opposeth my position and whether he prove it or not But that the Reader may the better perceive where the point to be proved lies I shall set down distinctly what I conceive Mr. B. means and then what I assert and what Mr. B. should prove in opposition to my assertion 1. I conceive he imagines an offer of God to parents which he calls a promise or Covenant that upon their taking him to be their God he would be a God to their children even their infants 2. That parents are and were bound to accept of this offer for their children 3. That by it they do enter them into Covenant that is they do Covenant for them that they shall be Gods people and consequently they partake of the Covenant that God is their God 4. That by vertue of this entring into Covenant accepting and re-engaging them to God they are visible Churchmenbers I assert 1. There is no such offer promise or Covenant 2. That though there are precepts for parents to pray for their children to breed them up for God by example teaching c. yet they are not bound to believe this that upon their own faith God will take their infant children to be his and he will be a God to them nor to accept of this pretended offer sith there is no such promise or offer 3. That though parents may enter into Covenant for their children that is they may do it as those Deut. 29.12 either by charge and adjuration or by wishing a curse to them if they did not cleave to God as Nehem. 10.29 Josh. 6.25 and this may have an obligation on them beyond the precept and influence on them as a motive as the Oath to the Gibeonites Josh. 9.16 yet by this their entring into Covenant for them they do not make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God wil be their God 4. That if there were such a promise and such a duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging yet this neither did then nor doth now make infants visible Churchmembers So that the point between us is Whether there be such a precept to parents besides Circumcision of entring into Covenant accepting an offer of God to be their God for their children according to a promise that he will be so and re-engaging them to God whereby they become actually visible Churchmembers This Mr. B. affirms I deny He speaks thus Having thus opened the terms law and precept I prove the Proposition thus 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant then there was a law or precept which made this their duty and obliged them to it But it was a duty Ergo there was such a law or precept For the antecedent 1. If it were not a duty then it was either a sin or a neutral indifferent action But it was not a sin for 1. it was against no law 2. it is not reprehended nor was it indifferent for it was of a moral nature and ergo either good or evil yea sin or duty For properly permittere is no act of law though many say it is but a suspension of an act and so licitum is not moraliter bonum but onely non malum and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality 2. If there be a penalty and a most terrible penalty annexed for the non-performance then it was a duty But such a penalty was annexed as shall anon be particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. If it oblige ad panam it did first oblige ad obedientiam For no law obligeth ad paenam but for disobedience which presupposeth an obligation to obedience 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their children into Gods Covenant and Church then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major There is no duty but what is made by some law or precept as it 's proper efficient cause or foundation Ergo if it be a duty there was certainly some law or precept that made it such Among men we say that a benefit obligeth to gratitude though there were no law But the meaning is if there were no humane law and that is because the law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankfull If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it there could be no duty 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will ergo no duty but what is made such by a law or precept For a precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty 2. Where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 ergo where there is no law there is no duty for these are contraries it is a duty not to transgress the law and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us There is no apparent ground of exception but in case of Covenants Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent I answer 1. He may oblige himself to an act which he must perform or else prove unfaithfull and dishonest but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty ergo when God makes a Covenant with man he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity but not of duty 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise doth occasion an obligation to duty from God because God hath obliged men to keep their promises 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own ruler so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty that is duty to himself though the act be for the benefit of another but then he may as fitly be said to make a law to himself or command himself so that still the duty such as it is hath an answerable command So that I may well conclude that there is a law because there is a duty For nothing but a law could cause that duty nor make that omission of it a sin Where there is no law sin is not imputed Rom. 5.13 But the omission of entring infanâ—s into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ergo there was a law commanding it 2. If it was a duty to dedicate infants to God or enter them into Covenant with him then either by Gods will or without it certainly not without it If by Gods will then either by his will revealed or unrevealed His unrevealed will cannot oblige for there wants promulgation which is necessary to obligation And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will unless remotely as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed If it be Gods
apprehend him to be their enemy they abhor the very name and remembrance of him If they do but dream of him it terrifieth them they are afraid of seeing him in any apparition If they know any temptation to be from him so far they dislike it and abhor it though for the thing presented they may cherish it This is not special saving grace but this is a great advantage to the work of special grace and to our more effectual resisting of temptations and entertaining the help tâ—at is offered us against them when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature we now look on him as having the power of death as Gods executioner and our destroyer and malicious adversary And if there be any Witch or other wicked person that hath contracted such familiarity amity with him as that this natural enmity is thereby overcome that proveth not that it was not naturally there but that they by greater wickedness are grown so far unnatural 5. As this enmity is established in the nature of mankinde against the diabolical nature so is there a further enmity legally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity malignity and works Vide Pareum in locum God will put an enmity by his Laws both natural and positive making it the duty of mankinde to take Satan for their enemy to resist and use him as an enemy and fight against him and abhor his works and so to list themselves under the General that fighteth against him to take his colours and to be of his Army And this being spoken of the common world of mankinde and not onely of the elect for it is not they onely that are obliged to this hostility and warfare belongeth to each one according to their capacities and therefore infants being at the parents disâ—ose it is they that are to list them in this army against the enemy of mankinde of which more anon 6. A third and higâ—er enmity is yet here comprehended and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity pravity and works which may bee called natural as it is the bent or bias of our new nature This God giveth onely to his chosen and not to all And it containeth not onely their consent to list themselves in his army against satan but specially and properly a hatred to him as the Prince of unrighteousness and a cordial resolution to fight against him and his worâ—s universally to the death with a complacency in God and his service and souldiers Hâ—re take a short prospect of the mysterious blessed Trinity As God is one in three and in his entity hath unity verity and goodness and in his blessed nature hath posse scire velle power wisdome and love so as from these is he related both to his created and redeemed rational creatures as absolute proprietary as soveraign ruler and as most gracious benefactour As Lord of our nature he hath put the foresaid enmity between the humane nature and the Diabolical As soveraign Ruler he hath by legislation imposed on us a further enmity as our duty that we should be listed in his army profess open hostility against satan and fight against him to the death As Benefactor he giveth special grace to do this to his chosen As he is Lord of all so the first is done on the natures of all As he is Rector of all but not by the same Laws as to positives so he obligeth all to this hostility but not all as he doth those that hear the Gospel As he is Benefactor he doth with his own as he list and makes a difference If any say that it is the same enmity that is here said to bee put in all and therefore the same persons in which it is put I answer 1. there 's no proof of either A general command or promise to a community may signifie a difference of duties or gifts to that community though that difference be not expressed For the nature of the subject may prove it And 2. experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant proves the difference before mentioned And it 's well known 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these matters 2. And that the mystery of grace was to bee opened by degrees and so but darkly at the first that it is no wonder if we find the whole sum of the Gospel here coucht-up in so narrow a room and if each particular be not largely laid open before our eyes 7. That wee may certainly know that this promise speaks not onely of the enmity that Christ himself should have to satan and doth not engage a General without an army God doth here expresly mention the woman her self saying I will put enmity between thee and the woman so that as shee stood in a threefold respect she is here her self possessed with this threefold enmity 1. As she is the root of humane nature from whence all mankinde must spring she is possest with the natural enmity to the diabolical nature and this to bee naturally convayed or propagated 2. As she was the root of the great Republick of the world or that rational society which God as Rector would sapientially govern and her self with her husband who no doubt was also included in the promise were the whole then existent race of mankinde so did she receive a legal enmity of obligation which she was traditionally to deliver down to all her posterity being her self hereby obliged to list her self and all her infant progeny in the Redeemers army against the proclaimed enemy and to teach her posterity to do the like For thus obligatory precepts must be brought down 3. As she was one of the chosen favourites of God she received the habitual enmity of sanctification And this is not in her power to propagate though shâ—e may use some means that are appointed thereto and whether a promise of any such thing be made to her seed on the use of such means I will not now stand to discuss 8. It is not all that are possessed with the natâ—raâ— enmity against the Divel himself that are the Church of Christ For this is but a common preparative which is in all Nor is it all that are obliged to the further enmity against the works of satan But all that on that obligation are duely listed in Christs army against satan by the obliged person are visible members and all that are by sanctification at a hearty enmity habitual or actual with the Kingdome of satan are members of the Church called mystical or invisible This I put as granted 9. Those that violate this fundamental obligation and to their natural pravity shall add a fighting against Christ and his Kingdome for Satan and his Kingdome are become themselves the seed of the Serpent And though they had the natural enmity with the rest of mankind in general against Satan yet have they therewithal the habitual enmity against Christ. This much I suppose as out of
baptism He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism which neither hath institution from God nor promise of blessing and was never known by the infant nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred 3. Saith he The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church which iâ— the most honourable and profitable society Ergo. That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such particâ—pation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sence So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own when they speak of duty to God they mâ—st be interpreted in the strictest sence When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onely woâ—k Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Baptiâ—m Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 24. â—e have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members but onely by Baptism Mr. Bs. minor then here is this that parents have leave to enter which is all one with admission their children into the visible Church by Baptism that is to baptize them But this is false For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism in that he hath not appointed baptism for thâ—m as is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review much more to baptize them in their own persons according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses plain Scrip proof c. pag. 2â—1 except they be Ministers A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case but a not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc prov ch 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for which who so denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will worship in the world If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church then it is a law that speaks of duty to God not of benefit to man for such laws contain grants of something from God not of what man is to do Now if it be a law of duty it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence which is the right sence they are bound to it as God appoints and no otherwise So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism as it is officium a duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized Mr. Ball reply abâ—ut nine positions p. 68. The Sacraments are of God and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to Disciples to them that are called Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it yet it self is onely a duty and such a one as is onely by institution not by the law of nature nor belongs to paâ—ents for children but to each person for himself But Mr. B. goes on 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of sell preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawfull Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation good welfare real happiness of them but to their hurt 2. It requires a positive command sith it is not of the law of nature 3. It is forbidden in that it is not commanded 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it sith he hath promised none to it 3. Saith he It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Upon so much encouragement and hâ—pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ. Answ. The point to be proved was that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church but a leave of infaâ—ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God if there be good sense in the expression is another thing Infants Churchmembership is the infants state not the parents act and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember to which God vouchsafes leave But whether there be sense or not in the expression it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers nor is it true that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded is it the duty of parents without a positive command by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of those hopes and to list them by baptism into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent then an other who hath the same hopes and may do it as viz. a Midwife Yea by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believeâ—s
for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gâ—nerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to â—ll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâ—s or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely â—hildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
God prâ—â—ise it as a new thing I confess if I should find by any new law or promise that it did begin but in Moses days I should think it some abatement of the strength of my cause though yet I think there would enough remain 2. There are yet higher two sorts of laws the one for the constitution of the Commonwealth it self the other for the administration or government of it when it is so constituted The former are called by some Fundamental Laws as laying the frame and form of the Commonwealth and the quality of the materials c. I think indeed that as constitutive of the form of the Commonwealth these are scarce preperly called Laws though as they look forward obliging to duty and prohibiting alteration they may But if they be not laws they are somewhat higher and lay the ground of all laws and obedience and so are laws eminenter viâ—â—ualiter though not actually and formally And in our case as this constitution did subject us to God making it our duty ever after to obey him so doth it oblige us to acknowledge that subjection And the very constitution of the Church is an act of high beneficence and performed by the fundamental grant or Covenant Now if this Covenant and constitution could not expresly be shewed in writing it were no diminution of the authority of it seeing among men Fundamentals are seldome written and when they are it is onely as laws obliging the subject to maintain and adhere to the first constitution As long therefore as we can prove that it is Gods will that successively infants should be Churchmembers it no whit invalidates the cause if we could not shew the original constitution in writing Yet somewhat we shall attempt 3. We have full proof of infants Churchmembership by laws and Covenants concerning it ever since the time that there was a written word of God and that is sufficient if we could fetch it no higher Having premised this I come nearer to the Question Answ. Had Mr. B. meant fairly and not either to prepossess the Reader with prejudice against me or weary him afore he should come to the point he had begun with this question In the entrance to which he tediously sets down some postulata which do shew that we are not to expect any plain Scripture proof of a Law or Ordinance of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which he so cracks of as to intitle his Book as if he would bring such But I shall let pass his postulata and attend to his proofs The first institution saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership de jure upon supposition of their existence was in Gods first constitution of the Republick of the World when he became mans governour and determined of his subjects and members of the Commonwealth Which Republick being sacred and devoted to Gods worship and service was truly a Church of which God was head This was performed by the first Law and Covenant made either in or upon mans creation That such a Covenant or promise of felicity was made by God to innocent man almost all Divines agree But because it is rather implied then expressed in Moses brief History some few cavillers do therefore contradict us But 1. the threatning of death for sin seems to imply a promise of life if he sinned not 2. And the New Testament affordeth us divers passages that yet plainlier prove it which to you I need not recite But whether this promise of life were natural as the threatning of death was or onely positive and more arbitrary Divines are not agreed among themselves Those that say it was free and positive give this reason That God could not naturally be obliged to bless or felicitate the most innocent or perfect creature nor any creature merit of God Those that think it natural as the threatning was say It 's true that God could not be properly be obliged because he is under no law no more is he obliged to punish but onely man obliged to suffer if he inflict it And it 's true that man cannot strictly merit of God But yet say they as man may have a natural aptitude for such felicity so God hath a natural propensity to do good according to the capacity of the subject and his works do oblige him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability as well as his word So that their reasons are these following 1. Because God is as naturally prone to do good to the good as to do evil to the evil that is to reward as to punishment as his name proclaimed to Moses Exod. 34. shews 2. Because God making man capable of a higher felicity and principling him with inclinations thereto and giving him desires love and other affections for that blessed end even the everlasting fruition of God therefore they say God did in this frame of his nature give him ground to expect such a felicity if he sinned not For else all these inclinations and affections should have been in vain But God made not so noble a creature with vain inclinations and affections to act fallaciously and falsly Also Gods works would not be harmonical So that as Gods promise is but a sign of his will obliging him improperly in point of fidelity and immutability so say they the nature of man was a sign of Gods will so far engaging him So that as he could not let sin go unpunished without some breach in the harmony of his sapiential frame of administration no more could he deny to perfect man the object of those desires which he formed in him So that although he might have made man such a creature as should not necessary be punished for evil or rewarded for good that is he might have made him not a man yet having so made him it is necessary that he be governed as a man in regard of felicity as well as penalty 3. Our Philosophers and Divines do commonly prove the immortality of the soul from it's natural inclinations to God and eternal felicity And if the immortality may be so proved from itâ—s nature then also it 's felicity in case of righteousness I interpose not my self as a Judge in this controversie of Divines but I have mentioned it to the end which I shall now express 1. It is most certain whether the reward or promise be natural or positive that such a state of felicity man was either in or in the way to or in part and the way to more And iâ—'s most certain that man was made holy devoted to God and fit for his service and that in this estate according to the law of his creation he was to increase and multiply It 's most certain therefore that accor to the first law of nature infants should have been Churchmembers 2. But if their opinion hold that make the reward grounded on the law of nature and not on a meer positive law and you see the reasons are not contemptible then the argument would be
had the Jews understood that their children were in that condition worsted for want of a priviledge equal to their circumcision they would have been glad to accept of Christ to take away that horrour that then lay on their Spirits The third exception is that it is not said the promise is to the Gentiles and their children now if this be not made good the argument fals because we are Gentiles by nature To which he answers 1. If believing Gentils live under the same Covenant that Abraham and his seed did which has been proved then though they were none of his seed t is safer to apply the whole promise to them I am thy God and the God of thy seed then to cut off and circumcise the tenor of the Covenant and to say unto believers now God onely is your God not the God of your children is not this to make a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant and to rob believers of one of the most precious comforts they have by promise even Gods owning their seed Which they cannot be assured of as the Jews were without the children be admitted to the first sign or seal of the Covenant which is baptism now under the Gospel as I shall prove by its succeeding circumcision by and by To which I reply The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is mixt and in respect of the temporal promises believing Gentiles live not under the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 but in respect of the spiritual part that is they are justified and saved now or God is a God to them as they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 But neither did God promise to be a God in respect of Gospel grace to Abrahams natural seed as such the contrary is delivered Rom. 9.7 8. nor now to any believers seed as such but the elect whether believers or unbelievers children as is proved at large by me Exam. part 3. Sect. 4. not by denying the Covenant of grace to be made with a believer his natural seed do we cut off or circumcise the tenor of the Covenant or make any alteration much less a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant the Apostle expressly determining and whole Juries of the ablest Protestant writers even paedobaptists expounding Rom. 9.8 as resolving that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed was not made to all Abrahams natural seed no not to the circumcised not to Ishmael and Esau but to the elect onely and therefore there is no safety to apply the whole promise I am thy God and the God of thy seed to every sincere believer and his child it being expressly contradictory to Rom. 9.8 which determines some onely to be children of the promise And yet we need not say as M. Drew injuriously makes us say God onely is your God not the God of your children but onely this you may assure your selves that he is your God for ye are believers and so Abrahams seed and ye may hope by reason of general indefinite promises and frequent experiences that God will be a God to your children But God hath not promised that he will be certainly a God to every or any one of your children definitely but is at liberty to shew mercy to your children or to an infidels as it shall please him And this you must be contented with sith God afforded no more to Abraham himself when he had made Isaac the child of the promise and not Ishmael nor to Isaac when he loved Iacob and hated Esau. It is fit you should remember God to be no debtor to you that he is the potter ye and yours are the clay and accordingly acquiess in his will blessing him for his love to you which is the most precious comfort you have by promise and not being anxious concerning your children Nor is there any truth in it that either the Jews were assured that God would own their seed that is be their God nor that by being admitted to circumcision they had that assurance nor that without admission to baptism we cannot be assured of our children that GOD owns them nor that baptism succeeds circumcision or if it did such assurance as Mr. Drew speaks of cannot be inferred thence So that all this passage is but a fardel of mistakes Le ts consider the next 2. saith M. Drew Are not Gentiles the seed of Abraham Then I would fain be resolved in this whether Christ took upon him onely the nature of the Jews or of the Jews and Gentiles both If only of Jews how must the Gentiles be saved If of both then how you will construe this text Heb. 2.16 He took upon him the seed of Abraham if you will not allow the Gentiles by any means to be Abrahams seed Answer I grant believing Gentils are Abrahams spiritual seed descending from him as the Father of the faithfull by imitating his faith And as for M. Drews frivolus or captious question which goes upon a supposition as if Christ might take on him the nature of the Jews only that the nature of the Jews were one and the Gentils another I tell him though I think such a Dr. might have resolved himself for his resolution that Christ took on him the nature of both that is the same specifical essence or kinde of being that both had to wit the being of a man common a like to Jews and Gentiles meaning by nature his individual and numerical Existence which is all one with that our Lord sprang out of Judah Heb. 7.14 not from Levi or from Lot and yet the Gentils are saved by his name he dying and arising again both for Jews and Gentils And for the Construction of Heb. 2.16 thought there are learned men that expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he takes hold or helpeth the seed of Abraham that is believers of Gentils as well as Jews yet I think the meaning there to be no more but this that he took on him or received the nature of man by a natural descent from Abraham 1. because the seed of Abraham is opposed to Angels and therefore Abrahams seed signifies the nature of man contradistinct to Angels 2. because the author saith ver 17. thence he ought to be like to his brethren to be a mercifull high Priest which comes not from his helping believers but his assumption of the humane nature whith fits him to be like to men and to be a mercifull high Priest And therefore I like best the reading of our transtators in the text not that in margin And thus haye I answered M. Drews douty question in which he would so fain be resolved But what is this to prove that Acts 2.39 the promise is not yet to the Gentils that are called but also to their children I see not it being neither proved that Acts 2.39 the promise is the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed ot that the children of Gentils called
in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism for repentance is put as a prerequisite 2. The Apostle doth not speak of the promise as Master Church means that he judged that they and their children were rightly judged as visible professors in the promise of propriety in God for they were not then such But that the promise of raising up Christ was fulfilled for them upon their repentance and baptism or their calling and this is made not the reason of right to receive or warrant to the Minister to baptize them but as a motive to their duty of repenting and being baptized and encouragement to hope for remission notwithstanding their crucifying Christ and imprecation on themselvs and theirs Matth. 27.25 SECT VII Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize PAg. 19. Mr. Church brings in an objection thus The judgement of charity that any are in promise is not a sufficient reason for administring baptism to them there must be shews of grace for more certainty To which he thus answers shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are ground for the judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise for else if the Devil should take a humane shape and make a verbal profession though he were known to be a Devil he must be baptized I reply Mr. Church here starts a question by what judgment a Minister is to proceed in admitting a person to baptism Concerning which I suppose it will not be denied 1. That a Minister being but as an officer under Christ in baptizing is to baptize according to his Lords will For that is the property of a servant 2. That the will of the Lord is most manifest in the institution or appointment of Christ which is without question declared by the words of Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. explained by the Apostles and other approved Ministers thereof command and practice mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles 3. That true believers and disciples of Christ are appointed to be baptized and that they have true right before God 4. That such believers and disciples as are appointed to be baptized are Disciples of all nations not of Angelical but humane nature and therefore we have no warrant to baptize either good Angels or Devils taking humane shape and making shews of repentance or faith if known to be Divils or Angels All the difference is with what judgment and upon what evidence a Minister is to baptize I conceive 1. upon extraordinary revelation from God a Minister is to baptize an Infant declared to be a Disciple as I say in my Examen p. 4. S. 3. 2. According to ordinary rule he ought to baptize none but Disciples by profession which profession ought to be free sober serious and intelligent For discerning of which he is to use ministerial prudence though he be not able to search the heart and after the use of ministeral prudence therein he is prudently to judge of the truth of his faith and discipleship Wherein he ought to judge according to the rule of charity 1 Cor. 3.17 which believeth all things hopeth all things and yet heed what Solomon saith Prov. 14.15 The simple believeth every word but the prudent man looketh well to his going And our Lord Christ Luke 12.43 having said as it was conceived of a Minister Who then is that faithfull and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season it is requisite that the judgment of a Minister upon which he baptizeth should have both ingredients prudents charity charity alone is not sufficient For 1. If Charity be used without prudence there may be a mockery of the Ordinance and it profaned 2. If the rule be a judgment of charity alone then supposing the Minister be defective in his charity the person is to be debarred who is otherwise fit to be baptized But about this I conceive there is little or no difference between me and the paedobaptists Mr. M. in one place to wit in his defence pag. 78. intimates that I am conceived to incline to the looser way of baptizing any that would make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. And in another place pag. 233. he maks it all my pleading that because we cannot know that all Infants of believers have the inward grace we may not therefore baptize them From the former I vindicated my self in my Apology Sect. 17. and from the latter Sect. 10. But the difference is what qualification it is that may be evidence to a Minister whereby to judge prudently a person to be capable of baptism They that hold all Infants are to be baptized that are offered they make no scruple nor do they make much scruple that hold all Infants that are in a chosen nation which I have refuted Exam. part 3. Sect. 13. others baptize onely the children of inchurched members of which I shall speake in Examining Mr. Cobbets conclusions There are that from the Generality of promises and election running through the Loyns of believers will have all the children of believers to be in Covenant and elect in the parcels though not in the lump and Mâ— Church his opinion comes near it that we have ground from a judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise to baptize them But against this I argue 1. That is to be the rule of judging a persons baptizability which is made the condition of a person to be baptized in the holy Scripture But no where in it is this made the condition of being baptized that he be elect and in the Covenant 2. The Scripture doth no where say that the election of God runs for the most part through the Loyns of believers And though there are promise of blessing to the righteous and their seed yet these are indefinite both for the kinde of blessing and the person and these promises are made onely to the truly righteous and not to them who are only such in appearance Wherfore there can be no certainty for a judgment of prudence to rest upon to determin of any whether they are elect or not in the Covenant of grace or not spiritually considering that God hath declared Rom. 9.6 7 8 18 24. That he ties not himself to believers children Now all judgment is to be suspended of that which is not revealed The secret things belong to the Lord our God Deut. 29.29 3. For Infants of believers there is no ground for a judgment of charity because they do nothing to shew whether they are in the Covenant or no. And if it be revealed by God that they are all or some in Covenant then we know it by a judgment of faith believing Gods revelation and so it is not a probable judgment of charity but a certain judgment of verity
of the Covenant of grace entred with our first parents presently upon the fall Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members Disciples and subjects of Christ because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith So that Mr. Bs. opinion is Christ by his law of nature or nations or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith formerly and present disposition beyond the meer bare profession of faith is properly the onely cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian. Against this I argue 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember nor any such law either of nature or nations or positive which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership is false But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it in that which followes 2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional the absolute according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant and it is granted to be onely to the elect in his Appendix answer to the 8th and 9th object and elsewhere and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person not visible churchmembership upon the faith of another The conditional covenant is of justification salvation on condition of faith and this pâ—omiseth not visible Churchmembership but saving graces it promiseth unto all upon condition and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith 3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership because God may be their God and yet they not be visible Churchmembers as he is the God of Abraham of infants dying in the womb of believers at the hour of death yâ—t they not now visible Churchmembers 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership yet being to the seed simply may be true of them though not in infancy and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times it being certain that many are never visible Churchmembers as â—ll still-born infants of believers many that are visible Churchmembers for a time yet fall away and therefore if that promise were granâ—ed and the condition and law put yet infants might not be visible Christian Churchmembers 4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assignes is not sufficient But the antececedent is true For the promise the parents actual believing the law of nature of nations any particular precept of dedicating the childe to God the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born and yet then the childe is no visible Church member Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick That the cause being put the effect is put To this Mr. B. plain Script proof c. pag. 100. Moral causes and so remote causes might have all their being long before the effect so that when the effect was produced there should bee no alteration in the cause though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing I reply this answer deserved a smile 1. For Mr. B. as his words shew before cited makes Christ by his law or covenant-gâ—ant the onely cause efficient therefore it is the next cause according to him and not onely a remote cause 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe is born as after and there is no alteration in the cause though yet it have not produced the effect then it is made by M. B. a cause in act and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect yet not the relative being of causes for so they are together So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law yet they are not the cause adequate and in act which Mr. B. makes them without the being of the effect nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose It is true election Christs death the covenant c. are causes of remission of sins imputation of righteousness salvation before these be but they are not the adequate causes in act For there must be a further act of God forgiving justifying delivering afore these are actually They are causes of the justificabâ—lity the certainty futurity of justification of themselves but not of actual justification without mans faith and Gods sentence which is the next cause A deed before one's born gives him title to an inheritance but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Churchmembership the effect of a moral or legal cause He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue of a grant or legal donation But in this he is mistaken confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it Whereas the Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral to wit the call whereby they are made Churchmembers and that act or signe what ever it be whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law covenant or some donation legal or moral not the state it self of visible Churchmembership Which I further prove thus 5. If visible Churchmembership bee antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it But visible Churchmembership is immediately upon the persons believing professed which is a condition of his being in
grant and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church and yet not of the visible Church and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them yea there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity For the conseâ—uence holds not Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church It must rest upon some such positions as these In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers Which are manifestly false 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy 2. Because if these positions were true 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember because then Christ was head of the Church and as Mr B. saith The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her 2. Then an old man shoâ—ld not be a member of the visible Church because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man which are both absurd And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of rule and protection the Head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception which is by his spirit he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible but onely in respect of that part which is invisible to wit the true believers or elect pâ—rsons who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth Dr. Rainold thes 4. § 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt Dr. Field of the Church book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit c. 9. makes them members not living nor true according to the essence of members but dead and as ill humours in the body and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. that the Lord Jesus is promised Gen 3.15 to do this work of bruising the Serpents head or conquering the Devil as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age according to which it may be true For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed according to humane nature onely but also according to his Divine Heb 9.14 nor what he did was done in infancy but at ripe age For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy but at ripe age 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ who was born and an infant yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby seems not true for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants oâ— persons born and so the birth of a bastard should be holy and his infancy holy which I need not shew how absurd it is 4. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the head first an infant For this doth suppose that either this was the onely end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world or the fulfilling of his promise that a child should be born a son should be given to us and would infer that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers must deny Christ to have been an infant 5. Nor do I know that to be true that in things which Christ was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in the bodies of his Church For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church as to marry beget children c. which he did not in his own body first though he was capable of them 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. B. when he will assault it there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood none in this opinion And for his inference if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith nor am I ashamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not But Mr. B. proceeds 4. Saith he As the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and wee abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul. Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they
deny the syllogism to be good as not having the whole medium in the minor which was in the major if it be understood in another sense which I count non-sense that the species of infants in the Jewish particular Church were members of the universal visible Church Christian the minor is to bee proved As for what Mr. B. saith the universal Church never ceaseth here if it be meant of the universal visible Church definite of that age in which alone infants visible members of a particular Church are members it is false if of an universal Church visible indefinite so as that the sense be some or other universal Church visible never ceaseth or an universal visible Church in some age or other ceaseth not infant members in the particular Church are not members in such an universal but in the definite of one age and the minor of Mr. Bs. argument in that sense is false Or if the sense bee as it seemeth by what followes That the nature of the universal visible Church ceaseth not â—heere I deny the consequence of the major in Mr. Bs. syllogism And say That it is non-sense to term the nature of the universal visible Church the universal visible Church as it is to term humanity or manhood a man or Peter humanity or the humane nature All know that understand the Metaphysicks that whatever the difference bee whether formal or modal or some other yet the one is not rightly predicated or said of the other no man saith the essence of a thing which is all one with the nature is the thing but that by which it is In like manner it is non-sense to say infants were members of the nature of the universal Church visible For membership hath relation to an integral whole not to an essential no man makes infants a part of the definition of the universal visible Church but of the compleatness of it But let 's view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he That there is a universal visible Church Mr. Rutherford and others have largely proved They of New England indeed deny a univeâ—sal visible governing or political Church but not this that I speak of as you may see in Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Allens answer to Mr. Ball But lest any should deny it I wiâ—l bring one proof or rather many in one 1 Cor. 12 13. We are all baptised by one spiriâ— into one body whether Jews or Gentiles Here you see it is one and the same body that all are baptised into Now that this is the visible Church I prove thus 1. That one body that hath distinct visible members with variety of gifts is the visible body But this is such 2. That one body which is visible in suffering and rejoycing is the visible body But this is such v. 25 26. 3. That body which is capable of schism and must be admonished not to admit of it is the visible body But this is such v. 25. 4. That body which had the visible seals of Baptism and the Lords Supper was the visible body But this was such v. 13. 5. That one body which had visible universal officers was the visible universal Church or body But this was such Therefore c. Answ. I list not to interpose my judgement in the controversies between Mr. Ball and Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Hudson on the one side and Mr. Allen Mr. Shepheard and Mr. Hooker on the other side which rest much on the meaning of the term Church in such passages as these 1 Cor. 12 28. 10.32 Acts 8. â— Gal. 1.13 c. and some Logick notions of an universal and integral whole of a similar and dissimilar whole the distinction of a Church entitive and organical and the like Nevertheless because it concerns the present point that I should say somewhat in this thing I shall thus far express my conceits 1. I think by the word Church in none of the places alledged by Mr. Hudson vindic ch 2. a particular fixed congregation organized is meant except the last 3. Joh. 10. where I conceive the casting out could be onely out of that particular Church where Diotrephes did Lord it and where alone he did and could forbid those that would receive the brethren though perhaps the effect might extend further Nor do I think on the other side that in any one of them by the Church is meant the universal visible organical political Church collectively taken which Mr. Hudson asserts not Acts. 8.3 Gal. 1 1â— For Saul did not make havock persecuted or destroy the whole Church so taken nor only the particular Church of Jerusalem but the word Church there is taken without quantity anâ— so neither notes the universal nor particular all nor some but indefinitely in genere confuso the disciples of Christ or any of that way Acts 9.1 2. them that believed on Christ Acts 22.19 them that called on his name Acts 9.14 the Saints Acts 26.10 wheresoever hee could reach them And in the same sense it is taken Acts 2.47 1 Cor. 10.32 1 Tim. 3.15 and I think the sense is the same Eph. 3.10 whether by the Church be meant of what was done to or on the Church that is the believers called out of the Gentiles to whom hee gave his spirit manifestly as on Cornelius or by the teachers in the Church especially of the wonderful mysteries which were revealed in the exercise of gifts then given Matth 16.18 It is true is meant the visible Church but not the universal organical collectively taken nor any particular Congregation organized but the visible in respect of the part which is invisible against which the gates of the grave or death shall not prevail to keep them in but they shall be raised up again to everlasting life at the last day Nor is it said that the keyes should bee given to the Church but to Peter the use of which was to bee in the calling of the Church effectually The other text 1 Cor. 12.28 cannot be meant of the Church visible universal organical collective nor of a particular Congregation not this latter for reasons given by Mr. Hudson nor the former for the Apostles Prophets Teachers are distinct from the Church there taken but they are not so from the Church universal visible organical collective Ergo. Therefore I conceive Apostles c. are not said to be set in the Church collectively taken as a totum integrale organicum but in the Church distributively taken that is in the several Churches where they were imployed as Peter among those of the Circumcision Paul among the Gentiles To which the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath set gives me occasion to encline which I conceive to bâ—e the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave Eph. 4.12 and it notes not a setting by way of law constituting such to be in the Church but a setting or disposing by way of providence in several Churches for their profit as he saw good 2. I conceive the term Catholike or universal
work of charity not of institution or right by their birth to either But these things Mr. Cr. pleads against them 〈…〉 well as my self and both the doctrine and practise of Paedobaptists now is against the Ancients as well as mine Yea more in that they had a constant course of baptizing the catechized persons upon a solemn profession of faith and did in all baptisms except that of the Clinici that is sick persons baptized in their beds plunge the whole body or dip it so as to be under water which are now clean otherwise and things unknown among Paedobaptists So that as Bp. Usher in his answer to the â—esuites challenge in the article about praying for the dead p. 245. proves the Romanists to have rejected the ancient prayer for the dead because they pray not for Martyrs and others in bliss for their resurrection but for persons in Purgatory to be delivered thence so I may truly â—ay the Paedobaptists now have rejected the ancient infant Baptism sith they deny Baptism necessary to salvation or that it gives grace and they do it onely to believers infants by sprinkling or perfusion without mersion scarce to any but infants without any solemn course of catechising ordinarily in order to future Baptism and to infants ordinarily out of the case of danger of death upon pretence of a federal holiness by birth and ordinance of visible Churchmembership unrepealed unknown to the Ancients and therefore their doctrine and practise hath no patronage from them Mr. Cr. p. 98. saith that I cunningly alter the subject of the question when I say infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church and tels me that he and others do not say so Which intimates that hee and others desert the maintainance of sprinkling infants as ancient which diffidence is some argument that the late Assembly have forsaken the ancient way of Baptism by dipping having in the Directory determined sprinkling as sufficient and in the practise of many of them taken away the old Fonts more agreeâ—ble to antiquity and brought in little stone Basons near the Pulpit or Readers Pew like Popish holy water pots fit onely for the novelty of sprinkling after the Scottish modâ— Nâ—r is Mr. Crs. way of powring water on the face or dipping in part of the head any more the baptizing Christ appointed or antiquity used excâ—pt in the case of the Clinici 'T is true Gods ordinances are not destructive to nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice But this proves 〈…〉 Baptism should be omitted altogether and not the ordinance 〈◊〉 and people mocked as they are by the preacher that saith falsly he baptizeth the person when he doth onely sprinkle or powr water on the face or dip in part of the head SECT LXXXIX The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning Infant Baptism are examined and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge Dr. Hammond Dr. Homes Mr. Marshal THe alledging of pseudo Dionisius the Areopagite and Clements Apostolical Constitutions is but to abuse the world with counterfeit names discovered by many learned Paâ—ists and Proâ—estants to be such and the like is to be said of Justin Martyrs forged testimony qu. 36. ad orthodoxos which are not rejected because questioned as Mr. Cr. seems to intimate but because they are by many strong evidences proved not to have been the Authors whose names they bear As for the evidence to matter of faâ—t they give that infants were baptized in that age â—n which they were written I do readily grant iâ— aâ—d before too yet think it no advantage â—or the present preâ—ended infant Baptism which is clean otherwise and upon other reasons aâ— particularly that the baptized infants obtained good things at the resurrection by Baptism but the unbaptized obtain not good things Nor is there a word in that to confirm the novel doctrine of the childrens right to Baptism as being in Covenant with the parents For neither are the parents there said to be believerâ— but the bringers nor by the parents faith are they said to have right to Baptism but by the faith of the bringers to obtain good things at the resurrection and therefore in vain doth Mr. Cr. thus endeavour to hide the deformity of that Authors doctrine which is no better then that which commonly Protestant Divines condem as Popish More honestly in this then Mr. Cr. doth Bellarmin tom 3. l. 2. de effectu Sacram c. 6. say Juâ—â—in in his Apology to Antoninus saith We obtain remissâ—â—â— of afore committed â—â—ns in water c. And before he had said that no man was brought to Baâ—tism unless he before believed Like things hee hath in his dialogue with Triphon And ch 8. alwayes in the Church the custome waâ— that those who would be Christians should first be made catechized persons and long enough instructed and not baptized unless instruâ—ted and firm and stable in faith citing to thiâ— end Justin in his Apology to Antoninus as showing the manners of the Church As for Irenaeus his testimony lib. 2. adv bar c. 39. it proves not infant Baptism For though it be true that Mr. Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3.5 say None I trow will deny that when the Apostle speaks of saving us by washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost hee speaks of Baptism yet it follows not that that the Apostle meant by regeneration Baptism nor is it likely sith the word regeneration is noâ— to be read by the washing which is regeneration as if it were by apposition but of regeneration as the Genitive possessive and the meaning is by the washing which signifies regeneration which is before the washing yet if it were so it proves not Irenaeus meant by renascuntur are born again are baptized sith he saith not are by washing born again as the Apostles phrase is Nor though it be granted that in Justin Martyr and others of the ancients to be regenerated is to bee baptized doth it appear that Irenaeus meant it so in that place unless it were proved it is so onely meant by him and the ancients Nor doth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 18. term Baptism regeneration as Dr. Homes p. 118. suggests but saith thus to the denying of Baptism of that generation which is into God But that indeed the word renascuntur are born again is not meant of Baptism is proved from the words and the scope of them For 1. the words are per eum renascunâ—ur by him that is Christ are born again and it is clear from the scope of the speech about the fulness of his age as a perfect master that by him notes his person according to his humane nature Now if then by him are born again be as much as by him are baptized this should bee Irenoeus his assertion that by Christ himself in his humane body infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men are baptized unto God But this speech is most manifestly false for
neither did Christ baptize any at all in his own person the Evangelist John 4.1 2. expresly affirming that though the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John yet Jesus himself did not baptize but his Disciples did baptize nor did the Disciples baptize any infant at all as may bee gathered from the whole N. T. 2. The word which Irenaeus expresseth whereby persons were born again to God by Christ is applied to the example of his age as the words and scâ—pe show Omnem tatem sanctificans â—or illam quae ad iâ—fum erat similitudinem Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc iâ—sam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pictatis effectus justiti subjectionis Juvenibuâ— juvenis exemplum juâ—enibus siens sanctificans domino Sic senior in senioribus ut sit perfeâ—tus Magistâ—â— in omnibuâ— non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetâ—tem sanctificâ—ns simul seniores exemâ—lum â—â—sis quoque fiens But hee was not in his age an example of every age by his â—aptism as if hee did by it sanctifie every age for then he should have been baptized in every age but in respect of the holiness oâ— his humane nature which did remâ—in in each age and so exemplarily sanâ—â—ifie each age to God so as that no age but was capable of holiness by conformity to his example 3 Irenaeus his words are omneâ— enim venit per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui â—er eum renascâ—ntuâ— in Deum infantes parvuloâ— pueras â—uvenes seniores 〈◊〉 if the meaning were that Christ came â—o 〈◊〉 all that wâ—re baptized by him or by his appointment then he came to save Simon Magus and whoever are or have been baptized righâ—ly even Judas Iscariâ—t if he were bapâ—ized But in that sense the proposiâ—ion of Irenaeus were most pâ—lpâ—bly false and therefore that sense iâ— noâ— to be attriâ—uâ—ed to his words 4. Christ is by Irenaeus said to sanâ—â—ifie as a perfect Master not onely according to the exposition of truth but also as an example to them of piety justice and subjection but this is to beâ— understood not in respect of his Baptism onely but his whole life in which he was an example even an infant for then he did willingly empty himself took upon him the form of a servant was made in the likeness of men and being in fashion a man humbled himself to death Phillip 2.7 8. By all which reasons I presume the Readers who is willing to see truth will perceive this passage of Irenaeus to be wrested by Paedobaptists against its meaning to prove an use of Paedobaptism in his time Which I have the more largely insisted on because indeed it is the onely testimony of credit which Paedobaptists have any colour from for infant baptism in â—he 2d ceâ—tury In the 3d. century it is not denied but that infant baptism and many more corruptions were yet even then it was very rare in case onely of danger of death â—ut of that case disswaded in that case allowed upon the conceit of giving grace by it and saving the infant from perishing But I shall allow Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists to say the most they can for this corruption Origen is alledged next by Mr. Cr. in Rom. 6. l. 5. homil 8th on Levitic and 18 th on Luke The Exceptions against these are 3.1 they are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of St. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek copy onely extant And of the LXXâ— translations of the Old T. which our Saviour followed more exactly then the Hebrew Original translations agreeing with the Original copy bâ—ing equally authentick Answ. 1. There is no certainty nor probability that Matthew did write in Hebrew saiâ—h the Annotator on Matth in his argument of that Gospel the new Annotations called by some the Assemblies at Westminster Pareus in his Proeme to his Commentary on Matthew with the leave of antiquity Erasâ—â—â— and other learned interpreters doubt not a little of that opinion that he wrote in Hebrew and the reasons of doubting seem not to be light which may be seen there with answer to the objections produced out of antiquity 2. Whether there were such a translation by LXX Jews as Josephus relates of Aristeas l. 12. antiq Judaic c. 2. I do not so much question as the particularities of the relation but the authority of it is much quâ—stioned of which much may be seen in Chamier paustr. cath tom 1. l. 13. and it is much doubted whether that we have be it of which I am told learned Usher hath written which I have not seen But sure our Saviour who spake in Hebrew or Syriack followed it not nor do I think it safe or right to say that the Evangâ—lists or other holy writers followed it more exactly then the Hebrew Original But sure the translation of Ruffinus of Origens Homiles is nothing like to either of these in which he confesseth he did not exactly follow the Original and it is likely for this reason Voss. thes Theol. de Paedobap part 2. thesi 8. said But we shall the less care for Origen because the things we cited are not extant in Greek But Mr. Cr. adds But 2 ly it is said that the translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Ruffinus the translator himself neither does acuâ—e Erasmus nor judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most critical impeach him in the forequoted testimonies therefore thiâ— exception is blank Answ. This exception is good notwithstanding this answer For 1. Perkins doth not onely censure Ruffinus his translation as in something contracting adding or altering but also puts Origens commentaries on the Epistle to the Romanes not faithfully translated by Ruffinus among his counteâ—feit works And Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith That a man cannot be certain whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen And because Dr. Homes saith I make no exception against the translation of the Homilie on Luke he may take notice that Erasmus in his Lukeâ— 1 speaks much against the Paraphrase of Origen on Luke and in â—is Annot. on Luke 1.3 Sic enim visus est sentirâ— quisquiâ— iâ— suit cujus extant iâ— Lucam commentarii Adamantii titulo which shâ—ws that Erasmus took not those Commentaries for Origens or at least dâ—ubted thereof And I shall add the words of Sculâ—etus in his medulla Patrum l. 6. c 2. Jam Ruffinuâ— plurium librorum Origenis interpre â—aâ—tâ—m â—â—surpavit licâ—ntiam ut ademerit adjecerit mutâ—rit quae sibi viderentur adimâ—nda adjicienda mutanda ut sâ—pâ— incertus sit lector utrum Origenem legat an Ruffinum cum Graeca Origenis opera non extent hoâ—â—e â—