to do is not afraid upon his own conjectures for they are no better to charge us who baptize not infants as breaking Abrahams Covenant as small friends to Christs Kingdome waving and neglecting the right way of increasing that Kingdome and of exalting his Throne and power in the world taking-up ways unnatural unsafe and false Letâ—s then see what he writes Afore he meddles with the point of infant Baptism which he saith is the thing he especially intended in his discourse he endeavours to deduce the Christian Sabbath as it is termed from Heb. 4. I omit that he saith p. 3. that Heb. 2.15 16. the birthright vendible is their priviledges in the Church and worship of the Gospel and that p. 6. he expoundâ— the holding â—ast â—he confidence or liberty and the rejoycing of the hope Heb. 3.6 by holding fast the ordinances and priviledges of the Gospel Which if he mean as he seems to do of the oâ—twarâ— priviledges and worship it appears that he mistakes sith the birthright not to be sold and the confidence and rejoycing of hope are greater matters which no hypocrite may attain to and are plainly intimated Heb. 12.14 15. to be the seeing of God the attaining his grace and the estate Evangelical mentioned v. 22 23 24. which they might sell though they never had it by their Apostacy from their profession of Christ through whom they were in expectation of it at least in appearance And in like manner the boldness liberty confidence or râ—joycing of their hope must needs be of something yet attainable and not to be attained without holding it to the end v. 6 14. and which no unbelievers could attain to which are not true of bare outward Chuâ—ch priviledges and Gospel worship but of that salvation mentioned Heb. â—â— the grace brought in the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1.13 whereby we are Gods house Heb 3.6 are partakers of Christ v. 14. But I shall insist somewhat on that he saith p. 8. that by to day if ye will hear his voice in that Psal. 95.7 is meant the Christian Sabbath day by whiâ—h he means the day which in the New Testament is termed the Lords day or first day in the week which I conceive not right for these reasons 1. The day Heb. 4.7 iâ— a limited or definite day and that must needs imply this meaning This is the day in which if ye hear his voyce and harden not your hearts ye may enter into â—ods rest if ye do not this day ye will come short Which if true then as Mr. C. expounds it though they should hear the voice of Christ and not harden their hearts on the week day yet they should not enter into the rest promised which I think will be counted absurd and evacuate the hopes by all the week day Lectures 2. From Hâ—b 3.13 I thus argue To day Heb 3.7 is the same with the space of time which iâ— called â—o day v. 13. This is so evident in the Text that every one that reâ—ds the â—ext will easily perceive it sith it is plain that the calling it to day is meant â—f the calling it iâ— that place v. â— and the words lest any of you be hardened shew it But to day Heb. 2.13 is meant of any day oâ— every day wherein Christians might exhort one another therefore not restrained to the Lords day but either extended to tâ—e whole space of time they live
on earth or to any opportunity in any day whatsoever whether week day or Lords dâ—y wherein they might exhort 3. Bâ— comparing these placâ—s with 〈◊〉 Cor 6 2 where it is said Now is the accepted time now 〈◊〉 the dâ—y of salvation which seem plainly to intimate the same day with that which is meant Heb. 3.7 13. and that day being manifestly meant of the time wherein the Embassadours for Christ do beseech men to bee reconciled to GOD 2 Cor. 5.20 it is very probable or rather certain that to day Heb. 3.7 13. 4.7 is not meant particularly the Lords day or first day of the week but any day of a mans life wherein the Gospel of Christ is preached and reconciliation to God offered him and received by him Or as Cameron quaest in Epist. ad Heb. 3.7 That time which by the Prophets and Apostle is called the last dayes and fulness of time which is the time of the Messiah exhibited not precisely the Lords day or first day of the week Let us view Mr. Carters reasons for his conceit First it is evident that it is meant of a day of rest câ—ap 4 7 8. for if Joshuah had given them rest namely that rest of which David speaketh then hee would not aftewards have spoken of another day therefore of a day of rest iâ— must bee meant else the Apostles argument had not been concluding nor pertinent because many other days might have afterwards been spoken off although Joshuah had given them all the rest that was ever to bee expected Answ. It is true that he Authour of that Epistle doth rightly gather from the word to day that there was another day of rest yet remaining for the people of God besides the seventh day rest aâ—d the rest in the Land oâ— Canaan which they pâ—ssessed by Joshuah s conduct yet doth not imply that the day in which the word was spoken was the day of rest But thus hee gathers it These words were spoken by David many hundreds of years both after God sware in the Wilderneâ—s they should not enter into his rest who believed not and after Joshuah had setled the posterity of the unbelievers in the land of Canaan and therefore the rest in the land of Canaan is not that which is meant in Davids speech but there is implied a future day of rest to bee attained by believing in JESUS the Messiah For David if it had been meant of the rest in Canaan would not have spoken to them not to harden their hearts fâ—r fear of being excluded from Gods rest Secondly saith Mr C. It is meant of such a rest as GOD can and sometimes doth swear in his wrath against his own people who are his house and the people of his pasture that they shall not enter into it this cannot bee said of what they enjoy in their personal inâ—erest by faith onely but as for the coâ—fort of his ordinances and Sabbath Answ. To omit the unfitness of the expression sith the comfort of Gods Ordinances and Sabbath is a personal interest enjoyed by faith onely it is not true that what is said of the rest cannot bee meant of what the people of God enjoy in their personal interest by faith onely because of Gods oath For that oath doth not imply that believers shall not enter into the rest yea the Apostles inference is to the contrary v 1 6. sith some were not to enter in others were to enter in and sith GOD sware some should not hee promised some should and chap. 3.18 sith some entred not through unbelief others in whom the word is mixed with faith ch 4.2 do enter in And this is a good argument that the rest mentioned is not the Christian Sabbath day which is the first day of the week sith they that believe not come short of it it 's a consequent upon the holding the boldness confidence and rejoycing of our hope firm to the end it was then in promise to the Hebrews and remained to the people of God who were to bee warned that they came not short of it where as the Sabbath dayes rest was then in pâ—ssession not to bee expected afterwards but then in use when this Epistle was written and yet such as hypocrites unbelievers and Apostats did in some sort enjoy as well as sincere persevering believers Thirdly saith Mr. C. That it is meant of a Sabbath dayes rest appeareth by the manner of the Apostles arguing in this place in as much as the Apostle proveth it to be another day of rest besides what was in use in the Church before Another in opposition to the 7th day Sabbath and that because David speaketh of it as a rest to bee entered into a long time after although the 7th days rest was entered into from the beginning of the world in as much as hee spake as it is Heb. 4.4 5. implying a promise that some shall though others shall not enter into it Now sayes the Apostle this being spoken by the Prophet David of a time then to come and again as Heb. 4.7 9. over and beside the seventh dayes Sabbath Now from this his manner of arguing it is evident that he supposeth this day of which David speaketh saying To day if ye will hear his voice to be a day of the same kinde as the seventh dayes Sabbath was because else there had been no such opposition to bee made nor would there have been place for an although or a notwithstanding in the case as in v. 31. because any other rest might have also been entred into from the beginning of the world as a believers personal rest by faith was but that which maketh the opposition is that David speaketh of a Sabbath dayes rest to be entred into now a long time after even in the times of the New Testament of which times that Psal. 95. is a prophesie as appeareth by the Apostles application of it in this place and thereupon hee concludes it to bee another day of rest remaining for us besides the seventh dayes rest By this wee see that by to day if yee will hear his voice is not meant onely of a Christians personal rest by faith which is every days enjoyment and was entred into from the beginning of the world but of another Sabbath dayes rest besides what was in use before Answ. It is not denied that Psal 95. is a prophesie nor that it speaks of a rest to be a long time after Davids time even in the times of the New Testament nor that although doth imply a distinct rest from the seventh day Sabbath rest and an opposition of that kinde which some Logicians call disparato though others will not have it called opposition but distinction yet the words Heb. 4 3. are not as Mr. C. cites them although the seventh days rest was entred into from the beginning of the world but although the works were 〈◊〉 or finished from the foundation of the world Nevertheless this doth not prove that
relation unto Christ his ceasing from his works and entring into his rest as the 7th day Sabbath was in relation to God his ceasing from his works after his making the first creaâ—ion and entring into his So iâ— followeth v. 10. Which to be meant of Christ and his entrance into his rest which he makes to be his passing into heaven v. 14 inferred from his entring into his rest v. 10. he endeavours to prove by 5 reasons Answ. 1. The coherence beâ—ween Heb. 4.9 and v. 10. doth rather intimate that he that is entred into his rest v. 10. is a term common to all the people of God mentioned v. 9. and the exhortation v. 11. doth also import tâ—at the person that enters into his rest v. 10 is meant every believer Nor is any one of Mr. Cs. reasons convincing of the contrary For 1. let the translation be mended as Mr. C. would have it yet it may be true of every believer that he also hath ceased from his worâ—s as God did from his own works 2. Seeing then v. 14. may point out to what is said Heb 3. â— 2 3. 3. If Heb 4 10. cannot be meant of ceasing from sin yet it may be from labâ—rious works and sufferings as Revel 14.13 and such rest may be 〈◊〉 with refreshing and looking upon them as good 4. That v. 10. should be taken for a proof of v 9. is not necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being not always causal or ratiâ—nal yet if it were it might be thus The rest of the people of God in heaven shaâ—l be a Sabbatism like Gods for such of them as shall enter into their rest shall cease or have ceased from their sufferings and painfull works as God did from his in the beginning 5. What he saith that Christ were not Lord of the Sabbath as he saith Mark 2.28 Luke 6.5 unless he had entred into his rest or as p. 75. he could not be Lord of the Sabbath unless he also had a rest which he entred into as God did into his iâ— without proof and is false sith Christ speaks of his being Lord of the Sabbath at that time afore he entred into his rest and doth imply that which some would call blasphemy that Christ as God had not been Lord of the Sabbath unless he had entred into his rest as man But were it granted that Christ by reason of his entring into his rest as man was Lord of the Sabbath doth that prove that Heb. 4.10 is meant of Christs entring into his rest or is it not rather a baculo ad angulum But were it granted that Heb. 4.10 were meant of Christs entring into heaven yet the rest before mentioned is rather thereby confirmed to be meant of rest in heaven with Christ then rest on earth on a weekly sabbath sith the argument is strong thus Christ is passed into his rest in the heavens therefore there is a rest remaining for the people of God there but hath no strength thus Christ is entred into the heavens to rest therefore there remains to the people of God a weekly day of rest on earth Lastly this very reason quite overthrows Mr. Cs. building For he would ground the week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest and this day he would have to be the first day of the week and the reason for inferring a week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest is taken from the rest of God after the first creation whereby the 7th day Sabbath was sanctified Now if there be the like reason of keeping a week day Sabbath because of Christs rest as there was of keeping the 7th day Sabbbath because of Gods rest then it will not be the first day of the week which must be the Sabbath for that was not the day of his entring into his rest but another day to wit the fifth day of the week as may be gathered from Acts 1.3 Mr. C. himself p. 76. though he say that it is very probable that the ascension day was on the first day of the week yet confesseth it not to be clear and the reason of the probability from Act. 1. by the computation of the forty days from his resurrection and the mention of a Sabbath days journey from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem occasioned as is likely from their making that journey then upon that day v. 12. is so slender that I know not that ever any learned man did conceive so with him and the computation of forty days from his resurrection being on the first day of the week though the day of the resurrection contrary to the common computation should be excluded will not fix the Ascention day on the first day of the week but two days at least short of it And for the mention of a Sabbath days journey Act. 1.12 it is clear from the words that it was onely to shew the distance of the place from Jerusalem not to shew that day to have been the Sabbath day I list not to trouble my self about the reason of using that expression rather then another it being not material Yet were it granted it had been on the Sabbath day it had not been the first day of the week for that is not termed in Scripture certainly not in the Acts of the Apostles the Sabbath day What Mr. C. adds But albeit his rest was not compleated till he passed into the heavens yet he first entred into it at his resurrection which being upon the first day of the week there needeth no more to fix the command of the Sabbath on that day doth overthrow his arguing from Heb. 4.7 9 10 14. whence he would deduce the Christian Sabbath because of Christs entring into his rest at his passing into the heavens Which hurts not others as Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. Rediv. part 4. sect 23. who confesseth the words Heb. 4.10 not to be spoken of Christ though he allude to them I have insisted on this point by the way because Mr. C. makes use of it for infant Baptism but to how little purpose the sequel will shew Mr. C. for proof of infant Baptism p. 20. layes down this position that what the Lord confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed it to us even to all believers after Christ to the worlds end which I grant if understood of spiritual Evangelical promises which accompany salvation but not if meant of those peculiar blessings and priviledges which were promised to Abrahams natural seed Yet in his proof of that position I conceive sundry things not right which are vented by him as p. 28. that the voice of Christ meant Heb. 3.7 is an inviting us to celebrate his day of rest in his house in the worship of the Gospel which he means of a weekly Sabbath and a particular Congregation and outward worship as sundry passages following shew and this he makes a part of the Gospel p. 31. and the believer that neglects it comes short of the promise of entring into Gods
same Church you speak pure Anabaptism indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needless to annex any proofs because I think you dare not deâ—y it Answ. I do not mean onely the several administrations if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sence from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant and yet they are termed the divers administrations and the Church of Jews and Gentils by reason of them under divers administrations which kind of expressions though frequently used by Paedobaptists yet I can discern little in them but non-sence or tautologies or self-contradictings My meaning was very obvious That the Christian Church properly so called contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society and Circumcision entred into it not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs Who knowes not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible and not in the Christian and baptised disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church who remained among the disciples of Christ in his Church that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church hee would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptism was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I think no sound Divine did ever question p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian church which then began to be moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up yet all this was preparing the materials of it and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy which was then ready to be taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed is no other then his own and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture which never makes the Church christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentils to be one and the same mystical body of Christ Ephes. 3.6 Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision sith they had different institutions were for Churches as Mr. M. speaks under divers administrations whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent or Proselytism the other onely by the preaching of the Gospel and faith As Sâ—lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles nor the first Bishops because of their different institution name function and ordinaâ—ion so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision because of its different institution name office and state it hath from it Which iâ— further proved thus The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism to which Mr. M. replies Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcisâ—on â— cannot guess the Lords day succeeds the 7th day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other Answ This proves that the one is not sâ—ated on the command of the other Baptism on the command of Circumcision they having dâ—fferent commands Gen. 17.10 c. Matth. 28.19 and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising the rules of administring each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practise and no other Lastly that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end is more untrue For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism that they are rather contrary For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile To this Mr. M. answers These all refer to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish Paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but Baptism succeeds it as a seal of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Jews or rather the family of Abraham Answ. Mr. Ms. grant that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy and that it is wholly vanished and therein circumcision hath no succession doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished and have no succession For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy the initiating was into the Jewish Church or rather the family of Abraham which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abrahams house were termed the Church of the Jews and that covenant which circumcision did signifie and confirm was peculiar to the Jews although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud sea Manna water out of the Rock the Ark of Noah the Passeover the sacrifices of the Law high Priest washings c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds
when they were young therefore it was not their custome to Baptise infants For the making good hereof you bring forth instances of Constantinâ— the Great Greg Nazianzen and Chrysostom Afore he speaks of these instances hee sets down some known reasons some imagined why some deferred among the Ancients their own Baptism and he thinks they might upon the like reasons defer their childrens Answ. 1. That they did defer their childrens Baptism confirms my opinion that it was not ordinary in the Greek Church to baptize infants 2. That if they did defer it upon the reasons imagined by him then they thought it not necessary to be done in infancy as Paedobaptists do now chiefly Mr. Baxter plain Script proof part 2. ch 8 who will have infants baptised immediately as soon as ever they are disciples which by his grounds is at the first instant of their birth or afore 3. That very reason why some deferred Baptism to old age to wit the doing away sin was indeed the very reason of their baptizing infants And Nazianzens confutation telling some that all times were fit for Baptism seeing no time was free from death shews how ill Mr M. chose that passage to put in the Title page of his Book unlesâ— he would have Readers to baptize upon that opinion as if thereby they could work out their salvation 4. All this discourse about the various reason of mens deferring their own Baptism is quite besides the point about parents deferring their infants Baptism which not to have been upon any of those imagined reasons but because they thought it not necessary nor did practise it but in case of apparent danger of imminent death to the infant will appear by weighing his answer to my instances â—o that of Constantines being not baptized in infancy though Helena his mother were a Christian it is said 1. That it appears not that Constantines parents were in his infancy become Christians 2. Himself was also an unbeliever many years To which I reply though it be not apparent that Constantius or Helena were Christians in the infancy of Christians yet those Historians that do conceive they were and yet it being agreed he was not then baptized oâ—acitely yeeld that it was not unusual for the children of Believers to be unbaptized till they came to age Dr. Homes tels me That I have ill urged Constantin a Latin for an instance that Baptism of infants was not ordinary in the Greek church But I think otherwise since Constantin lived and died in the Greek Church and therefore fitly mentioneâ— among them The next mentioned by me is Gregory Nazianzen the son of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till hee came to be a youth To this saith Mr. M or his friend How do you prove he was the son of a Christian Bishop His father was once in the Hypâ—istarian errour whether he were converted before Gregory was boâ—niâ— is not exprest When hee was young he was bâ—ed at Aâ—â—ens under heathens to which it 's not likely his father would send him if a Christian and why he was not baptised as soon as he was converted to Christianity I conjecture the reason was that he might the better prepare himself to receive baptism Answ. I did little imagin that this Author would have so far gratified the Papists as to joyn with Baronius and other Romanists by shifts to avoid the evidence of this instance which Protestants urge to prove Bishops to have then married and begot children after marriage To his question I prove him to have been a Bishop by the same words of Gregory Nazianzen himself in the verse of his life by which Chamier paustrat Cath. tom 3. l. 16. c. 13. § 41. Dr. Hall honour of the married Clergy 2d Book Sect. 8. and others prove Gregory Nazianzen to have been begotten of his Father being a Bishop where he brings in his Father speaking to perswade him to help him in his charge in these words as Dr. Hall turns them into English out of Greek The years of thy age are not so many as of my Priesthood Which how to free from Baronius his devices of an byperbole and the inconsistency with the other passages of his fathers Baptism and his study at Athens and seeing Julian there the Reader may see in Chamier ubi suprà at large Where and in Dr. Hall he may find that his mother was also a pious Christian when hee was born and that she begged him of God And the Century Writers of Magd. say cent 4 c. 10. She was born of pious and holy progenitours And though he travailed abroad suppose at 12. years of age yet was he long brought up by his parents especially in that time in which he was to have been baptized if the Baptism of infants had been then ordinary yet was hee not baptized as this Author confesseth till he was of age after he returned to his Father who it is not likely did send him to be trained up under infidels however hee might light on their acquaintance and hear them As for the reason of deferring his baptism it is in vain to enquire into another cause then that which Gregory Nazianzen himself in his 40th Oration of holy Baptism gives when hee adviseth to baptize infants in case of apparent danger of imminent death but out of that case to defer it And this appears to have been the genuine reason and the practise accordingly in that as Gregorius Presbyter relates in his life when sailing to Athens a storm arose so that his life was in apparent danger he was afraid of dying unbaptised and resolved to be baptised The other reason assigned by Mr M or his friend is frivolous for though the better to prepare himself to receive baptism might be the reason of his deferring it so long as he did when he came to age yet it could not be a reason of his parents deferring it or of his in infancy So that notwithstanding these vain shifts of this Author wherein he joyns with the Papists who use the like devices to avoin this testimony urged by Protestants to prove the marriage of Bishops then and is refuted by them yet this one instance is an evident proof that in the Greek Church baptism of infants was not ordinary in the fourth Century but used perhaps extraordinarily in case of apparent danger of imminent death There is the less need of insisting on the instance of Chrysostome his birth of Christian parents and educated and baptised at age by Miletius sith that of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 pregnant 'T is true I did allege it as Grotius 〈◊〉 saying whom I found counted for a learned man by Spanheimius and many others and I might well make use of him as Protestants sometimes do of Papists that are corrupt in point of antiquity If Dr. Young were the Author of the first part of Mr. Ms. Defence and of the Latin Book of the Lords day published in the year 1639. under
the name of Theophilus Pâ—ylokyriaces Loncardiensis hee himself cites Baronius for the Lords day in the very title page of his Book What Grotius was in his life and studies I leave for those who knew him to judge his books though in many things corrupt I might be allowed to make use of as of other learned men with judgement In this thing I did think I might the more securely take his word because in the same place Annot. in Matth. c. â—9 14 hee declared hee was for infant Baptism nor do I think it was without some reason which he affirmed though my time and Library yeeld mee not the advantage of making search into this thing It is enough that it is supposed by learned men probable which would not bee if it were not then ordinary that the children of Christian parents were baptized after they had themselves been believers Which iâ— plain by the resolution of the Synod of Neocaesarâ—a elder then the first Nicene which determined That a woman with child might be baptized because the Baptism reached not to the fruit of her womb because in the confession made in Baptism each ones free choise is shewed For if in the confession in Baptism each ones free choise is shewed then infants were not ordinarily baptized who could shew no free choise in confession How this is vindicated from the shifts of Mr. M or his friend may be seen in my Apology sect 16. p. 87 88. which I think needless to repeat And for Grotius his saying thaâ— in every age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the custome of deferring the Baptism of little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their saith may be true if either those in Italy mentioned by Ludov. Vives Comment in Aug. l. 1. de civit Dei c. 27. were Greeks as it is likely in Calabria where are Greek Churches as I remember Brerewood shews in his Enquiries of Religion or the Georgians children or the Christians children of Cholcos weâ—e Greeks oâ— whom Heylin in his Geography in the description of Armenia out of Brerewood Alexand. Rosse in his Censure of Religio Medici c say they are not baptized till they be 8. years old Nor need the Anabaptists yet to blush for all Mr. Ms. or his friends or Dr Homes or Dr. Hammonds or Mr. Craggs allegations in saying that the Anâ—ients especially the Greek Church rejected the baptism of infants for many hundred years For there is no evidence produced for infant Baptism in the Greek Church till Nazianzens time who flourished saith Dr. Hammond about the year of Christ 370. and died in the year 389. which is above 300. years and hee disswades it except in case of apparent danger of imminent death and saith some are kepâ— from Baptism by reason of infancy and as Mr. M p. 24. of his Defence saith all times were fit for Baptism seeing no time was free from death intimates Baptism not fit for some time except in that case which may be gathered to have been the onely reason of infant Baptism from what is sâ—id before of the story of hiâ— own baptism and therefore I doubt not to conclude that infant Baptism was not so ancient in the Greek Church as iâ— by Mr. M. and others pretended and as now it is taught by him and others is a late innovation SECT LXXXXI The testimonies of Tertullian for Infant Baptism and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of chap. 39. de Anima are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14 I Proceed to review the proofs from the Latin Fathers for infant Baptism Mr. Cr. brings up Tertullian in the fronâ— whom he reckons at the end of the second Century others at the beginning of the third about 70. or less years after John the Apostle in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of infant Baptism could neither bee clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some infants for some respects should â—e deferred but have called it down as an innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams That infant Baptism was in practise in Tertullians days it appears by this question lib. de bapt c. â—8 Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancy make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi-Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for infant Baptism himself appears that in his Book de Animà cap. 39. he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason lib. de bapt cap. 12. Praescribitur nemini fine Baptismo competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism Answ. 1. That Tertullian might not be mistaken or that the practise of infant Baptism could not be clouded or forgotten is said by Mr. Cragge inconsiderately 〈◊〉 afore Tertullians time the great differences about keeping Easter between Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus where it 's said John lived much and died and Victor of Rome who pretended tradition from Peter the mistake of â—renaus about Christs age with sundry others 2. That Tertullian would have called it down as an innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams is a confident speech but of no credit with those who know Tertullian hath not called down the anointing the baptized giving milk and honey using the sign of the cross c. which yet are undoubted innovations 3. It is granted that infant Baptism was used in his time but it is withal true that hee disswaded it or did call it down as an innovation except in case of danger of death and that by sundry reasons which if hee had taken ken infant Baptism to bee from the Apostles hee would not have done 4. The allowing of it in that case arose as Mr. Craggs quotations shew from the errour of the necessity of it to salvation But Dr. Hammond saith further Tertullian a man of great learning and a diligent observer and recorder of the customs and practises of the most ancient Church lib. de animâ c. 39. affirms it from the Apostle ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either parent is sanctified or believer i. e. baptized the children that are born from them are holy and this tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ both by praerogative of their seed and by the discipline of the institution i. e. as hath been shewed by Baptism adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words 1 Cor. 7.14 that his meaning was that the children of Believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis and evidencing what he means thereby by the following words of Christs