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
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
Pemble vind Fidei sect 2. c. 3. sect 4. c. 1 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham who had not to glory before God nor was justified by works Rom. 4.1 2 c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former when he saith Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith But of this by the way That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house 1 Tim. 3.15 2 Cor. 6.16 and separate Act. 13.2 2 Cor. 6.17 that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament though it were true yet proves no more but this that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described the Old Testament is necessary but not that which is to be proved that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old Mr. C. adds p 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.24 Mar. 10.14 Acts 15.10 Mat. 28.19 which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review I need onely to refer the Reader thither Yet I add it is but said without any proof that 1 Cor. 7.14 that children are termed holy because they come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth and separateth from that which is common or unclean For 1. there 's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents 2. Nor that the scope analysis allusion in the Text leads to such an exposition 3. Nor doth it follow that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth God blessed Noah and his sons Gen. 9.1 yet all of them were not sanctified yea many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons Psal. 107.38 Ierem. 12.1 much less is it true that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy yet not blessed 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24 are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers or that they are to be accounted holy by us till God hath purified their hearts by faith Acts. 15.9 And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation till they profess the faith such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation without profession of faith by each person so accounted there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples upon their own profession so judged no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith though wee know not them to be inherently holy or in the Covenant of grace Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy because they are not onely within the Covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate 1 Cor. 7.14 that it had been but affirming the thing is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards or that he â—scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11 and 9.12 is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect 11 c. to the end of the Book that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered without shewing the insufficiency of the answers if hee meant candidly as one that endeavoured to clâ—er the truth But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building that upon this account not onely children of believers but also nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations To this he answers The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for nations they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy Ref. I reply the objection in form stands thus They which come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. must be reputed holy This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. â—04 and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism I subsume But nations yea all nations come under the word of bâ—essing from God in as much as that word was not onely confirmed unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. and if the word families bee taken as Mr. C. seems to take it for housholds and all housholds then the same objection is concerning all in housholds servants wives as well as children they come under the bleâ—â—ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition Ergo according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition
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
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
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
wâ—ich is indeed sinful And so for confirmation by laying on of hand anointing wiâ—h oyl use of the signe of the cross setting up lights and many more it is frâ—quentâ—y shewed that they countenance no the Pâ—â—ish confirmation extream unction use of the signe of the cross lighting candles at noon day in their â—â—mples c. because they were in different mâ—nner and for different reasons and purposes then they are now used by them And indeed the discovery of the different reasons manner and end of rites used bâ— the Ancients from that they are now used is of greatest moment to shew the novelty of the Popish Prelatical Paedobaptists usages who have not onely quite departed from the Scripture but also from antiquity even in those things which the Ancients practised indeed but not as they do Secondly saith Dr. Homes he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better that they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy as well as at riper years 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is Circumcision that was wont to be done on the 8th day c. Answ. 1 The first of these is no other then the partaking of common grace for to partake of the common grace is all one as to be sanctified onely with a little enlargement 2. The 2d is indeed rather a preventing of an objection that they could not be parâ—akers of the common grace without perceiving it rather then a further reason of baptizing them And the answer is from two examples one of curcumcision which was given to infants without the use of reason the other of the anoining or sprinkling the door posts whiâ—h were things insensitive bringing salvation to the first born which is such a woodden reason as Dr. Homes thought fit to let pass in this place Thirdly saith Dr. Homes Wee answer that all three reasons stand in force as well for all believers infants God putting them under the promise Gen. â—7 a for the infants that are in danger of death Answ. Whâ—tever force there is in the reasons which in my apprehension are frivolous to prove Dr Homes his opinion or practise yet sure in Nazianzens intent they are onely for the colouring over of the practise of infant baptism of any whether believers or unbelievers children onely in case of apparent danger of imminent death and not at all for countenancing baptizing of believers infants onely at all times as federally holy Fourthly saith Dr. Homes that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine reasons to him evincing for the baptism of infants in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of deaâ—h he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion â—he calls it his opinion And what is it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or four years old more or less And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from infants toward baptism For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may hear and answer some spiritual things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Answ. 1. T is true Nazianzen gives one reason for baptizing infants in case of danger of death which is the sanctifying them by it not divers reasons the examples of Circumcision and anointing the door pâ—sts being answers to an objection as I said before Now that reason is so far from being Divine that it is from a meer superstitious conceit as if the meer outward Baptism did sanctifie Nor is it the same reason in effect for differing baptism three or four years with that which hee gives for infant baptism in case of danger of death For though he supposeth in both Baptism sanctifies yet he takes infant Baptism to sanctifie onely the body the other to sanctifie body and mind He supposeth they may learn some spiritual thing though imperfectly and so the baptism may be a sign to them though obscure and there may be some memory of what is done though confused which though it be not as it should be yet it is better and more agreeable to Scripture then the infant Baptism where there is no signification to the baptized nor remembrance of it 2. Be it granted that Nazianzen expresseth but his opinion and that it betters not the thing much and his reasons not so right as they should have been there is in this passage this evident that infant Baptism was no tthen common as now nor upon such reasons as now nor approved of as now it is but out of the case of danger of death imminent apparently disswaded and consequently the present common infant baptism an innovation from what was in that age Dr. Hammond adds That Chrysostome in his Homily to the Neophyti hath these words For this cause i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism there recited ten in number we baptise children though they have not sins and that he flourished in the beginning of the fift Age. Answ. Though finde in two Homilies one in the fifth the other in the sixth tome of Chrysostomes works of Eton print some speeches unto the newly inlightned or planted yet I finde not these words there nor any where else in any of his homilies Yet I deny not them to bee Chrysostomes finding them in Augustin tom 7. l. 1. against Julian the Pelegian ch 2. But perhaps if the words before were viewed it might be discerned whether the Baptism of little ones then used were onely in case of danger of death apparently imminent or without that case It is likely hee meant that infants or little children were baptized onely in case of danger of death imminent sith many of his Homilies express even that where these words cited were exhortations to the newly baptized and the relation of his life testifies that when hee was persecuted by the Empress and was about to baptize on the solemn festival in which Baptism was used the persons men and women that were to be baptized by him fled away naked being ready to be baptized upon his apprehension which shews they then baptized persons naked And the occasion of the speech as sâ—t down by Austin shews it was done upon the conceit of giving them grace which is manifest by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause And the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in the Greek shews there was mention of baptizing others then little children And in the same place Austin saith â—ohn Chrysostome held believed and taught this not onely that little children were not onely to be baptized but also to have the Eucharist or Lords Supper for without
in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abraham now baptism was not applied to Abraham and therefore the Conclusion may be granted baptism may be applied to infants of believers now as well as to Abraham that is just never a whit sith it was never applied to Abraham 2. But besides if the phrases to whom the Covenant in force runs c. in the Major and in the Minor doth as truely run to a believing Gentile as the words carry it be meant onely of the believer and in the Major the application to them be meant onely of the believing Gentile as in the Minor then there are more than three termâ— in the syllogism applied to believers children beeing not at all in either of the premises But if it be put in the Major may be applied to them and their Infants and in the Minor to a believing Gentile and his Infant children I deny both Major and Minor Nor the Major proved from Gen. 17.7 8 9. as in my Answer to M. Bailee Sect. 3. in my Ample disquisition Sect 5. is made manifest by shewing the nullity of the pretended connexion between the Covenant and the seal The term therefore Gen. 17.9 may be read and and it hath not reference to the promise onely V. 7. but to the rest of the promises V 4 5 6 7 8. or rather to the whole Covenant and the making of it and it imports not a right by vertue of the Covenant but a motive inforcing a Command and this command being of circumcising the male onely of 8. dayes old shewes there is not a connexion between the Covenant and Seal sith then it would belong to the female and male of the seventh day they being in Covenant as well as the male of the eighth The Minor he takes as unquestioned But I deny it till I finde it better proved than yet I have done I omit the uncoutheness of the Phrase to them the application of the first sign may be applied and leave the D. to make good sense of it which I cannot do His 3. form of Argument from Gen. 17. is Where there is the same reason of a precept there may be the same practice But the promise which is the reason of the precept runs in the New Testament as flowing from Gen. 17. to believers and their children The promise is to you and your children Acts. 2.39 Ergo. Answer What is the Conclusion he would prove he leavs to be gathered It should be Infants of believers are to be baptized But then the predicate in the Conclusion would be found in neither of the Premisses For the precept Gen. 17.9 is onely that male Infants of 8. days old of Abrahams house should be Circumcised But a little after he puts this as the Conclusion that the same reason on which the administration of circumcision was grounded the administration of baptism was grounded Which I grant true in this sense that as the reason why Circumcision was administred to Infants was the Command of God so the reason why Baptism is to be administred to believers is the Command of Christ. But the D. would have it thus that as infants were to be Circumcised by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 so Infants of believers are to be Baptized by vertue of the same promise repeated Acts 1.39 concerning which to omit the monstrosity of his syllogism in which there are more than 4 terms and neither the Predicate nor Subject in the Conclusion Major or Minor his speeches are without proof or trueth For 1. it is not true where there is the same reason of a precept there may be the same practice For Levit. 19.5 9 10 19 23 25 26 27 28 30. are precepts concerning Mosaical ceremonies or observances as of offering a sacrifice of peace offerings not reaping the corners of the field not sowing the field with mingled seed not wearing a garment of linnen and woollen not eating fruit of trees planted till the fourth yeer not eating any thing with the blood not rounding the corners of the head reverencing the Sanctuary to wit the tabernacle or Temple and these with other moral precepts mixed among them in the same Chapter have in sundry of those verses and the beginning and end of the Chapter this as the common reason I am the Lord and yet we are not by the same reason tied to all the practices 2. He doth not prove that the promise Acts 2.39 is the same with the promise Gen. 17.7 It is more likely to be either the promise Act. 2.17 33 38. or Act. 2.30 or Act. 3.25 which were eminent promises and related to the covenant of grace 3. He doth not prove that to you Act. 2.39 is to you believers and to your children that is the Infants of believers as such It doth not appear they were then believers when these words were spoken 4. Nor is there a word that shews the promise was to them or their children whether called or no. 5. Nor is it proved that the promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 was the onely reason of the precept vers 9 10. 6. If it were so proved it is not proved nor ever can be that it was the formal adequate reason why an Infant was circumcised 7. Nor is there the least hint in the words Act. 3.38 39. that the reason why a person hath right to be Baptized is barely the being of the promise to that person or Gen. 17.7 9 10. any hint that the promise barely of it self did either give right to Circumcision or oblige to the duty but in both places it is brought as a motive to excite to that duty which the precept alone was the formal reason of and in the former as well of Repentance as of being Baptized So that when the Doctor hath formed his arguments they are but mishapen things having many ambiguities of speech little or no proof for what he saith And notwithstanding the Doctors cavils I yet think the arguments from Gen. 17. were better formed by me in my Exercitation for Paedobaptists advantage than by the Doctor in his Animadversions But perhaps we may finde the Arguments better formed elsewhere SECT III. Master Drew's Argument for Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. is examined and it is shewed there is not the same reason of Infant-Baptism as of Infant-Circumcision MAster John Drew is one of those to whose writings Master Baxter refers me and is said by the Author of the lawfulness of obeying the present government to have written with sharp reasons and mild language Let 's see how he hath disputed pag. 23. of his serious address Where there is the same reason of a precept or command enjoyning any practice continued there may and must be the same practice continued But the reason of the command for signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant under the Old Testament continues still in force for that practice under the New Testament Therefore now
the other of the Chaldee Paraphrase R. Solomon Symmachus that they are called Sons of God because Sons of Potentates or Judges of which Mr. Cartwright ubi supra and that of others Sons of God that is eminent men because I think the other is more right however they are not called Sons of God that is visible Church-members by their descent but by their profession which is not to be said of infants It is true Ezek. 16.28 21. the children of Israel are said to be born to God that is of right as their Land was the Lords Land Hos. 9.3 and this did aggravate their sin that those that were of right his were sacrificed to Idols now this was by reason of that peculiar interest which God had in that people vers 8. But that what is said of the sons of the Jews is true of all the infants of believers or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Christians to visible Church-membership and the initial seal as they call it is yet to be proved Of Mal. 2.14 15. I have spoken sufficiently in the first part of this Review Sect. 13.26 of the Ample Disquisition to which I add that in the second Edition of the New Annot. these words are added suitable to my Exposition of a legitimate seed All other seed is spurious not a lawfull seed nor such fathers are lawfull fathers who so pervert the order and Ordinance of Matrimony God puts his mark of infamy upon the seed it self Deut. 23.2 which shews that with Calvin that Authour understood by a Seed of God a legitimate seed That which is said Psalm 22.30 A seed shall serve him it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation hath no shew of any thing for infants visible Church-membership it cannot be expounded of infants while such for how can it be said They shall serve the Lord But it notes onely a continuance of the Church promised in a people who should when some decease stand up after them to serve the Lord. The impertinency of that Jer. 30.20 is shewed before As little to the purpose is that Psalm 116.16 He doth not say he was the Lords Servant as he was the son of his handmaid and it was to express his mean condition or humility as Mary Luke 1.48 not his privilege and his subjection to God not his right he could clame from God yet if there were any privilege imported in this title son of thine hand-maid Mr. Church must prove it to be Church-membership and that not proper to him as a Jew but common to all Christians ere it will serve his turn which he cannot do Enough is said before in the Ample Disquition to prove that 1 Cor. 7.14 children are not denominated holy because they appertain to the Church The remnant to be called holy Isai 4.3 are either such Jews as in the captivity escaped alive who should be holy in respect of their worship not serving Idols but the living God or such converted believers in the Christian Church as should be written in the Book of Life which makes nothing to infants Church-membership The Church is not called the circumcision Rom. 3.30 15.8 but the Jewish people The Christians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Christian because the Hebrews children were of the Church Jewish God now not taking one whole Nation for his Church but Disciples of Christ in all Nations Abraham is said Rom. 4.11 to have received the sign of circumsion a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised but that any other mans circumcision was so to him much less that every infants circumcision was such to them I reade not sure the tenour of the words imports no more than this that Abrahams circumcision in his own person was an assurance to all believers though themselves uncircumcised of righteousness by faith to be imputed to them also What Divines though of never so great esteem thence infer of the nature of circumcision that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith of all Sacraments that it is their nature to be seals of the covenant of grace that to whom the covenant belongs to them the seal belongs and consequently to infants are but their mistakes not the Doctrine of the Text. Of Mark 10.14 enough is said before Of infants may be the Kingdom of God yet they not in the visible Church The speech out of the Church is no salvation is true of the invisible Church of the elect and is so expounded by Dr. Morton Apol. Cath. and others of the visible it is not true Rahab had been saved though she had never been joyned to the visible Church of the Jews What I said that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Christ Mark 10.14 were the infants of Christian disciples or believers is true for it is not said their Parents brought them and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Christ yet it is uncertain whether they believed him to be the Christ or some eminent Prophet as Matth. 16.14 Luke 7.16 The Daughter of the Syrophoenician was called a Dog Matth. 15.26 not because she was not a believers childe but because a Gentiles childe not an Israelitess Though Diâ—t 30.6 Isai 44.3 Circumcision of the heart and the spirit be promised to the seed of the godly yet it is not promised to any but the elect as the fuller promise Isai. 54.13 is expounded by Christ himself John 6.45 and therefore not as Mr. Church saith to children as they are the children of Gods People if as be taken reduplicatively for then all the children of Gods People should have the spirit promised Nor is the spirit promised to them in their infancy and yet if it were till they shew it we have no warrant to take them for visible Church-members or to baptize them without special revelation It is largely proved above that Acts 15.10 no infant is called a Disciple There may be hope of infants salvation they may be of the body of Christ though they be not of the visible Church Our infants and our selves though believers are yet Heathens that is of the Nations by birth and had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Canaans childe Matth. 15.26 if we had then lived but in the sense as it is now used and as it was a Title of infamy and rejection Matth. 18.17 we are not to be called Heathens that is infidels and whose society is to be shunned nor our infants who are neither infidels nor believers they being not capable of faith in that state ordinarily as in Logick they say a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blinde nor seeing there being a middle of abnegation of either extreme by reason of the incapacity of the subjects so we may say our infants are neither infidels nor believers What Mr. Church allegeth out of Rev. 22.15 serves onely to beget hatred towards Antipaedobaptists for without there is
Wherin sundry inconsistences seem to be 1. that sealing the promise by an initial seal should be the substance of circumcision yet circumcision a distinct thing from it Is the substance of a being a distinct thing from it the substance of a man a distinct thing from a man 2. that Sealing the promise should be the substance of circumcision and yet circumcision onely a ceremony for that time Is that a ceremony to a thing which is the substance of it 3. that circumcision doth cease yet not that sealing the promise by that initial Sacrament which was no other then circumcision Let him that can read these riddles I am no such Ocdipus as to unfold them But let Mr. Church use what gibberish he please I know no other initial Sacrament then that of circumcision mentioned in the old Testament nor any sealing then commanded but it and if it cease then all the ruls about it cease to bind and so are no rule to us now But saith he pag. 41. The sealing of promise is not ceased far seals are added in dispensation to the covenant To which I reply A thing is said to cease either of right or of fact which was of right to be or had being before but not now There was no sealing by an initial seal aforetime that had being of right or of fact aforetime but circumcision which Mr. Church saith was the initial seal aforetime therefore circumcision ceasing sealing with the initial seal aforetime ceased there being no other foretime But saith Mr. Church it is not ceased for seals are added in this dispensation to the covenant he means doubtless baptism and the Lords Supper and by seals other seals and so his reason is sealing of the promise by an initial Sacrament which was aforetime is not ceased because other seals are added which is as if one should say the night is not past because the sun is risen the reason is good to the contrary there are other seals added therefore the sealing with the initial seal aforetime is ceased But saith he it did not of right cease with the Jewish church state For it was not peculiar too that church as a national church Answer If circumcision were not perticular to the Jewish Church-state I know nothing peculiar to it And if it were not peculiar to that church as a national church why was the nation peculiarly called the circumcision and other people the uncircumcision Rom. 3.30 And for that which is alledged that promise was scaled to Infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation I conceive neither is true For circumcision was not till Abrahams nation were a Church For he had before that time taught them the way of the Lord Gen. 18. â—9 and they worshipped the true God as appears by the many altars he built to Jehovah And though Abrahams house was but a small nation yet it was a nation And though Infants of strangers were circumcised yet it was not without in corporation into that nation so that they were of that nation if not by birth yet as proselytes added thereto nevertheless if it had been before the existence of the national church of the Jews it might cease with that church-state as the distinction of clean and unclean beasts was before Abrahams dayes as appears by Gen. 17.2 and yet that distinction ceased with the Jewish Church state As for his second reason it is of no force For when he saith Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholike Church he means it I conceive of baptism else Acts 8.36 37. 10.47 are cited to no purpose But there is no colour of consequence in Mr. Churches reason thus framed Baptism joined men to the Universal Church therefore Circumcision was not peculiar to the Jewish Church-state or that it ceased not with the Jewish Church-state As for his other assertion That one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the Catholick Church cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament though he be a Member of a particular Church it being of no weight to the present Argument I shall not so fitly meddle with it till I come to answer the 20. ch of Mr. Bs. first part of Plain Scripture proof c. As for his third Argument it proves not the Consequence For though faith and repentance be required of some afore circumcision yet it was not required of infants afore circumcision But afore baptism it is required of all Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.36 37 38. To the fourth I say though infants now are capable of the promise as the Jews infants were and that they could bear baptism as well as the Jews infants could circumcision yet without a like command which cannot be found they are not to be baptized as the other were to be circumcised As for the fifth Argument it is false That baptism is as appliable to infants as circumcision was for there is not the like command without which though it were that no more action were required in the subject to be baptized then in the subject to be circumcised which is false as appears from Matt. 28.19 Mark 16 16. Acts 2.38 Acts 8.36 37 38. and though it were that the parities were more between them then they are yet they make no rule for baptism without a command or institution But it is false which he saith that baptism is the same Sacrament with Circumcision And as for the twelve parities brought by Mr. Church some are doubtful as the first that they are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace in some sense with some limitations it may be true but in other even in that sense it is commonly taken it is not true to wit that the essence of them consists therein and that they are so to all rightly circumcised or baptized The second is likewise ambiguous in some sense true in some false Those that might not be rightly judged to be in the promise might be circumcised however it be concerning baptism And those that may be rightly accounted to be of the Church meaning the invisible yet are not therefore to be baptized The third likewise is doubtful by reason of the different waies of being accounted to the Church and the doubt whether a person be to be accounted of the Church afore baptism or after The Words Acts 2.41.47 seem to prove that they are added to the Church after baptism Neither is the fourth or fifth certain For women ordinarily entred into the Church aforetime without circumcision and did eat the Passeover The eighth is not true of every circumcised persons circumcision nor of every baptized persons baptism that it is an external seat of the righteousness of faith In the tenth something is untrue For in the new Dispensation as the phrase is are not both temporal and spiritual promises sealed as
prohibition in forbidding terms or a prohibition by consequence It is granted in so many express words infants are not prohibited to receive baptism no nor the Lords Supper yet they are by good consequence to be denied both in as much as both are disagreeing from the institution and practice of those rites in the new Testament Wherefore to the Doctors argument I except against the form of it as containing more then three terms the predicate in the conclusion not being in the Major part of the medium in the major being left out in the Minor And if it be thus formed all they who are comprized within the covenant of faith and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to be baptized But infants of believers are comprized c. Ergo. I deny the Major if meant of Gods covenant to us or promise either of faith or righteousness to infants by it as the alleging Gen. 17.7 imports the Doctor meant But grant it of those who are comprized within the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers in which sense I deny the Minor that children that is infant-children are comprized in the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers yea and if the proposition be universal all children or all infant-children of believers are comprized in Gods covenant of faith or promise that he will give them faith or righteousness by faith I deny it Nor is the Major proved by the Doctor For it is no unjust thing to deny baptism to a person to whom it is not appointed now baptism is appointed to disciples or believers not to whom God promiseth to give faith or righteousness by faith Besides were it true that God had so promised it and confirmation of it were due yet without institution confirmation by baptism were not due God hath other waies to confirm it as by his Oath Heb. 6.17 the blood of his Son 1 Cor. 11.25 his Spirit 2 Cor. 1.22 A man that is bound to pass an estate and to seal it may not be bound to a further Confirmation by fine and recovery Besides its no injustice not to confirm ones right who doth not claim and prove it But this infants do not And for the Minor the words Gen. 17 7. have nothing about the second part of the proposition nor do indeed prove any to be comprized in that promise but Abraham and his seed of which sort none of Gentile-believers children are but those that are true believers as he was or elect by God to adoption of children The objection the Doctor brings in is not rightly framed nor do I deny the answer the Doctor gives is sufficient to overthrow it as so formed But what the Doctor dictates That all true believers and their children are to be reckoned among children of the promise is contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9.7 8. as the Apostle is expounded by Dr. Featly himself in the New Annot. on Rom. 9.8 in which he thus speaks not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the children of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods special grace were adopted as Isaac by a special and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for that seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed SECT XIII The Arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined MR. William Lyford in his Apology for Infant-baptism page 33. thus disputes All that are taken into the Covenant of grace ought to receive the initial sign what ever the sign be that God shall chuse and that according to the commandment of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But infants are taken into Covenant with their parents as is proved therefore by the Commandment of the Lord they ought to receive the sign which God hath enjoined to be used and that sign is baptism To which I answer by denying the Major and for his proof out of Gen. 17.7 12. I deny 1. That there is any command for any other initial sign but Circumcision 2. That circumcision is there appointed to all who are taken into the Covenant of grace not to Lot Melchisedeck Job or their children not to the females of Abrahams house not to the males under eight daies old not to the Proselytes of the gate as Cornelius was 3. That the adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was interest in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but the command only For both Ishmael who was not in the covenant was to be circumcised because of the command and as hath been shewed others in the covenant were not to be circumcised through defect of the command Nor is the Minor true if understood of all the infants of believers or any of them as their infants nor is there a word to prove it Gen. 17.7 which is onely a promise to Abrahams seed and they of the Gentiles are only true believers or elect persons But perhaps Mr. Lyford mends the matter in the next form which is this pag. 34. If infants have a right to the covenant and the initial sign therof then it is a wrong to deny it to them But infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial sign thereof both by Gods original grant Gen. 17.11.14 and by Christs confirmation of that Covenant made to their Fathers Rom. 15 8. therefore it is a wrong to deny it them The Covenant under which we are is the Gospel Covenant made long since with us Englishmen and our infant-seed with a command of giving them the sign which at first was circumcision and now baptism by the same Divine authority enjoined and commanded to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant I answer by denying the Minor and to the proof by denying that Gen. 17.11 14. there is command of any other initial sign than Circumcision or that circumcision is commanded to all that had a right to the Covenant or that the Gospel Covenant was made long since with us Englishmen and our seed as our seed or that there was in that of circumcision any command to us to baptize infants or that Divine authority hath commanded baptism to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant But I affirm he hath commanded only to baptize those in the Covenant who are disciples or believers But Mr. Lyford adds further p. 37. All those to whom the blessings and promises in the Covenant do belong t them also belongs baptism the sign thereof by the doctrine of St. Peter and of Jesus Christ himself But to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong before actual faith therefore by the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost in Scripture such infants ought to be baptized before actual faith The Major or first
promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity were of the substance of the covenant and for the confirming of them circumcision was instituted of God as well as for them in priority of order before the assuring of those Evangelical benefits And for what Mr. Geree saith That the Gospel is not so pure now as to exclude all temporal promises it is true yet the Gospel doth not promise as the Covenanâ— Gen. 17. the inheritance of the land of Canaan with rest plenty prosperity and greatness therein but on the contrary such temporal blessings as are with persecution Mark 10.30 and do rather consist in inward comfort and content than in outward enjoyment of any earthly commodity which proves that the Gospel promise for temporal things is clean different from that made to Abraham Gen. 17. concerning temporal benefits to his posterity Mr. Geree addes Neither are the differences mentioned by you page 4. of your Exercit. or elsewhere to be between Circumcision and baptism any whit material to put a difference between the parties to be sealed by them in reference to our present controversy sith notwithstanding these differences they agree in this main general That the one was the Sacrament of initiation to all that were to be sealed under one administration of the covenant the other in the other which is enough to my purpose To which I say the disparities between circumcision and baptism are brought by me to invalidate the argument made by Paedobaptists to prove the succession of the one into the place room and use of the other from the parities between them which allegation to that end is made good before against Mr. Church sect 11. Those differences which I allege Exercit. p. 4. tend to demonstrate that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism in signing the Evangelical covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like administring of the other which differences are very material to that end the different end and use of a thing being the most apt reason for altering the application of it As Mr. Rutherford Divine right of Church Government ch 6. q. 2. page 276 277 278. answering Eraâ—tus saith of the Sea Cloud Mannah Water because they had a mixt use they were appointed to all yet it follows not now the Sacrament of the Lords Supper must be given to wicked men So by the very same reason sith circumcision had a mixt use to signify political as well as Evangelical promises to confirm the promise of Christ to come and did belong to the Church not oecumenical but oeconomical or national which baptism did not therefore circumcision might belong to infants and yet not baptism And letting pass his phrase of administration of the Covenant of which is enough said before though the agreement which he calls The main general be yielded him that they are both sacraments of initiation yet unless the same special rule of command or example primitive be brought for the one as the other infant-baptism cannot be proved from infant-circumcision Mr. Geree further tells me But you add further p. 4. of your Exercit. that some were circumcised to whom no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong as Ishmael of whom God had said his Covenant was not to be established with him I answer it is said indeed Gen. 17.21 my Covenant will I establish with Isaac But by covenant there is not meant that covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the covenant of special prerogative that Christ should come of and the Church should remain in his posterity Therefore notwithstanding that exception Ishmael when circumcised might be and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but under it This I might confirm by the opinion of some Hebrew Doctors wherein they are followed by many that the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18 was not onely for natural but for spiritual blessings and what he begged God granted v. 20. But I clear it thus God establisht his Covenant with Abraham and Isaac not with Melchisedeck nor Lot shall we therefore expunge them out of the Covenant of grace how absurd were that we only see their posterity enjoied not that privilege which God vouchsafed Abraham in Isaac and his seed And therefore no more can be truly or rationally gathered from that place of Genesi touching Ishmael Answ. That which in my Exercit. page 4. I gathered from the instances of Ishmael Esau the strangers and others of Abrahams house their circumcision and the non-circumcision of females males under eight daies old Melchisedeck Lot Job the non-admission to baptism of circumcised Jews in covenant till they professed repentance and faith in Christ were That the right to Evangelical promises was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those but Gods precept as is exprest Gen. 17.23 Gen. 21.4 2. That those terms are not convertible federate and to be signed which overthrows the chief Hypotheses upon which the Paedobaptists argument from infant-circumcision for infant-baptism rests For they all conclude thus The reason why infants were circumcised was that they were in covenant therefore by like reason infants being in covenant should be baptized Now if the reason of infants being circumcised were not their being in covenant but only the command then there is not a like reason for infant-baptism though they were in the Covenant unless there were the like command Now let us see what Mr. Geree saith to my first iâ—stance of Ishmael I alleged that Ishmael was circumcised though no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong to him and that Abraham knew therefore the reason of his circumcision and the same is the reason of others was not his being in covenant but only Gods command to Abraham The antecedent is proved from the words Gen. 17.21 which are exclusive And besides I alleged Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. Gal. 4.29 30. where expresly Ishmael is denied to be a child of the promise or to be born after the promise And I might have added Heb. 11.9 where Isaac and Jacob are distinguishingly reckoned as heirs of the same promise with Abraham not Ishmael and Esau. Now what saith Mr. Geree to this He â—aith The Covenant there is not meant that Covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the Covenant of special prerogative to Isaac that Christ should come of and the Church should remain in his posterity But this is false 1. For it was that covenant that made Isaac heir of the promise which the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8 9. reckons as much as to be an elect person it was the same covenant which was mentioned v. 2 4 5 6 7
of actual circumcision to infants whereas by their own confession it onely proves necessarily a virtual and if so how can it prove necessarily by their own principles any more than a virtual baptizing of infants The same medium that doth not prove as necessary actual circumcision in the one cannot prove as necessary actual baptism in the other Now the force of this objection is not at all weakned by his reply For my words were not concerning the fitness of the expression that the one was as fit as the other but that I might grant a virtual baptism to infants without detriment to my cause if they assert no more from the covenant but a virtual circumcision But had I said you may as well say which yet I find not in my writings but we might grant we may say Examen page 37. by like perhaps greater reason it may be said Exercit. p. 4. the speech might have been right notwithstanding Mr. Gerees exceptions for there is no more proof for the use of this speech that females may be said to be virtually circumcised in the males then for this infants may be said to be virtually baptized in their parents neither being used in Scripture and reason being as much for the one as the other And though those that were infants when grown being believers are to be baptized yet infants during their infancy are by more full evidence excluded from actual baptism then females were from actual circumcision Mr. G. proceeds thus For your second instance of infants dying afore they were eight daies old I answer that they were particularly tyed to that day whether for the Theological reason Levit. 12.2 3. or for the Physical reason that God would not suffer an incision to be made on the flesh of a tender infant or till the seventh that is the Critical day was over or whether to typifie the resurrection we cannot determine but till that day they were expresly excluded yet therefore it remains clear that all that were within that administration of the Covenant that were not expresly excluded were circumcised which is enough for my purpose And so unless you can bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till 18 years or so that instance of infants not being circumcised dying before the 8. day is too short to reach up Answ. It is not enough for Mr. Gs. purpose which was to prove the seal did follow the covenant and when any were aggregated into the Jewish church and taken into the communion of the covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision unless he can prove that all that were in covenant and in the Jewish Church were circumcised But his own grant That some in the Covenant and Jewish Church as females and males under eight daies old were expresly excluded overthrows his own position and is enough for my purpose to prove that all in the covenant were not circumcised The reason why males afore the eighth day were not circumcised whatever it were is nothing for Mr. Gs. advantage but against him sith it doth more fully shew that God would not have them circumcised Nor need I bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till eighteen years or so which goes upon his mistake as if the instance I gave were as a proof of the time of baptism it being brought only to shew a reason of my denial of his assertion that the seal did follow the covenant It is enough for me that I prove as I have done in the second part of the Review s. 5. c. that the rule is that persons are not to be baptized till they be disciples or believers and that infants are not such Mr. G. addes Your third instances are of Adam Abel Noah page 36. of your answer and Melchisedec Lot Job pag. 4. Exercit. I answer either those were before the administration begun with Abraham and so before the institution of seals or such of them that were with or after him either they join not themselves to that administration and so were not to be sealed no more then the Proselytes of the Gate or if they did unite to the Church in Abrahams family then it is apparent they might lay claim to circumcision as other proselytes did And so indeed it is averred of Iob that he was circumcised by the Author of the book of true circumcision which is ascrrbed to Hierom cited by Iunius in his animadversion on Bellarmine Controv. 4. l. 3. cap. 16. Not. 13. Answ. Master Geree doth make shew of answering my allegation but doth indeed confirm my proof that sith Abel Noah Melchisedec Lot and many Proselytes of the gate were in the Covenant of grace yet had not any initial sign or seal as M. Geree calls it to seal the Covenant and some sealed after an initial seal was instituted though in the Covenant of grace therefore there is not such a connexion between the Covenant and the initial seal that therefore a man must have the seal initial because he is in the covenant of grace and that it was not from interest in the Covenant of grace that persons were circumcised but Gods special command upon such reasons as seemed best to him but is not a reason for us to imitate in another ordinance without the like command If one Author conceive Iob was circumcised many do conceive otherwise and there are more probable reasons he was not sith there 's no mention of his circumcision or his observing any of the rites of the Law or of any acquaintance he had with Israel or any thing else that might induce us to believe he had communion with the policy of Israel Master Geree saith further And wheras you say Lastly that the Jews comprehended in covenant and circumcised could not be baptized without faith and repentance I answer the reason is evident because baptism was a seal of a new administration and therefore they must join to that administration of the covenant as well as be in covenant before they could be baptized Answ. I am beholding to Mr. Geree who as before had given the reason why Melchisedeck Lot Iob were not circumcised though in Covenant because of their not joining themselves to that administration or their not uniting to the Church in Abrahams family so here again he doth not only grant what I allege but gives a reason of it also and such as quite overthrows his dispute For if it were true that the Jews that were in covenant were not to be â—aptizâ—d without faith and repentance then being in covenant is not a sufficient reason of an infants being baptized without faith and repentance and if baptism were a seal of a new administration then it must have a new rule and so the old rule of circumcision is no direction to us about baptism if Lot the Proselytes of the gate though in
or But thou as by the Tigâ—â— it is 〈◊〉 by Parcus tu autem Piscator tu verò 2. Let it be read therefore and the inference be from the Covenant yet that the inference is from the promise in the seventh verse onely and not from the eighth verse which is next or the rest of the promises v. 4 5 6 cannot be shewed 3. Let these things be granted yet that it imports this rule to be taken from the Covenant those who are in Covenant are to be circumcised not others hath no colour of proof nor any shew of truth in it sith it is clear in the case of Ishmael to whom that promise diâ— not belong nor any in that covenant yet he was to be circumcised and others were not to be circumcised to whom the promises were made 4. He urgeth thus And he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant so that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in covenant To which I reply Two waies a man may be said to break Gods covenant one by breaking the command which was in reference to the Covenant or enjoyned in testimony of it and if this be his sense then Mr. Ms. speech is trifling when he saith he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant sit being all one to break the command and the covenant The other sense is he hath broken my covenant that is as Piscat sch on Gen. 17.14 as much as is in him by depriving himself of the grace of God promised in the Covenant For otherwise the incredulity of man doth not make void the faith of God Rom. 3.3 But take it either way it proves not that which was to be proved that the rule about circumcising persons was their interest in the Covenant All that follows on this is that the observance of circumcision was strictly enjoined under this penalty that otherwise they should be cut off from Gods people and so deprived of the benefit of the Covenant signified but this doth not prove that every one circumcised was in the Covenant and should have the benefit of the Covenant So that though it be granted which Mr. M. saies That to lay Circumcision upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together Yet his Major is not proved That it was Gods Will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time and so forward should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant supposing them only capable of the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself Nor is Mr. M. more happy in answering my exceptions Whereas you allege saith he concerning Melchisedec Lot Job we find no such thing that they either received this seal of Circumcision or were tyed to it I reply it s very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive and had he been alive he was of an higher Order and above that Paedagogy Answ. I grant it cannot be demonstratively proved that he was alive yet it being probable he was who not many years before met Abraham though he were in Covenant yet being not appointed to be circumcised it overthrows the proposition by which Mr. Ms. Enthymeme was to be proved That all that are foederati must be signati Yea Mr. Ms. answer here That he was above that Paedagogy doth plainly intimate that circumcision was peculiar to that Paedagogy and so the rule about circumcision not obligatory to Christian Gentiles to whom that Paedagogy is abolished and who have a Priest of an higher Order to wit that of Melchisedec As for Lot he denies not that he then lived but saith That no Scripture saith he was not circumcised which he saith of Job also whose time is uncertain by reason of thâ— Scripture-silence though probably he was of Esaus posterity But in matters of fact à non Scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia Nevertheless for Lot it seems to me very unlikely he should be circumcised living then in Sodom not in Abrahams house and no mention made of him when Abraham circumcised his own house and Lots posterity being after uncircumcised Jerem. 9.26 And for Job what time soever he lived it is likely he was an Edomite who are reckoned for uncircumcised Ier. 9.26 and there are no passages that give any intimation of his acquaintance with Israel But if these serve not the turn the example of Cornelius undeniably uncircumcised and not blamed for want of it though undoubtedly in the Covenant of grace being one that feared God with all his house and his prayers and alms heard therefore he was not to be circumcised though in the Covenant of grace nor all that enter into Covenant ought to be sealed with the initial seal though capable and no bar put in against them by God I instanced in male infants of Jews under eight daies old who were not to be circumcised though in Covenant Mr. M. answers To that of infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself whether for any typical reason or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergo so sharp a pain as was to be endured in Circumcision before the seventh and Critical day was past or whether for any other cause I dispute not it is sufficient God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old Answ. This is a grant of the objection and overthrows the proposition of Mr. M. in his Sermon All that are in Covenant are to be sealed And the forbidding being onely by not appointing it the proposition can be tâ—ue onely in this sense All those in Covenant are to be circumcised to whom it is appointed and no other But infants are in Covenant and to them it is appointed to be sealed with the initial seal in the New Testament Ergo. Wherein I should grant the Major and deny the Minor and infer that without appointment interest in the Covenant did not make capable no not of Circumcision though it 's likely infants might have born it in the end of the seventh day as well as on the eighth I alleged that no females in Abrahams family though in Covenant were to be circumcised To this Mr. M. answers For the women they were not Subjectum capax circumcisionis there was in them a natural impediment against it therefore could it not be enjoined them and suppose some men amongst them or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praepâ—tium as some sort of Eunuchs this Ordinance had not reached them whether the wisdom of God purposely chose a sign that women might not be capable of receiving it for some typical use as some conjecture it is sufficient they were not capable of it and were exempted from it by God himself Answ. If it be true which
many Authors relate that the Habassines and Iacobites do at this day circumcise females then it is not true they were uncapable of it by reason of natural impediment But if it be true which Mr. M. saith yet Gods chosing a sign of which they were not capable and that for a typical use when he might have chosen one as baptism of which both sâ—xes were capable it is an evidence That it was not the Will of God since Abrahams time and so forward that all in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal which was Mr. Ms. proposition Nor do his two limitations added in his Defence help him For if incapacity and non-appointment be a sufficient exemption from the initial seal yea a prohibition of it then his proposition is but what I contend for that those in covenant to whom God appoints it and no other are to have the initial seal which is as much as I would evince that it is not bare interest in the Covenant without institution or appointment that gives right to a person to claim either circumcision or baptism nor warrants a baptizer to admit a person to baptism And therefore though it were yielded that all infants of believers were in covenant yet they have not right to either initial seal without a command or institution concerning each rite As for Mr. Ms. general proposition as he states it as it advantageth it him not for the reason last given so it may be granted if he mean by exemption or particular dispensation the non-appointment of it For then I am sure infants of believers are exempted from baptism till they be proved disciples of Christ or believers by profession which if it could be proved we need not fetch it from circumcision and the Covenant From which they that deduce infant-baptism do but in vain weary themselves and others as they that seek to draw water out of a pumice stone But there is some more in Mr. M. about womens circumcision which I must not omit Mr. M. in his Sermon had answered that women were circumcised virtually in the Mâ—les To which I answered that a virtual circumcision was not enough to make good his argument For then his Syllogism must have four terms thus They that are in Covenant must be sealed actually in their now persons or virtually in others But infants of believers are in the Covenant therefore they are to be sealed If the Conclusion be meant of actual sealing in their own persons then there are four terms and more in the Conclusion then in the premisses But if it be meant disjunctively they are to be sealed actually or virtually then it is less than is to be proved his business being to prove that they were to be sealed actually For a virtual sealing is less than Mr. M. would have and might be granted without any detriment to the cause of Anti-paedobaptism To this Mr M. makes no answer at all but chargeth me with a scoff where there was none tells me it is like refuting Bellarmine with Thou liest whereas I did shew wherein his answer was insufficient and that by putting his Syllogism into form according to his own meaning and then shewing how it would not conclude what he should prove And to this in his Defence he makes no answer but tells us what his plain meaning was which is nothing to the present point he should have shewed how with that exposition or limitation his argument would prove actual sealing of infants in their own persons But to slight a reason and speak nothing to it is not to answer but to shift But I also said to speak exactly women were not circumcised virtually in the Males For that supposeth they might receive it in their own persons wheras it had been a sin in them to be circumcised God not appointing it which is confirmed by the like it would be sin for the male to be circumcised afore the eighth day sith it was not appointed which may now be confirmed by Mr. Ms. words that God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old To this saith Mr. M. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of Law that no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxy or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good Law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sinned virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though the sin of Adam be ours by imputation The Sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the High Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their own persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such privileges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediatrly in their own persons Answ. My words were not as Mr. M. recited them but thus He is said virtually to have a thing by another as by a Proxy or Atturney that might receive it by himself yet quoad effectum juris according to the effect of Law another's receiving it is as if he had received it In which I understand by having a thing that having a thing which is by possession of it as a benefit privilege commodity and by might receive it without any prohibition in Law and that he receives it not in his own person is onely from some temporary impediment as minority absence or the like And this according to that skill I have in such terms I conceive still to be the meaning of them Nor do Mr. Ms. instances take me any whit off from it being without fear of being chargeable with bad Law or Divinity For our sinning in Adam is not receiving something as a benefit the Suns heat is natural not by vertue of any Political Law it is not having as a proxy or atturney for another the High Priests offering for the people was an action in their stead not receiving a benefit for them and what they received for the people which they might not receive in their own persons immediately was not by reason of any prohibition but from some other cause nor were they in imparting it the peoples Proxies or Atturneys but Gods were it an answer from God or any other thing they received for them if God had immediately communicated it to them it had not been their sin And the like may be said of what Christ receives for us as our Advocate But the circumcising of women had been a sin forbidden according to Mr. Marshalls and others doctrine before recited they
Directory saith they are foederally holy before baptism It remains then that it is by Gods promise Now surely Gods promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 which is usually made the promise whereby infants of believers are in covenant was many thousand years since 430. years before the law Gal. 3.16.17 Therefore even according to the usual language of Paedobaptists infants of believers are in Covenant afore they are born which Mr. Bl. had no cause to carp at as he doth but that it is almost all his art especially when I had to prevent it so distinctly added to shew my meaning have the promise of grace made to them If Mr. Bl. have any other way whereby infants are in the covenant as the parents vow or profession or suretie for them according to it I suppose infants may be said to be in covenant afore they are born sith such vows profession and promises may be made for them afore they are born Let 's consider what M. B saith He tels us he reads not of a covenant actually made with any unborn And as I conceive by his Appendix to his Vindic. foederis as an addition to his first chapter his reason is because he conceives that it is of the general nature of a covenant properly so called that there be a mutual contract and agreement which I shall examine when I consider Mr. Cobbers part 1. c. 3. sect 9. of his Iust Vindic. For present if this be true neither can a Covenant be actually made with an infant born sith an infant born can no more contract or agree or consent then one unborn Nevertheless I conceive there is a covenant actually made with persons unborn Gen. 9.12 where God saith This is the token of the Covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you for perpetual generations which doth express a covenant actually made with every living creature of all flesh for perpetual generations therefore for thousands of persons unborn Yea where he saith he readeth of a Covenant entered into with those that were not present Deut. 29.15 he reads of a covenant made with persons unborn as Piscator Ainsworth Iackson Grotius the New Annot. The notes out of the Arch-bishop of Yorks Library c. do conceive and reason proves it sith that covenant was made only with Israel not with any other people then existent but there was none of all Israel then born which was not there that day as appears from v. 10. therfore those that were not there with them that day can be no other then persons unborn and so Mr. Blake saith not true that he hath not read of a covenant actually made with any unborn But were it granted that by them that were not present were meant persons existent then there is no reason why a covenant may not as well be said to be actually made with the unborn as with the absent who do not express any actual consent or agreement Surely if it be true that the Covenant of grace was made with Christ afore the world for all the elect or in the beginning of time Gen. 3.15 or at his death or resurrection as many Divines speak and sundry texts seem to intimate Gal. 3.16 1 Cor. 11.25 Tit. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.9 Joh. 6.38 39 40. Iohn 10.15 17 18 29 30. Iob. 17.9 10 20 24. Isa. 53.11 12. Psal. 2.7 8. Heb. 1.5 6. Heb. 10.7 15 16. Heb. 8.6 Heb. 13.20 it must of necessity be made with many persons unborn But Mr. Blake adds Mr. Tombs seems here to make the Covenant and election to be one and the same as by this passage so by that which follows but these Scripture still distinguishes To which I say it is true that I make the elect and those that are in the Covenant of grace one and the same but neither in that passage or any other do I make the covenant and election to be one and the same as Mr. Blake mistakes me He saith further We find promises and prophecies as to the taking into Covenant in time to come Ezek. 20.37 but not any such respective to election To which I say the prophecy of taking into Covenant Ierem. 31.33 34. is respective to election or else God promises to write his Laws in their hearts and not to remember their sins who are not elect He goes on All the promises of call of the Gentiles is to bring them into the privileges of glory formerly proper to the Jews To be in covenant was their great privilege And this is not conferred on the Gentiles before all time but done in time Isaiah 42.6 when he brings them light then he brings them into Covenant To which I say The Jews privileges were some of them as those Rom. 9.4 5. such as God never promised to the Gentiles to bring them to he never promised to make any entire nation little ones servants c. to be his visible Church But God promised to the Gentiles the saving privileges of justification adoption regeneration eternal life Ephes. 3.5 6. and this was onely to true believers or elect persons verse 11 12. And these were in Covenant in respect of Gods act of promise before they were in being in which sense alone infants may be said to be in the covenant of grace but in respect of the conferring of the things promised and the possession of them by faith so neither they then were in Covenant Ephes. 2.12 nor are infants now He adds That text Rom. 11.26 27 is too notoriously abused a prophecy of their future call into covenant is made a proof that they are already in covenant upon that account we may make the resurrection if not past as the antient Hereticks Hymenâ—us and Phileâ—us affirmed 2 Tim. 2.18 yet at least present There is like promise of the resurrection of the dead as there is of the call of the Jews into Covenant and resembled to the resurrection as Ezek. 37. so also Rom. 11.15 If by vertue of the text alleged they be already in covenant by virtue of like Texts the dead are already raised Answ. Had Mr. Bl. either heeded my words or been willing to give them any fair interpretation he had forborn this censure in which he doth too notoriously abuse me I said the Jews Rom. 11.26 27. not yet born or not yet called are in the Covenant have the promise of grace made to them which later words I put in on purpose to shew in what sense I said they were in covenant to wit in that they had the promise of grace made to them in which sense I took the Paedobaptists to mean that infants are in the covenant of grace nor do I yet know how they can mean otherwise and this is proved plainly from Rom. 11.26 27. That God hath promised to save all Israel to turn away ungodliness from Iacob and saith this is his covenant unto them when he shall take away their sins I say not they are in
be blessed from access to him As for Mr. Bls. question who say that the covenant of grace without any other command is a command to baptize infants I think Mr. Stephens said it when he made a convertibility between the word of promise and the word of command and whereas Mr. Bl. saith if Christ had never given a command for it neither old nor young ought to have been baptized it is true nor in my speech of his and Mr. Stephens tenet did I mean when I said without any other command to exclude the institution of baptism but it being supposed to be instituted by Christ Paedobaptists do frequently prove a command to baptise infants by vertue of being in covenant without any particular command of baptizing them or any other description that comprehends them as Mr. Marshalls first argument in his Sermon Mr. Bls. second argument Vindic. foed chap. 43. sect 1. sâ—â—w Mr. Geree calls denying infant-baptism A defalking the Covenant and Mr. Bl. himself maintains the third speech that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in covenant when he saith p. 335. every disciple is in covenant and everyone in covenant is a disciple And for his Arguments asserting that infants are of Christs disciples what I have met with either are answered already in the second part of this Review or will be answered in this part iâ— God permit my conceit being still more confirmed by fuller examination of them that they are very frivolous SECT XX. The exceptions which in the first part of my Review sect 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the covenant and initial seal are confirmed against Mr. Blake vindic foed 42. ch sect 3. Mr. Bl. proceeds to vindicate the proofs for the reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal from Gen. 17. and Acts 2.38 39. from my Answers And to my answer that the particle rendered therefore Gen. 17.9 may be rendered and or but thou he saith 1. we have no reason but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative and being an illative particle he hath no exception against the strength of it Whereto I reply There need be no reason given why it should be read and or but and not therefore but this that either of those are the usual acceptions of the particle that and is the most frequent use of it that it may well be so in that place and that learned interpreters do so render it Which being not denyed there is no strength in that proof which is made barely from the term therefore Gen. 17.9 to infer that to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace For he that will prove from it must assert that it must be rendered therefore for a certain conclusion cannot be inferred from an uncertain medium Whereas Mr Bl. only asserts it may be an illative as well as a copulative particle and not that it must be he intimates a grant of what I answer that it may be a copulative as well as an illative particle What he adds that it being an illative particle I have no exception against the strength of it is manifestly untrue sith I added three more exceptions against the proof of that proposition from thence But Master Blake proves the same from verse 10. taking in Acts 7.8 and would have me at more leisure find answer to this argument That which God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it but God calls circumcision by the name of a covenant Ergo they ought not to be separated To which I answer First if the Conclusion be good then circumcision and the Covenant ought not to be separated but the covenant according to Master Marshall Master Blake c. remains the same therfore according to Master Blake circumcision ought to remain still to our children they being in covenant Secondly If the Conclusion were good then the females and males afore the eight day being in covenant must be circumcised Thirdly The conclusion is neither of those propositions which were to be proved to wit 1. That the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant For though it were granted that circumcision and the covenant ought not to be separated yet it proves not the reason of this conjunction to be from interest in the covenant sith it may be yea is indeed to be deduced from the command 2. To them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace For the Conclusion of Mr. Bl. doth not say any thing at all concerning the initial seal of the Christian Church but only of circumcision Fourthly To his Syllogism I answer 1. That God calls circumcision the Covenant only by a metonymia of the thing signified for the sign 2. That ought not to be separated from it may be understood of every person that hath interest in the covenant or of every person to whom it is commanded and when it is not dispensed with in the former sense I deny the major it is not true that what God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it or that Gods calling any sign the Covenant proves that all in covenant are to have that sign on them For neither was it true of circumcision sith neither were males afore the eight day or females in covenant nor any in the wilderness to be circumcised God either not commanding it or dispensing with the observation of it nor is it true of any other sign called the Covenant if there be any without Gods command undispensed with Mr. Blake saith further 2. Let him consider the relation in which the Apostle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant Rom. 4.11 an instituted appointed sign and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seals circumcision was an instituted appointed sign and seal of the covenant therefore it is not to be divided from it Answ. 1. Neither doth the Apostle Rom. 4.11 make circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. nor of any covenant to be kept for the time to come but of a benefit Abraham had before obtained Gen. 15.6 to wit righteousness by faith being yet uncircumcised nor is any ones circumcision besides Abrahams on his own person called the seal of the righteousness of faith 2. The Conclusion is neither of the Propositions to be proved that the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the covenant that to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace 3. The Major proposition is true in this sense an
not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging Ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29.10 11. c with 30.11 12 13 14. so Isai. 51.7 Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this I will be your God whence all is inclosed up in that phrase ibid. or was not the first made to the Iews after their return from Captivity more expresly Ier. 3â— as before more implicitely Gen. 17. Reply The objection I concieve though I do not well know whose it is is this that the covenant at mount Sinai with the Iewish nation or the covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. were not the same with the covenant for that was in the flesh in circumcision or with the fleshly Iew in that at mount Sinai this is the heart by writing Gods Law there and comprehends onely them in whose hearts Gods Laws are written And indeed this difference the Apostle makes between the Covenant of the Law and the Goâ—pel the one was of the letter the other of the spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 the promise of the spirit is said to be by faith Gal. 3.14 and in the new covenant this is made the promise different from what was in the first which was faulty for want of it Heb. 8.10 â— that God would write his laws in their hearts now what Mr. C. speaks seems to me no whit to infring this For though it is true the word of Covenant was in their hearts yet it is true if meant of sanctifying implantation only of the elect not all Abrahams natural seed or the whole body of Israel How Moses is said to judg Ecclesiastically I understand not Deut. 29.10 11. c. with 30.11 12 13 14. do not prove that Moses avowed of every Isralite that the word of covenant was in their heart In some places doubtless the promise I will be your God includs also the writing of Gods Laws in our hearts nor will I deny it included in the promise Gen. 17.7 But I do then not understand it of every Israelite in that sense for if so then I must make Gods word fal sith he doth not perform it to al. And for that which Mr. C. seems to hold that they had the promise dispensed unto them with execution of the covenant it is in my apprehension to charg God with falshood if any say I wrong Mr. C. let him construe this passage otherwise if he can yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them suppose he did not that is the execution of the covenant as for the very â—erith or Covenant itself it is the promise whereof dispensed to them and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30.6 To circumcise the heart to love God is to imprint gracious dispositions to promise the same to them is a Covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid In which words he seems plainly to make God promise to imprint in some the gratious disposions he doth not actually imprint which is to make God not keepe his word nor is the matter mended by asking is not Gods Covenant now also sacramentally on our bodies too and in many no further For I grant many are baptized who are not regenerate yet I do not believe Gods Covenant of grace is to any such or as Mr. C. speaks Gods Covenant to write his Laws in their hearts is to any such Nor do I think that either Ierem. 31·33 or Deut. 30.6 God promiseth to all Israelits to write holy dispositions in their hearts but only to the elect nor to these in his covenant at mount Sinai though he made these promises to some of the natural seed of Israel neither Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. nor Gen. 4.15 16. Compared with Gen. 6.1 2. nor Gen. 17.18.19 20 21. compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12. and Gal. 4. nor Heb. 12 15 16.17 prove that either Cain or Ishmael or Esau were ever in the Covenant of Evangelical grace nor is there any text that proves that he new covenant is intailed to natural generations of the most Godly men Mr. C. in answer to the tenth objection saith thus But it 's false to say the Commandement gave right to Covenant Interest since Covenant right was first promised and declared to be the ground of that commanded service of the initâ—atory seal Gen. 17 7 8 9 10 11. c. Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant He doth not say you must be or are circumcised and therefare I will be your God But I will be a God to thee and thy seed therefore thou and they shall be circumcised the nature of a seal supposeth a Covenant to be sealed To which I reply I confess it were ridiculous for any to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest or covenant-right For what is covenant-interest but interest in the covenant and covenant-right but right from the covenant But setting aside Mr C. his inept phrasifyings which I count to be Paedobaptists-gibberish it is not false but manifest truth that it is the command of God onely that gave title to persons to be circumcised and is the Rule to know who are to be circumcised and who not as I have often proved and shewed to be in effect confessed by Mr M. As for Mr. C. his inference from thou therefore Gen 17.9 it is answered often before in the first part of this Review Sect. 5. and elswhere that neither is the reading certain thou therefore nor doth the inference arise meerly from the promise v. 7. nor is the inference at all of a right to circumcision but of a duty nor is this duty urged from each circumcised persons interest in the covenant but Gods making it with Abraham Nor is it true That the nature of a Seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed sith other things are to be sealed as Letters Books Stones Men Fountains c. besides covenants Abrahams circumcision Rom. 4.11 was a seal not of a covenant of some things to be done but of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised if it were true yet is it as little to the purpose sith there may be a covenant sealed to a person that hath no interest in the promise as when ones name is used onely as a Trustee for others And for what is said That the commandment required only a male of eight dayes old to be circumcised which Mr. C. seems to conceive false meaning not before the eighth day is so plain by reading the chapter that I should make question of his wit or his forehead that should deny it And the reason thus exprest is as frivolous The promise heing made indefinitely to the seed whether male or female and not to the eighth day old seed but to the seed albeit but a day old For though the promise be to the child of one day old yet the command is not to him nor is
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
a Covenant in this latitude and from thence I thus argue If those phrases a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar people be applied to Christians as to Jews in an equal latitude to one â—s to other then it must needs follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as in the time of the Law including all that accept the terms of the Covenant and visibly appear as tâ—e people of God and is not restrained onely to the elect regenerate The consequence is evident seeing the terms plainly imply a Covenant Here is a Covenant people or no where But these terms a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people are applied to Christians as well as to Jews to one in as great a latitude as to the other That which God speaks to Israel in the Wilderness that Peter speaketh to the Church to which he writes All Israelites in Moses days all Christians professing in Peters time had those titles when onely those that kept Covenant were at any time worthy of them and had the comforts of them Answ. The noise I make is not a meer sound without reason nor is any one of my reasons made void by Mr. Bls. answers To him I reply 1. That his speech is inconsiderate when he saith the text speaks fully to hold up a Covenant in this latitude which comprehends non-elect persons when there is not a word of any Covenant and the terms he onely saith plainly imply a Covenant And though I deny not that the people there mentioned were a Covenant people yet I deny any one of the terms doth imply a Covenant for a chosen generation doth not imply a Covenant sith both electiâ—n and generation may be without a Covenant and the like may be said of the other terms a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar or purchased people â—o that in this respect the consequence may be denied Nor is the consequence good for another reason For it is not true that all Israelites in Moses days had those titles which I find Exod. 19 5 6. yet there onely three of them and those not said of all the Israelites in Mâ—ses days but a promise of being to God such as these titles import upon condition they did hearken to his voice and kept his Covenant which was neither verified of all Israelites in Moses days nor in after times And therefore though those terms were applied to Christians as to Jews yet it doth not necessarily follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as under the Law sith those titles were not verified of all the Jews at any time but of them and then onely when they were obedient But I deny the minor also of Mr. Bls. argument that the terms are applied by Peter in an equal latitude to Christians as by Moses to Jews and assert as in my Postscriâ—t sect 10. pag. 128. that they are applied onely to those who are members of the invisible Church Whereupon Mr. Bl. speaks thus to me But I would wish Mr. T. to take into more serious consideration First whether the first verse of this second chapter be meant onely of invisible members Whether the Apostle peâ—swades regeneâ—ate men and onely regenerate men to lay aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and evil speakings Answ. To the first question I say affirmatively that by new born babes v 2 are meant onely members of the invisible Châ—rch for they are said ch 1.23 to be born again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever Ver. 2. to be elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father begotten again unto a lively hope ver 3. And to the 2d that he mentions onely regenerate persons whom he perswades though the duty is incumbent on others 2 ly Whether the 3d. v. be to be thus limited Whether the Apostle makes doubt in that manner whether they had tasted that the Lord is gracious And yet those words in both those verses must needs be understood of the same men and under the same notion as these ver 9. The Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. Those that must lay aside all malice guile c. of whom he makes question whether they had tasted that the Lord were gracious they are this chosen generation this royal priesthood Answ. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 2.3 is translated if and may seem to import doubt or uncertainty but it may be as well translated seeing as it is 2 Thes. 1.6 and so it imports certainty that they had tasted how gracious the Lord is without making question of it And this reading is more apposite to their condtiion and more suitable to the exhortation For it is more agreable to the nature of a motive to the duty ver 2. to conceive it thus Desire the word to grow by it sith or seeing you have tasted how gracious the Lord is 2. But if it were read if yet in such passâ—ges as these if doth not import doubt but onely is as a rational particle noting the connexion between the terms as Joh. 15.18 Ephes. 4.20 21. And so the sense is here If you have tasted which he supposeth not questioneth then you ought to desire the milk of the word that you may grow by it 3. Were it the Apostle had doubt whether they had tasted how good the Lord is which is not to be conceived considering what he saith of them c. 1. v. 3 23. c. 2.2 5. c. yet this doubt might be of a more full tast which every regenerate elect person might not have 4. The exhortation to lay aside malice c. doth not intimate they were any of them whom he calls new born babes v. 2. a chosen generation an holy nation v. 9. unregenerate or non-elect for such exhortations are necessary for the most holy Saints in whom are reliques of corruption and liableness to temptation 3 ly Saith Mr. Bl. Let him seriously consider the Apostles further enlargement of this honour of these Christians which in times past were not a people of God words borrowed from Hos. 1.10 Hos. 2.23 and spoken of the call of the ten revolted Tribes And in Deut. 32.21 of the call of the Gentiles into a visible Church state and profession and so applied by the Apostle Rom. 9.24 25 26. Whence I argue The call of the ten revolted Tribes and of the Gentiles into a visible Church way is not to be meant of the Church as it is invisible onely This Mr. T. hath taken into consideration and answered However it be in the pâ—aces to which the allusion is yet it is certain that here it is meant of such a calling as is from darkness to marvellous light taking it it seems for granted that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches that in the land of Zebulon and Nephthali where they saw
is darkness He saith I undertake a full Comment upon these words of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Exercit. pag. 3. in which the Reader will not find this undertaking He sets down my distinction of Abrahams seed Exercit pag. 3. and then saith here by the way Mr. T. mistakes himself 1. In casting Ishmael out of Covenant in that manner that all the time of his Circumcision he had not title to it to that end that he might make were it possible the Covenant and the Seal distinct of themselves without any relation one to the other conceiving some to be sealed that were never in Covenant and some to be in Covenant that were never sealed Ishmael was in Covenant as was Esau at his Circumcision and his Circumcision doth wâ—tness iâ— Gen. 17.11 Answ. I do assert that â—he Covenant Gen. 17 was not made with Ishmael for none of the promiâ—es there did belong to him and I have further provâ—d it fâ—oâ— v. 19 â—0 21. Heb. 11.9 c. though not to make the Covenant and Seal distinct of themselveâ— without any relation one to another yet conceiving some were to be circumcised that were never in Covenant and viceversa But Mr. Bl. thinks it proved that Ishmael was in Covenant because he was circumcised for it is said Circumcision shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you Gen. 17.11 To which â— said the Covenant was between God and Abraham and his seed in their generations v. 7. and this seed is declared excâ—â—sively of Ishmael to be â—saac v. 2â— and them that shâ—uld be of him Gen. 21.12 Rom. 9.7 8. Though every persons Circumcision afâ—er Gods appointment was a token of the Covenant God made yet not of the Covenant God made between himself and the circumcised for the covenant of God with Abraham was not to evâ—ry circumcisâ—d stranger nor to every circumcised child but between God and â—braham and â—is seed in their generations which should be called in â—saac and accordingly the covenant to be kept v. 1â— is said to be between God and Abraham and Sarah and Abrahams seed â—areus com on Gen. 17.7 Two heads there are of the Covenant God and Abraham on Abrahams part also his seed or posterity are comprehended But the seed is understood according to the limitations of Scripture here and in other places Gen. 17.21 â—1 12 Rom. 9.7 8. What therefore is here added in their generations extends not the Covenant to Ishmaelites Idumaeans and Keturaeans There is no truth in that which Mr. Bl. adds men in Covenant were the â—dequate subject of Circumcision and are of Baptism For the females and the males of the seventh day were in Covenâ—nt yet not subjects of Circumcision many Proselytes and others were the subjects of Circumcision though not in Covenant Nor is the reason why either this or that person was to be circumcised and is now to be baptized his being in Covenant but the command of God concerning them whether they be in Covenant with God or no in that sense in which Paedobaptists mean when they say infants are in covenant because of Gods covenant made to them without thâ—ir own covenant as hath been often proved The casting out which I observe Apol. 114. of Ishmael doth not sufficiently argue as Mr. Bl. saith that Ishmael was once in Covenant but that he was once in Abrahams house from whence he was cast out 2 ly Saith Mr. Bl. Mr. T. does iâ—l in laying upon Ishmael the brand of Bastardy as though he were a son of whoredomes to faithful Abraham Coâ—cubines in Scripture have the name of Wives and their seed was ever accounted legitimate neither will this serve his pâ—rpose at all to argue Ishmael out of covenant Answ. I terâ—ed Ishmael Abrahams base natural seed but not to argue him out of covenant nor bâ— terming him base did I term him the son of whoredomes but of an unlawful bed And though Concubines in Scripture have the name of Wives and whores are usually called those that are common to more then one and the sons of Concubines counted leâ—itimate in respect of inheritances yet be that should say thaâ— Concubines were lawful Wives and their children legitimate before God must maintain the lawfulness of Concubinate and Polygamy in the Pâ—triarchs which our Lord Christs words gâ—insay Matth. 19.4 5 6. M. Bl. having recited my words Exercit. pag. 3. concerning the different seed of Abraham and the different manner of Gods promise to be God â—o them he 〈◊〉 after his calumniating manner infers So that it evidently appears that he casts out all the natural seed of Abraham legitimate or base as he cals them inheriting or not inheriting from any â—itle to that Covenant save in domestick and political benefits Which if true I should cast ouâ— Isaac Jacob David Christ Jesus himself from any title to â—hat Covenant Gen. 17.7 save in domestick and political benefits which is so gross a thing and so manifest a falshood that I wonder Mr. Bl. hath the face to write such a thing of me and to pervert my words so palpably but that I perceive he cares little how he hazards his own credit so he may impair mine I say that God promiseth he will be a God to Christ impartinâ— in him blessing to all nations of the earth to the spiritual seed of â—braham in Evangelical benefits to the natural seed inheriting in domestick and political benefits How doth it sufficiently appear hence that I cast out all the natural seed of Abraham from any title to thâ—t Covenant save in domestick and political bâ—nefits Doth it follow that because I assigne Evâ—ngelical benefits to Abrahams spirituaâ— seed I deny any of his natural seed to be his spiritual To this loud caluâ—ny he adjoyns his own gross pâ—sition in these words Here I shall undertake a position in full opposition I will establish my Covenant c. Gen. 17.7 in their fullest latitude as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. Which if true then God breaks his word if he be not a God in spiritual and all other blâ—ssings comprehended under the phrase will be a God to thee and thy seed to Judas Ahab the Pharises that said Christ caâ—â— out devils by the help of devils and so blasphemed the Holy Ghost the Jews that rejected Christ in effectual calling justifying raising to eternal life which the Scripture comprehends under that phrase of being a God to a person Rom. 9.11 Gal. 3.16 Luk. 20.37 38. He saith the confirmation of this position is a matter of ease if any Which I acknowledge if by confirmation be meant such as Mr. Bl. in his dictating and flirting fashion useth to â—onfirm things not distinctly opening terms nor the meaning of the texts he brings nor shewing by any Logical deduction the pertinency of them to prove his position But I shall as
his assent to his verbal profession But infants baptism is no profession of any faith either explicit or implicit there being no act done by them tending to make any shew of faith which they neither understand nor take â—o bee true upon the trust of their teachers as Papists do in their implicit faith which yet we dâ—ny to be christian faith but are every way passive both in respect of the act of the baptisers and the reason and end of it they neither do any thing towards their baptism nor understand any thing of it Yea were it true that such an implicit profession of faith were in infants baptism yet were it not enough to make them visible members of the christian church no not according to the definition of Protestant writers who when they define the church to be a company of professors of faith do mean more then an implicit profession to wit an intelligent and free profession and do blame the baptising of the Indians by the Spaniards forcing them to own the Christian Faith afore they understand it though there bee more implicite profession of the faith by them then is or can be by an infant 3. I argue They are no visible members of the christian church to whom no note whereby a visible christian church or church-membership is discernible doth agree For that which is visible is discernable to the understanding by some sensible note or signe by which it is known But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church or church-member is discernable doth agree Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by shewing the right notes of the visible church and church-members not to agree to infants The right notes of the christian church and church-members are the profession of the whole Christian faith the preaching and hearing of the Word administration and communion in the Sacramenâ—s joyning in Prayer discipline c. with believers Hudson vindic pag. 229. But none of these agree to infants Not profession of of the whole Christian faith For they neither understand nor shew by any thing they do that they assent to the christian faith Not the preaching or hearing of the Word For infants can neither preach nor hear the Word I mean as it is speech or significative language though they may hear it as a sound much less as yeilding assent to it which hearing alone is a mark of a visible church-member Nor do they administer or have communion in the Sacraments None will say they administer nor though they should be baptised in water by a Minister or eat bread or drink wine at the Lords supper can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament For he onely hath communion in a Sacrament who useth it as a signe of that for which it is appointed and this use onely is a note of a visible church-member otherwise a Spaniards forcible baptising of an Indian without knowledge of Christ should make him partaker of the Sacrament or doing it in sport or jest should make a visible church-member See Mr. B. himself correct sect 6. pag. 253. But infants neither use baptism nor the Lords Supper as a signe engaging to Christ with acknowledgement or remembrance of him therefore they have no communion in the Sacraments no not in baptism nor is their pretended baptism any note of visible Church membership Nor do they joyn in prayer discipline or any part of Christian worship or service which might shew they own Christ as their Lord and therefore they are not discernable to be of the visible Church christian by any right note 2. By shewing that the notes whereby they are conceived to bee discernable as visible Church-members are not notes of their visible church-membership Two notes are usually alledged the one the covenant of God the other the parents profession of faith neither shew them visible Christian church-members nor both together Not the covenant or promise of God For there is no such covenant that promiseth to every believers childe much less to every professor of Faith's childe saving grace or visible church-membership and a promise to save indefinitely not expressing definitely who is not a note whereby by this or that person is discernable to be the person to whom it belongs Besides if there were such a promise to every childe of a believer yet unless it were a promise of it to them in their infancy it would not prove they were actually visible church members but onely that in the future they should be Nor is the parents Faith a note of the infants visible church membership For whether it be a note of it self or conjunctly with the covenant it is a note of the infants visible church-membership because it is his child and if so then it is a note of his child 's visible church-membership at twenty years of age though he should be then a professed Infidel as well as a day old a note of an Embryo's visible church-membership in the mothers womb as well as a childe born which are absurd Other reason then this I know not But sure I am there is not the least hint in Scripture of a childes being discernable to be a visible Christian church-member by the parents faith or profession but to the contrary To this argument briefly propounded in my Examen of his Sermon part 3 sect 3 Mr. M. replies not in his Defence and therefore I see not but it stands good 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member are not visible Christian church-members This proposition is most sure according to Logick rules take away the form the thing formed is not if the form denominating agree not the denomination agrees not Scheibler Top. c. 5. de forma Stieri praec doct Log tract 2. c. 4. But the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member infants have not Ergo. The minor is proved thus They which have not the outward profession of Faith within have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member For profession of Faith is the form constituting and denominating a visible church-member as is proved from the constant sayings of Divines Ames Marrow of Divinity first book c. 31. § 11. Faith is the form of the Church § 25. visibility is the affection or manner of the Church according to its accidental and outward form § 27. The accidental form is visible because it is no other thing then the outward profession of inward faith which may easily be perceived by sense c. 32. § 7. It is a society of believers for that same thing in profession constitutes the visâ—ble Church which in its inward and real nature makes a mystical Church that is Faith Ball trial of separat c. 13. p. 302. A lively operative faith maketh a man a true member of the Church invisible and the profession of faith and holiness a member of the Church visible Norton answer to Apollon â— 1. prop. 2. pag. 10
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
Cartwright was mistaken and Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines did vainly crack of Mr. Bls. Birth priviledge and Mr Bl. hath grosly abused Gal. 2.15 as he did also Gal 4.29 and there is no parallelism of 1 Cor. 7.14 and Gal. 2.15 to interpret the one by the other 3. Saith Mr. Bl. The argument thus understood is untrue The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party as to the holiness of the issue twice over the unbeliever is meerly passive in it when the child hath legitimation equally from both Against his interpretation and for mine which Chamier affirms to be Calvini omnium nostrorum take these arguments 1. That holiness which necessarily follows to the issue from the sanctification of an unbelieving by a believing yokefellow is Covenant holiness and not legitimation But the holiness in this place of the Apostle necessarily follows to the issue from the sanctification of an unbeliever by a believer Ergo it is Covenant holiness not legitimation 2. That which is derived from the eminency of one parent above another and not equally from both is not legitimation But this holiness is derived from the eminence of one parent viz. the believing parent above the other Ergo it is not legitimation 3. The result or fruit which follows from a believers faith is not legitimation But the holiness in the Text is a result of the faith of the believing yokefellow The minor is evident seeing faith is twice hinted at in the believer I know that Mr. T. denies that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in the believing It is saith he in the husband not in the believing husband in the wife not in the believing wife that is not in the Text. The marriage is between a believer and an unbeliever the unbeliever is sanctified whether husband or wife by their yokefellow but not by their believing yoke fellow the Reader that puts off his reason may matter such denials Answ. The Reader that puts on his reason will easily see good reason for my denial of each of the minors in each of Mr. Bls. three arguments and the vanity of Mr. Bls. arguings laying the stress wholly upon the believing party which is not expressed in the Text but onely hinteâ— and upon a translation of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which is not denied but may be translated in or to Will any man of competent reason conceive that the Apostle being to give reason of his resolution of an important point of consâ—iencâ— about which he was by Letter consulted would so loosely argue as to leave out the chief word from whence he inferred his conclusion and conclude holiness as resulting from that which is not named yea though he named the opposite term twice and express a causality or antecedency by a term that had ordinarily another respect when there was a proper and usual particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express it by And on the other side so precisely name the terms of husband and wife twice and your children expresly and yet lay no part of the stress upon the conjugal relation so often and so plainly mentioned Yea do we think that the Apostle giving a reason why the husband and wife might live together in disparity of Religion would lay the whole stress upon that which was meerly accidental to their marriage state to wit the ones being a believer and the fâ—deral holiness of children without which their mrrriage might be good at first and they lawfully continue together and not ascribe it to that conjugal relation continuing which alone made their living together lawfull as their comming together at first That Chamier did overlash in saying the interpretation of federal holiness was omnium nostrorum is manifest by the words of Musculus Melancthon and Camerarius câ—ted by me in my Exercitation sect 5. That it was Calvins and many moâ—e Protestants opinion is a prejudice against our opinion but should not be with those that determine upon evidence of reason not the authority of men Calvin was an excellent man but we may say of him Non videt omnia I follow Mr. Bl. in his next section Whereas Mr. Bl saith I put the Apostles argument into this form If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife then were your children unclean But they are not unclean but holy Ergo the unbelieving huusband is sanctified by the wife Had he dealt fairly with me he would have rectified the major and changed by into to the conclusion of the syllogism and the words next before and all along in that section of my Examen having to the wife which I contend for in that section and pag. 14 15. of my Exercitation as the genuine reading disclaiming by the wife and of this advertise Mr. M. p. 97. of the first part of this Review The rest of the section is spent about the proposition proving this sequel If the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in or to the wife your children were unclean and so included in the Apostles consequence Mr. Bl. would have it to be thus Answer to my Letter p. 38. All the children of an unbeliever are unclean unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer I conceive this proposition to be included in the Apostles consequence All the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are unclean or none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are holy The point in difference between us is whether it be necessary to insert of an unbeliever unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer This I deny for these reasons 1. That is not necessary to be inserted without which the Apostles conclusion is inferred But the Apostles conclusion is inferred without Mr. Bls. addition Ergo. The major is of it self evident The minor is thus proved The Apostle in his argument doth not at all mention sanctification for generation there may be and was sanctification without generation else no husband and wife could be sanctified one in or to another except children were begotten and so the Apostle should not resolve the lawfulness of their lâ—ving together who were barren which is absurd Nor is it necessary to add by a believer sith the Apostle hath omitted it and that as it is very probable of set purpose Nor is it necessary to add unbeliever because it is false then even according to Paedobaptists hypotheses For then it would foâ—low the children of two believers are unclean and so Isaac and Jacob should be unclean or out of the Covenant if this were added all the children of those parents whereof one is not an unbeliever sanctified for generation by a believer are unclean 2. The second reason I form thus That is not necessary to be added which would make the Apostles proposition false But Mr. Bls. addition would make the Apostles proposition false For it is false which he makes the Apostles
let her not leave him that is there is no necessity that he should put her away that she should leave him conscience and duty to God ties them not to do so and this sense seems most probable to me though I reject not the other if some limitation more be added as thus let him not put her away nor shee leave him that is I forbid them to leave each other barely for the disparity of religion Now the reasons of this later explication are these 1. Because the phrase v. 15. let him depart is not an absolute command but a permission as the words following a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases shew and the like is to bee said of the resolution v. 17. so let him walk that is so hee may walk and that it is the sense I gather from the instances in the following verses whereby the Apostle illustrates his determination v. 17. Is any man called being uncircumcised v 18. let him not become uncircumcised Is any called in uncircumcision let him not be circumcised Which speeches do not absoluâ—ely forbid the drawing up the fore-skin or the cutting it off there might bee cases in which either might be lawful but leave it at liberty and so much the words â—ollowing also intimate circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping the commandements of God which expression intimates the iâ—differency of these and the non availing to ingratiate us to God which is not a fit reason for an absolute prohibition but for a determination concerning the liberty of either Then the Apostle v. 20. repeats his determination v. 17. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called which though true of it is not meant of his â—hristian general calling as if he had said Let every man abide in Christianity wherein he was called which the words seem at first râ—ading to import for the words following v. 21. Art thou called being a servant do shew that the term calling v. 20. notes thâ— state of life antecedent to his being a Christian which by an elegant â—ntanaclasis is termed by the Apostle his calling And this the Apostle doth not enjoyn so as that he forbids any servant to be free but the meaning iâ— as Diodati in his Annot. rightly expounds it He may abide therein with a safe conscience and ought not rashly to change it neither through superstition nor by doing another any wrong but if he can do it for any just causes or through any lawfull means it is then lawfull for him to do it The same is repeated v. 24. and is to be understood not as oft preachers do understand it of a mans trade or imployment onely and as an absolute command that a man should not leave his iâ—ployment trade or function in which he was bred as of a tradesman to become a preacher c. but the calling is any state of life in which the person was found who was called to be a Christian as to be circuâ—cised or uncircuâ—cised a servant or freeman married or unmarried subject or Magistrate and so proves that Magistracy or any other state of life is consistent with Christianity And the Apostles determination is not of necessiâ—y as if a Christian might not alter the calling or state of life he was in when he was converted for then the servant might not become free nor the unmarried marry but of liberty that Christians should not think themselâ—es bound by their Christian profession to forsake these estates but they might continue in them And so is the resolution v. 12 13. to be expounded 2. This exposition is agreeâ—ble to the occasion of the Apostles determination which was the Corinthian Christians doubt of the lawfulness of their living together not of the inconvenience or convenience for in that they could have best resolved themselves and so the Apostles resolution is of the lawfulness of living together 3. This is further confirmed from the reason of his determination v. 12 13. in the first part of v. 14. which is apparently set down to meet with the reason of their doubt they thought that they might not live with the unbeliever because unholy The Apostle on the contrary determines though hee were unholy in himself yet he was to his wife as if hee had been holy and the reason is thus The wife may live with him as her husband who though an unbeliever is in respeâ—t of marriage use as if he were sanctified But so is the unbelieving husband Ergo. Which reason cannot be a meer Rhetorical argument to move the affection for it supposeth the unbeliever continuing such which was their vexation but an argument to satisfie their consciences Yet not of their duty that they must live together for it is heterogeneous to that end they were not bound to live together by reason of the sanctifiedness of the unbeliever buâ— Gods command which alone makes duty but of the lawfulness notwithstanding his infidelity by determining against the ground of their doubt the unlawfulness of living together with an unsanctified infidel As for the words following Else were your children unclean but now are they holy they cannot be the resolution of another doubt but 1. the forms of expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else or otherwise and but now do plainly shew that those words do confirm what was said next before the unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband 2. They shew that the thing was certain even to them that their children were not unclean and that it was absurd in their conceits that their children should be unclean Mr. Bl. himself saith Vindic. Faed pag. 323. Else implies a certainty that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose the children are holy a like certainty that were it not that they were thus sanctified they were unclean Which words do plainly set down the two propositions I conceived in the Apostles argument which Mr. Bl. terms a monster of absurdity for It is certain that upon this account of sanctification of the parent from whom the ground of fear arose the children are holy is equipollent to this All the children of those parents whereof one is sanctified to the other are holy and it is certain that were it not that they were thus sanctified they were unclean is equipollent to this none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are clean or holy and hereby their fear is confessed to have been about their own living together and the ground of it the imagined non sanctifiedness of the parent and that else doth imply a certainty of the childrens holiness upon this account of sanctification of the parent which evidently shews that the childrens holiness is a consequent of the parents sanctification and brought to prove it and not to resolve another doubt of them Yea it were ridiculous to resolve a doubt by a doubt to resolve them
lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband will as well prove the lawfulness of a believing fornicatrix living with an unbelieving fornicator as may appear saith he by a syllogistical analysis of the Apostles argument the major whereof is this That man and woman may live together notwithstanding the unbelief of one party whereof one iâ— sanctâ—fied to the â—ther for begetting an holy seed This is manifeâ—â—ly the Apostles reason after our interpretation But Mr. T. is manifestly mistaken not to mention the liberty that â—e will scarce allow another to leave out husband and wife exprest in the Text and instead of it to put man and woman The Apostle doth not concludâ— the lawfulness of their marriage society by the federation of their issue but shews that tâ—e supposed and feared non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness And I dare yeeld that any man anâ— woman may live together notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of an holy seed And if Mr. T. will apply this which the Apostle speaks of a mans living with his wife ad faciendum populum to the living wiâ—h his whore there is no danger to yeeld it Pharez his issue had belonged to the Commonweal of Israel if Thamar had been an infidel as for ought wee know in all probability it was with Jephtaes mother If Sampson had issue by the harlot of Gaza Judg. 16.1 such issue had belonged to Israel such â—ssue male had right to circumcision To gratifie Mr. T. I shall put it under my hand that if a man have no other reason from Scripture to leave his harlot then the non-federation of his issue he may still abide with her Answ. There is no mistake in my argument nor is there any answer at all made by Mr. Bl. to it which hee either wittingly or unwittingly I judge not certain I am he doth manifestly mistake He tels me The Apostle doth not conclude the lawfulness of their marriage society by the federation of their issue whereby he intimates as if I said he did and that therein was my mistake But let my words be viewed Apol. sect 18. p. 96. Postscript sect 7. p. 122. Review part 1. sect 22 36. and it will appear that I frame not the argument so according to the Apostle â—ightly onderstood but as Mr. M. and others interpret him I said the Apostle concludes the lawfulness of their living together by the sanctification of the husband though an unbeliever to or in the wife and that the proposition of the Apostle is They may live together whereof one is sanctified in the other the assumption is But the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife Ergo. Now the major with Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition hath this sense They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other for the begetting a holy seed for so they expound the Apostle But according to them the vnbelieving fornicator is sanctified by the believing fornicatrix for the begetting a holy seed which is confessed by them By Mr. Bl. here when he saith The issue of Tamar Jephtha's mother the Harlot at Gaza were holy federally and for the major there is no necessity of putting in husband and wife sith as Mr. Bl. saith p 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party as to the holiness of the issue and here I dare yeeld saith he that any man and woman may live together notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of an holy seed Now put all these together The Apostle argues the believer may live with the unbeliever because the one is sanctified in the other and this sanctifying is according to Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition for the begetting a holy seed and this begetting of a holy seed according to Mr. Bl. is ascribed wholly to the faith of the one parent it 's a result or fruit of the parents faith whether married or unmarried therefore according to Mr. Bls. exposition of the Apostle â—he lawfulness of living together is deduced from thâ—t which doth as well agâ—ee to fornicators as the married and consequently â—he lawfulness of living together in fornication is inferred from the Apostles reason as Mr. Bl. and Mr. M. and others expound it as well as of husband and wife It is true I would not allow another to leave husband and wife exprest in the text out of the argument framed by me according to my exposition which is the Apostles meaning as I conceive because I lay the whole stress upon those terms and still contend that no persons are sanctified one in or to another but the husband and wife and that these are so sanctified whether one or both or neither are believers But if I frame the reason according to Mr. Ms. Mr. Bls. and others interpretation of the Apostle I am to be allowed to leave them out sith by them no stress is laid on the husband and wife or conjugal relation but the faith of one party That there was any such fear of non-federation of issue or supposition of it in the Corinthians if they livid together cannot be evinced from the text but the contrary is manifest by the arguing from the uncleanness of their children as an absurdity in their apprehensions and the holiness of them as a thing known and certain to them as the particle else shews and therefore that the Apostle shews that the feared and supposed non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness is but a fiction nor doth the Apostle make any such distinction between concluding the lawfulness and the not concluding the unlawfulness between which if there bee any distinction which yet I perceive not yet it is certain that the words v. 12 13. let him not put her away let her not leave him are a positive resolution of the lawfulness of their continuing together in marriage society and the reason shews v. 14. that the doubt was of the believers conjunction with the unbeliever because he was an unsanctified person and consequently the reason of the doubt was not the fear of the non-federation of issue but the unlawfulness of marriage society with an infidel unsanctified and consequently it is a monstrous addition which Mr. Bl. seems to put either into the conclusion thus let her not leave him if this be all the fear the non-federation of issue or in the reason They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other party so as that there is no fear of the non federation of their issue there being nothing in the text for this addition Yet if it were put in it will justifie my odious inference as hee terms it For let the major be thus after Mr. Bls. minde They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other so as
there is no fear of non-federation of their issue the minor is thus expresly after Mr Bls. minde But the unbelieving fornicatrix is sanctified by the faith of the believing fornicator so as that there is no fear of non-federation of their issue Ergo they may live together according to Mr. Bl. and consequently Mr. Bl. blasphemously by his exposition makes the Apostle justifie the living together of a believer with an unbeliever in fornication which is enough to shew the falshood of that exposition yea and of any other which ascribes the sanctifiedâ—ess v. 14. which is the reason of their lawful living together v. 12 13. to the faith of the one party and not to the conjugal relation The rest of Mr. Bls. talk of my willingness to have him waste his time his falling on my sapless tree the readiness of his axe his pains in applying it is vain and frivolous talk sith the tree still stands after all his hacking and hewing at it and his axe appears to bee very blunt or else he strikes besides the tree As for my sixe years space Mr. Bl. might have understood that the reason of my not publishing the first part of my Review till 1652. six years after the printing of Apology was besides my constant labours and extraordinary publike and private employments from the necessity of my removing my dwelling from the Temple to Bewdley from Bewley to Ledbury thence to Lemster besides my frequent flittings by reason of the wars travels to regain my plundered goods difficulty to get my treatise printed the variety of Antagonists I had to answer which is yet the reason of my slowness in publishing this part of the Review and comes from the venemous spirit of such as Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists who would never comply with me in the fair motion in the Epilogue of my Examen to joyn together in a brotherly way of ventilating the point but what they can bait me with calumnies tending to discredit me as covetous arrogant c. with multitude of replies and magnifying them though frivolous vilifying my writings that men might not reade them and discern the truth nor Book-sellers be willing to print or sell them stirring up Parliaments and Rulers to remove those of our way out of all places which have publike salary that our hands may be weakned which I may truly call wicked practises of which too many of them have been guilty and for which God will judge them I go on Mr. Bl. sect 6. to my argument against his instrumental sanctification that barren persons cannot be said to be instrumentally sanctified for producing an holy seed pressed by me in the 1. part of this Review p. 150 151. sect 19 saith thus And I will appeal to any yea the meanest Christian whether persons that have children born in wedlock bonds in such disparity may not have their fears and scruples about them notwithstanding others in the same condition of marriage are childless or unable to bring forth children Whether the seed which came of those marriages Ezra 10. were not unclean notwithstanding many so married had no children Many of the Priests had herein transgrest and it was but some of them had wives by whom they had children Ezra 10.44 All which I grant but there is not a jot in all this which answers my objection that the barren by accident or nature could not bee said to bee sanctified to produce an holy seed and yet the reason of the Apostle must bee conceived to reach to the proof of the lawfulness of their living together in disparity of religion as well as the fruitful and therefore the sanctifying must be expounded in another sense then Mr. Bls. which agrees not to their case But hee adds And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination v. 1â— that they might live together pag. 152. hee will have it to be from a future contingent but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination as hath been sufficiently shâ—wn it is not this fals with the other Answ. That it hath been sufficiently shewn that the first part of v. 14. is not a medium for proof of the Apostles determination is said without any colour of truth All the reason I finde given is v. 16. is not a formal reason ergo neither v. 14. to which answer hath been given by denying both the antecedent and the consequence it is a formal reason though not â—s Mr. Bl. frames it and if it were not yet the term for else but now being argumentative terms shew there is formal reasoning v. 14. v. 14. and the producing an holy seed being a contingent event if the Apostle should as Mr. Bls. exposition makes him prove their lawful living together because the unbeliever is sanctified instrumentally to produce an holy seed hee should argue from an uncertain event which Chamier tom 4. paustr. Cath. lib. 5. chap. 10. sect 46. disapproved in another case as I shew in my Examen pag. 7â— To my argument against instrumental sanctiâ—â—cation that it cannot be meant oâ— it sith the barren cannot bee said to bee Gods instrument â—or that always effects and when God sanctifies hee specially designes some whereas this is common to all husbands and wives and the unbeliever is said to bee sanctified whereas it is the believer according to them who is the instrument of producing a holy seed Mr. Bl. saith I am sure they bring â—orth children unto God Ezek 16.20 and this they do not independently of themselves so Christ would not have warned Matth. 23.10 call no man father upon earth for one is your father who is in heaven All natural parents are instruments of God to produce a seed to people the world according to that blessing of Gen. 1.28 Gen. 9.1 Bee fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth All believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed it being of his free grace that the promise is to them and their seed Answ. What is said Ezek. 16.20 was said onely of Israelites and those manifest idolaters as well as true believers and the words do import no more but this that the Israelites children were born of right to him that is to be at his disposal for his service Levit. 25.42 because hee brought them out of Egypt and therefore it was unjust in them to alienate them from him by offering them to idols which is not to be said of the Corinthian believers children Matth. 23.9 is as impertinently alledged for it speaks not of Gods being a Father in respect of natural generation nor forbids calling any man a father in that respect but in that manner in which the Jews termed their teachers fathers and themselvâ—s their children in respect of absolute subjection of their consciences to their dictates as Diodati rightly in his annot This teacheth the believers not to yeeld that absolute reverence nor power over their consciences to any living man which
belongeth to God onely as ignorant people did use to do to the Pharisees If aâ—l natural parents be instruments of God to people the world yet Mr. Bl. will not say they are instruments to produce a holy seed to peoâ—le the Church for theâ— all children and not believers onely should bâ—e fedeâ—ally holy so tâ—at all this is meerly impertinent That all believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed is said without proof there being no such promise to them and their seed produced nor if there were did it follow they were all federally holy in Mr. â—ls sense But were this gâ—anted yet it is noâ—hing to prove the unbelieving parent to bee Gods instrument to produce a holy seed who is said and not the believer to bee sanctified and that signanter considered as an unbeliever much less every unbelieving wife though bâ—rren who hath a believing husband much less to bee specially designed for that end and therefore the sanctification instrumental which Master Bl. conceives meant 1 Corinth 7.14 is quite besides the Apostles meaning Mr. Bl. goes on thus of me The 2d argument he hath in his Apol. p. 123. where he says that the Apostles proposition understood of federal holiness were most certainly false giving in his reason for many children of both unbelieving parents are federally holy he saith that I answer they are not so at their birth My answer is if afterwards by grace they are changed this is no fruit of their birth of which the question is in this place but the work of the Gospel through grace Mr. T. says This is nothing to the purpose sith the proposition hath not those words in it nor the Apostle the Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time It seems then that the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children so born cannot bee clean at any time or else Mr. T. his exception is less to purpose who does not see that the Apostle speaks of uncleanness or holiness as as a product of their birth without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen as a mean woman given in marriage to a Senator or Peer she is enobled by her husband otherwise her issue were Plebeians yet so as they are capable of honour by the Princes munificence or their own merit It seems that proposition of Christs That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh. 3.6 will not hold unless it must for ever continue flesh and no omnipotence of God shall be able to make it otherwise Answ. It is true that it seems to me the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children born unclean cannot be clean at any time and I grant that the Apostle speaks of uncleâ—nness or holiness as a product of their birth or generation without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen and therefore of illegitimation and legitimation by birth and not of federal holiness which is no product of birth and yet that proposition That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh 3.6 will hold though after the person born after the flesh be made spirit or spiritual there being no contradiction in this that the person born after the flesh should become spiritual in his qualities but it is impossible that that which hath been illegitimate in birth should not be illegitimate in birth iâ— beâ—ng a thing past and therefore cannot by God be made not a thing past or not done for then it should be true that a thing hath been at birth and hath not been been and not been which is a contradiction Mr. Bl saith I farther add And yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth whether it bee understood of election inherent holiness or outward holiness if God please to work and declare it I would Mr T would speak whether there were ever any such a thing aâ— the child of two unbelievers at the instant of their birth declared of God to bee of those whom hee took â—o bee federally holy and of the number of his Covenant people let that proposition stand till God by such a miracle confute or contradict it Answ. 1. Though I could not speak there was such a thing yet it is enough for me to shew that and how it might be 2. I doubt not but many a captive woman gotten wâ—th child by an infidel and she her self an infidel hath been delivered in Abrahams house and those children were in Mr. â—ls sense federally holy at the instant of their birth for for they were if males capable of Circumcision on the eighth day according to the law Gen. 17.12 13. and this is to be federally holy according to Mr. Bls. doctrine who makes all to be in the Covenant at their birth who are capable by reason of their birth of the sign of the Covenant He yet saith Mr. T. adds But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoyned as husband and wife cannot be made legitimate by God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife This must conclude for his interpretation and against ours because God by his omnipotence can make our unclean ones holy and to make his unclean ones holy is without the verge of omnipotence If we should put case in Mr. T. his manner that God should appear in approbation of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society then there were a legitimation of the issue as he did the marriage of the brothers wife Deut. 25.5 otherwise against the moral law Levit. 18.16 Answ. It concludes for me if it be true which Mr. Bl. disproves not that the holiness is meant 1 Cor. 7.14 which cannot be without the sanctification there spoken of and Mr. Bls. holiness may be without his sanctification and the proposition is true of no other holiness but that which I assign If the definition of legitimation be a state of birth from parents generating in lawfull marriage though God should approve of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society there were no legitimation of the issue and yet the marriage Deut. 25.5 were lawfull and the issue legitimate I am sorry Mr. Bl. hath tyred himself and me with so many impertinent words which have shaken nothing of my Fabrick I am glad I am so near an end with him and pass from him to Mr. Sydenham who in the 7th ch of his Exercit. thus speaks The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel priviledge annexed to the state and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a natural moral or positive rule but a majori from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel For 1. the unbelieving husband is
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
bound by the precept Gen. 17.9 the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptise their children This is as near as I well can gather it the force of Mr. Cs. discourse Against which I except 1. That the term everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 doth not prove it to bee meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed For besides places before alledged wherein the terms everlasting and for ever are vsed for a time of some few ages and shorter Numb 25.13 God promiseth a Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood to Phinehas and his seed after him and yet we know that Priesthood was to cease Heb. 7.12 It is promised Ier. 35.19 that Ionadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God for ever and yet this could be true onely of some ages Therefore Mr. Cs. reason is of no force from the term everlasting to infer the extent of that promise to the N. T. Nor indeed can the reason be good For if it were then God should not promise at all the possession of the earthly Canaan in that place But that is manifestly false for the Text saith Gen. 17.8 that God would give to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan wherein Abraham was then a stranger which can be understood of no other then that part of earth which is elsewhere called the land of the Canaanites Perâ—zites Jebusites c. I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abrahams spiritual seed though I find no passage in the N. T. so expounding the promise Gen. 17.8 yet sure it is but bold presumption to build any doctrine on an allegory not expounded so by the Holy Ghost and it is in mine apprehension a great usurpation of the Divine prerogative to impose duties on men consciences by arguments drawn from such devised senses 2. That Mr. C. builds his inference upon the conjunction therefore Gen. â—7 9. which though it be so in the English translation yet is it in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Tigur And thou by Pareus But thou by Piscator Thou verily which is enough to shew there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference sith there is no firm ground on which it rests 3. But were it granted that therefore Gen. 17.9 were the onely reading and that the command is to be meant also of Abrahams spiritual seed even in our days yet that the inference of the command v. 9. should be onely from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4 5 6 I know no goâ—d reason iâ— or can be given 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof yet sith the promise v. 8. is mixt containing both spiritual promise if Mr. C. be in the right and promise pecuâ—iar to the natural seed of Abraham me thinks the precept should be onely to that spiritual seed which is also natural and not bind the Gentile believers sith they have no part of the promise as it concerns the pâ—ssession of the earthly Canaan from which the duty is inferred as well if not onely as from the promise of the heavenly Canaan 5. But were all that Mr. C. would have here granted that the term everlasting possession v. 8. proves it meant of the times of the N. T. that therefore v. â— proves the command extends to the spiritual seed now that it is from the promise v. 7. or 8. not from the rest v 4 5 6. that it is to Gentile believers now and not peculiar to Israel after the flesh yet sure if the promise bâ— the reason of the command and the commandâ— belongs to them to whom the promise belongs it belongs to no other and therefore to none but elect persons to whom that promise is made no meere professours of faith are bound to keep Gods Covenant by vertue of the promise sith no promise is made to them 6. Were this also granted that the command is to every professour of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoyned v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professour of Christian faith to circumcise his males of eight days old which is contrary to Christianity For there is no other thing commanded there then Circumcision But to prevent this Mr. C. saith It is to be observed that this command of God is primarily fixed upon the general duty namely the Covenant to be kept and not upon this or that way of keeping either by circumciâ—â—ng or baptizing so as the circumcising of the child came under the command onely upon this because it was declared then to be the token of the Covenant and by the words it is supposed that when it should cease to be the token of the Covenant it should no longer be a duty and what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same Covenant would be the duty in stead thereof Mark the words he doth not say Thou shalt therefore circumcise every man-child among you as a token of the Covenant between me and you for so had that been made the token for perpetuity to have continued so long as the Covenant it self But 1. in general he saith v. 9. that is they should observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be and he addeth in the 2 d. place v. 10 14. therefore as I said as for Circumcision that was a duty onely upon those words declaring that to be then the token Circumcision is now abolished yet the command of keeping the token of Abrahams Covenant is still in force and binding to Abrahams spiritual seed in their Generations therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed in stead thereof Answ. No wise and just Law-giver would ever make such a command of a general duty concerning ceremonies or rites then undetermined but to be determined two thousand years after Thou shalt keep my Covenant that is what ceremony I shall now appoint thee or what I shall hereafter appoint when I take that away such indefinite dis-junctive commands so ambiguous un-intelligible to be understood at one time one way at another time another way are so like Delphick jugling answers as that I dare not ascribe them to the Almighty Many absurdities follow on this conceit of Mr. C. which I have before set down For present these arguments from the Text are against it 1. There is nothing enjoyned Gen. 17.9 but what Abraham was enjoyned in his own person to do as well as his seed after him in their generations this is proved from the express words And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my covenant therefore and again thou and thy seed after thee in their generations twice is this imposed on Abraham distinctly named and the term therefore spectially applied to him and after with difference from yet with his seed so that to deny this is to deny it's light
Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. c. 23. de Genes that the custome of our mother the Church in baptising of little ones iâ— in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolick tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from Joh. 3.5 unless one be born again of water and the spirit c. Answ. It was granted in my Examen that the greatest points of faith though written were by the Ancients called Apostolical traditions but in this point that the words ascribed to Origen meant an unwritten tradition I alledged 1. that the phraieâ— pro hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit and secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times To this is nothing replied by Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Homes or M. Cr. to shew that these phrases are applied to any other then unwritten traditions when they are used of riâ—es for the use or institution of which they alledge no text of Scripture 2. That there is no text of Scripture cited for the use or instiâ—â—â—ion of infant Baptism To this it is replied that Origen layes the ground on the Scriptures But those Scriptures are brought for the proof of origiâ—al sin and the necessitâ— of infant Baptism which were reasons of the Churches observance not proofs of the use and institution of it And that the Scriptures do not give any proof of the use or â—nstitution of infant Baptism but onely grounds of the reasonableness and why the Church took it up is shewed to have been the judgement of many learned Papistâ— and Protestants of later and elder time in my Praecursor sect 20 which may bee easily observed because they alledge nothing out of Scripture about â—nstiâ—uâ—ion or practise of it but of neceâ—â—â—ty to save thâ— infant which being a mistake it appears â—he tradition waâ— not from the Apostles Besides as Augustin alledged Joh. 3.5 for infâ—nt Baptism so he also alledged Joh 6 53 for infant Communioâ— which hee and the Ancients observed aâ— an Apostolick tradition 〈◊〉 many Churches observe even to this day yet we conclude it is but an unwritten tradition and so judged by the Ancients All the places of the Fathers which cite Scripture for infant Baptism infant Communion Easter Lentâ—â—ast and many other things which the Ancients observed shewing rather the reason of their observation then the institution as Mr. Cawdrey speaks in another case Sabb. rediv. part 4. chap. 1. § 24. To the 20th section of my Praecursor Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator saith The Ancients took infant Baptism as you say for an Apostolical tradition but not unwritten The warrant they supposed written but not the history de facto Answ. The ancients must needs take infant Baptism for an unwritten tradition when they supposed the History neither de facto noâ— of the institution to be written though they â—ook the custome of the Church as Austin tom 3. l. 10. de Genes ad litteram c 23 terms iâ— having suâ—h reason from the necessity of it to save them perishing upon the mistake of Joh. 3.5 for their warrant But how poor a matâ—â—r was taken by the Church for a reason to coâ—tinue a custome may â—ppear even by those words of Austin in that place which shew also it was taken onely for a custome of the Church taken up by them and not appâ—inted by thâ— Apostles For having spoken as doubtfull and uncertain what to say about the question before agitated by him concerning the creation of the souls of the children from the parents becâ—usâ— of thâ— objection fro◠〈◊〉 Baptism of little ones he â—hen adds Yet the custome of ouâ— mother the Church in Baptising little oneâ— is not to be dâ—spâ—sed nor by any meanâ— to be accounted superfluous nor aâ— all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical tradition For that little age hath great weight of testimony which first meâ—ited to shed bloud for Christ. Whereby it may appear 1. That Austinâ—ook â—ook iâ— for a custome of the Church without example or institution written 2. That he took such a frivolouâ— pâ—â—â—ence as the death of the children of Bethlehem slain bâ— Herod Matth. 2. to have great weight of testimony for the believing of infant bapâ—ism to have been an Apostolical tradition It would be counted arrogance in me to censure the Fathers yet when I find such silly reasons as Austin here and elsewhere and Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fidâ—m gâ—ve aâ— warrant for infant Bapâ—ism so slightly passed over by Mr. B. and otâ—ers aâ—d theiâ— testimonies still urged for the credit of infant Bapâ—ism which do wiâ—h any that is willing to see the weâ—kness of them discredit it I cannot but for the truths sake say that as in many other things so in this of infaâ—t Baptism the Fathers speeches are so vain as thâ—t there is more need to bewail the errour they have led peâ—ple into then to the continuance of thâ— deceiving of people by them to alledge them for proofs or to magnifie justifie or excuse them Mr. B. adds You might have spared all the 86. page where you prove that Papists take it for an unwritten tradition We know they are desirous of any pretence to set tradition above Scripture Yet you know Bellarmin and others commonly prove it by Scripture The words of Becanâ—s not § 24. as you say but § 12. yeeld the 〈◊〉 rightly interpreâ—ed to prove infant Baptism and that 's all that I desire I had thought that Chamiers answer to this might have satisfied you If you have forgot it peruse it again tom 7. lib. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l. 5. c. 9. § 32. Answ. I could not well have spared any part of that page Not onely later Papists engaged in the modern controversies but also elder and disingaged Papists and others were alledged by me of whom it is not meet to suspect that they did acknowledge that infant Baptism is an unwritten tradition out of a deâ—re to set tradition above Scripâ—uâ—e but out of cleer evidence of the tâ—uâ—h of what they say Nor do I think Mr. B. can shew one Author until Luthers day who made infant Baptism any other then an unwritten tradition although they produce many of them Scriptures for the necessity reasonableness and lawfulness of the Church to use it to whose authority they ascribed too much in the appointing such rites and interpreting â—criptures to that end I do not finde that the engaged Papists cited by me did set tradition above Scripture bâ—t that they make it equall I grant I know Bellarmin tom 3. l. 1. de sacram bapt c. 8. brings three arguments from Scripâ—ure for infant Baptism and c. 9. saith deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis uâ— diâ—imus but how he means it hee 〈◊〉 us thus in the same chapter that though the argument of the Anabaptists from defect
much as the doctrine and practise of the Prelates 〈…〉 to the Scripture language is non sense the Church beiâ—g the number of persons taught and on whom bapâ—izing 〈…〉 not the personâ— teaching or practising who are stilâ—d â—he Elders of the 〈◊〉 in Sâ—â—ipâ—ure 2. That the Elders of any Church 〈…〉 Nâ—â—â—ianzen taugâ—â— that infant children indefinitely considered might be baptised and if dâ—â—ger â—pproached must how young soever they wâ—â—e 〈…〉 not pretended of any besides the Coâ—ncel mentionâ—â— in Cypâ—ian Epist. 5◠〈…〉 whicâ— it is true determined in opposition t◠〈◊〉 his scrâ—ple the lawfulness of baptizing any day but not of any infants who were likely â—o live without apparent shew of danger of death but â—aâ—her â—he contrary is manifest from their reason wâ—y they would hâ—ve them baptâ—zed any day afore thâ— 8th bâ—cause the son of man â—am to save mâ—ns souls as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be loâ—â— and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th Nâ—w this 〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 onely of those infants who being in apparent danger of dâ—ath would be lost if not baptized Nâ—w it is true 〈…〉 and it is as contrary to the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 position of the Papists thaâ— baâ—tism confers 〈…〉 that infants dying unbaptised peâ—â—sh and if 〈…〉 this doctrine and practise of the Church yet it doth prejudice the doctrine and practise of Protestant Paedobaptists who contrary to Nazianzens mind would not have infants baptized in that case onely or for his reason but would have infants baptized out of the case of imminent and apparent danger of death and not deferred upon a pretence of a Covenant right and visible Churchmembership as their priviledge not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing 2dly saith Dr. Hammond that it is but his private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that or former ages to authorize it Answ. 1. That Tertullian did in like manner determine as Nazianzen did that infants were not to be baptized but in case of imminent and apparent danger of death will appear in the examining of his testimony among the Latine Doctors 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practise of the Church and to be of equal authority as Cyprians and his Councels Augustines and Hieroms 3dly Saith Dr. Hammond that the state of children being so weak and uncertain that 't is hard to affirm of any that they are not for the first three years in any danger his councel for deferring will hardly be ever practical to any Answ. The counsel of Nazianzen to baptize in case of danger was not of infants that are in any danger but of urgent or pressing danger as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 press urge or impel shews And thus it is practical as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently shew Fourthly saith he that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to bee understood of those whose â—arents are newly converted and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A. Answ. The reasons being general this restriction appears groundless not is the Drs. conceit of any validity that because four pages before â—e speaks to them therefore that counsel of his concerns their children onely Lastly saith he that the deferring till three years old if it were allowed would no way satiisfie the Antipaedobaptists pretensions and so still the former passages ought be of force with all and no heed given to the whispers of Mr â— and others as if that holy Father disswaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger when he clearly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him in the tenderest age be Baptised and consecrated to the spirit Answ 1. Why hee should call my words or writings whispers any more then his own sith they are audible enough were it not that I speak to deaf men who will not hear I do not deprehend I imagine they are louder then the Doctour would have them 2. Thaâ— men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctours if they seek the truth impartially I know not sith where truth is sought both sides are to bee heard 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old will not satisfie us as sufficient to rectifie the abuse of infant baptism is granted no nor till thirty except the person become a disciple and believer in Christ But it satisfies us in this that Nazianzens judgement was that little ones should not be baptized till they come to some understanding of the thing signified by baptism unless in case of imminent and apparent danâ—er of death though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct theâ— 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism and from the nayles signifie tender age yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy sith hee made persons uncapable of baptisme by reason of infancy judged it better to have them first instructed If he did he would have it to onely in case of danger of death imminent But saith Dr. Homes p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should bee baptised in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years it is so much the better for us â—nsw I suppose the Doctour doth not think with Nazianzen that the danger of deaâ—h is a sufficient reason for the baptiâ—zing an infant for that ariseth from the Popish conceits of regenoration by Baptism ex opere operato and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing And therefore Nazianzens reason must bee the worse for him sith it thwarteth his opiâ—ion of baptizing upon an imagined priviledge of Covenant holineâ—s and his practise of doing iâ— ordinarily to infants of Churchmembers out of that case And it would bee considered that where the ground of a practise is disclaimed the alleging of the practise correspondent to that ground and no further is impertinent for confirmation of the practise of the same thing in a different manner and upon a different ground as the Protestant Divines tell the Papists that their alleging the ancients commemoratiâ—n of the dead proves not the Popish prayiâ—g for the dead to be ancient as Dr â—sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge sith the Popish praying is upon the opinion of Purgatory and for them that are there the Ancients for the Apostles Martyrs c. who are past Purgatory and for their resurrection in like manner concerning the allegations of the Ancients Monkery which either was necessary onely by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times or if voluntary yet with labour of their hands and so different from the Popish Moâ—kery which is idle besides Gods appointment volâ—nâ—â—râ— superstitious upon an imagined perfection in that
easie fully to answer them p. â—5 but does not especially in this point on which the controversie between us depends and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Dr. terms it I think the Dr. hath made a more immoderate excursion in his heaping up testimonies out of the Fathers in his standing so much on the denial of an enallage and the force of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I resolve to follow him and hope to overtake him in long running though his Pen and Press be quicker in dispatch then mine The first thing the Dr. attempts is to prove out of the Fathers that the term holy 1 Cor. 7.14 is as much as partakers of Baptism First saith he the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred Dialect call Baptism sanctification and Cyprian and Nazianzen are cited To which I answer 1. The word of the Apostle is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the adjective holy which notes a state of discrimination from the unclean not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified a participle connoting the action of the sanctifier as well as the state of the sanctified and therefore may import Baptism and not the other now the two Fathers the Dr. cites with Gregory Nyssen after use not the term holy but sanctified and therefore were it granted that they used sanctified for baptized yet this proves not they or the Apostle to have used holy for baptized 2. I think the Fathers he cites did not in those passages he cites call Baptisme sanctification though they took the person baptized to be sanctified by it My reasons are from their words For when Cyprian saith him who is born to be baptized and sanctified he seems to mee to distinguish not to confound baptism and sanctification and when Nazianzen in the place quoted useth this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it is ineptly rendered by the Dr. p. 102. by this means they may be baptized souls and bodies sure the Baptism of water doth not touch the soul and therefore Nazianzen is to be so interpreted as though he included baptizing in the phrase of sanctifying as the means of it yeâ— he doth not confound them or call Baptism sanctification The like I imagin might be said of Gregory Nyssen if I had his book whose words it 's likely if the Dr. had set down more fully as hee doth in others the impertinency of his allegation would have appeared As for the Jewish stile of sanctifications for Baptisms it will be to be considered after Macarius his saying that the Jewish Baptism sanctifies the flesh is not a calling Baptism sanctification But the Dr. stands most on Tertullian in which he takes iâ— that holy is used as he conceives Paul to use it 1 Cor. 7.14 for partakers of Baptism so he expounds designatos sanctitatis the designed or sealed of holiness in the sense he conceives wherein they that are baptised are by the ancients frequently said to be sealed and p. 92. designati sanctitatis sure must signifie that they are initiated into Christ by the Christian right or sign or ceremony of Baptism as those which had the Heathâ—nish ceremonies used upon them were candidati daemoniorum candidates of the Devil in the former thus early admitted and initiated into their sacra But neither do I conceive the Apostle to have used holy for holiness by baptism nor that Tertullian doth mean that which the Dr. would have him nor do the Apostle and Tertullian perfectly accord Twice in that Chapter doth Tertullian use the term holy once holiness once sanctified The fiâ—st passage is thus Hinc enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tà m ex seminis praerogativa quà m ex institutionis disciplina From hence the Apostle also saith holy ones to be procreated from either sex sanctified as well by prerogative of seed as by discipline of institution By either father or mother sanctified the Dr. coâ—ceives meant when either the father or mother is received as a believer by baptism into the Church by holy baptized for he makes the notion of holy in those words of Tertullian to be the same with designatos sanctitatis which he interprets by sealed that is baptised in the ancients language Pag. 61. holy appears to bee this but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of Baptism But that Tertullian mean by sanctified baptised is not proved by the Dr. and his paraphrase makes it in 1 Cor. 7.14 to import being converted to the faith and so Tertullian ad uxorem l. 2. explains what he means by sanctified gained by the wise to the faith I deny not that hee made Baptism a means of that sanctification but he doth not call as the Dr. saith baptism sanctification but the whole fact of Gods grace as hee saith Dei gratia illud sanctificat quod invenit by teaching and inlightning the person sanctified Yet herein Tertullian and the Dr. accord not with the Apostle for the Apostle supposeth 1 Cor. 7.14 the person said to be sanctified still an unbeliever otherwise his reason had been nothing to confirm the resolution v. 12 13. which was the believing yoke fellow might live still with the unbeliever for the unbelieving husband that is the husband continuing an unbeliever is sanctified but this cannot bee meant either of conversion to the faith or baptism for then he should be a believer when hee is said to bee sanctified so that it is plain neither Tertullians expression concurs with the Dâ—ctors notion not do the Dr. and Tertullian agree with Paul The other words sanctos procreari sith he restrains to infants the sanctity pag. 72. hath this sense the infants are procreated holy that is baptized for thus he speaks the Apostle in that place makes the sanctification or bapâ—ism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever But herein neither doth Tertullian or the Dr. accord with Paul for hee makes not the holiness of the children to be the benefit of the parents faith but of their conjugal relation nor doth the Dr. accord with Tertullian For the holiness there meant by Tertullian is not meant onely of the time of infancy 1. Because he saith it to be as well ex institutionis disciplinâ as ex seminis praerogativa Where ex seminis prerogativa the Dr. agrees p. 92. to be in that he is not so polluted by their idolatrous ceremonies and so is in some degree holy not federal holiness as Mr. M. pag. 35. would the whole scope shewing that to be the meaning that they are not so polluted as heathens children Now ex institutionis disciplina the Dr. would have have p 9â— meant the doctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ in his Church for by this it is that baptism was allowed to those that were ex alterutro sexu sanctificato procreati born of parents of which either of them was Christian. Thus in his book de bapt c. 12. he uses a like
to go to him preach to him eat with him as one accepted of God v. 35. So that the cleansing is the taking away of that restraint which was upon the Jewes of converse with the Gentiles Which being considered if unclean Acts 10.14 were to be expounded in the same notion which the Dr. imagines to be 1 Cor. 7.14 not admitted to the Church by Baptism then when God bid Peter count nothing common or unclean he bid him count no Gentile unbaptized and when he said what God hath cleansed it should be whom God hath baptized or admitted by Baptism into the Church And when the Apostle according to the Dr. useth unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 in the notion in which it is used Acts 10.14 he should mean your young children were such as a man might not go into converse with talke with familiarly eat with which certainly being meant of infants as the Dr. conceives is so ridiculus an exposition as a sober man would not put upon any profane Author much less on the sacred writers As for that which the Dr. saith that the notion of not entring to and eating with contained under it this other of not baptizing for sure hee might not baptize those to whom he might not enter it is so frivolous as that it is unfit for a man that takes on him to make Annotations on the New Testament For if this were good reasoning it would follow on the contrary every ones going in to and eating with one were baptizing and sith others then Apostles or preachers were to go into or not they were to baptize or not to baptize and all that men might not go into or eat with as excommunicate persons they must bee unbaptized and by the same reason sith sure a Minister may not admit to the Lords Supper nor a Bishop ordain him for a Priest to whom he might not enter the notion of not entring to and eating with contained under it this other of not communicating and not ordaining and consequently holy contains under it communicating and ordaining and so your young children are not unclean but holy should bee by this very reasoning expounded they are admitted to the Lords Supper and ordained Priests And what he adds And the baptizing Cornelius and not onely entring to him being the end for which Peter received that vision I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism and the holiness on the contrary reception to that priviledge may as well serve to prove unclean hath the notion of one excluded from the Lords Supper or heaven and holy on the contrary the reception to these sith these were the ends of Peters going in as well as baptizing and so to say your young children are holy shall be as much as your young children are admitted to the Lords Supper and to Heaven These conceits of the Dr. go upon two gross mistakes 1. As if unclean were used in a sense suitable to the Ecclesiastical practise in the Christian Church whereas it is used according to the use and conceipt of the Jews peculiarly 2. As if the notion of a word did exâ—end to the Concomitants and ends of the act expressed by it which if true then election regeneration should have the notion of justifying and glorifying preaching the notion of adoption and sanctification But enough of this raw conceit of the Doctor he goeâ— on thus My third reason saith hee being taken from the use of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctifie for washing any part of the body and on occasion of that mentioning a conjecture that the use of holiness for baptism might perhaps intimate that the primitive baptiâ—ms were not always immersions but that sprinkling of some part might be sufficicient he hath a reply to each of these To the former that if this reason were good then the husbands being sanctified by the wife must signifie his being baptized or washed by her to the latter that I have in my writings so oft acknowledged the Baptism of the Jews and Christians to be immersion of the whole body that I ought to be ashamed to say the contrary and that I can hardly believe my self in it To these I answer first to the former 1. That I that affirm sanctifications among the Jews to signifie washings do also know that it hath other significations and that that signification is in each text to bee chosen which seems most agreeable in all those respects which are to be considerable in the pitching on any interpretation consequently that the wives baptizing the husband being a thing absurd and utterly unheard of in the Church of God whether in the Apostles or succeeding ages this sense may not reasonably be affixt to it whereas the baptizing of infants being by the ancients affirmed to be received from the Apostles it is most reasonable to understand the words of this though not of the other and so to apply the observation as it is visible I did to the latter not former part of the verse Answ. This is no answer but a grant that the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be meant of Baptizing sith it is absurd so to expound it and consequently a yeelding the argument from the calling the Jews washings sanctifications to have no force Nor doth he at all help himself by saying it is most reasonable to apply it to the latter part of the v. For there is no reason in it that because the Jewes use the word sanctification for Baptism therefore holy which is another word and in another predicament then sanctified which is in Passion and the other in quality or relation and not sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 is as much as Baptism and because the word sanctifications hath other significations then washings and may not be understood of Baptism in the fore-part of 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore holy no where proved to be as much as baptized is as much as admitted to the Church by Baptism and because the Ancients mention infant Baptism to be received from the Apostles as they do other unwritten traditions of observing Easter Lâ—nt giving infants the Communion c. therefore holy 1 Cor. 7.14 must be without any example in Scripture or Father of that use of the word bee expounded thus admitted in the Church by Baptism But yet the Dr. is loth to confess his errour but adds And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of by and expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman of the perswasion that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptism and not of her ministry in bâ—ptizing wee may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also that by the woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbelieving husband hath been brought to baptism viz. by being brought to faith to which this priviledge belongs Answ. 1. The Dr. brings no example of such a notion of by or of such a use
that were excluded from and received into the Church the exclusion and reception being the same on both sides as also the uncleanness and holiness and the proportion lying onely betwixt the Jewish tabernacle and the Christian Church which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on Answ. Were it so yet it had been necessary to have proved the holy Ghost made them parallels that from the answerableness a reason might be taken to prove thence the sense of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 after the Drs. minde For it is not the fitness of an expression that must prove the sense we would but the use and the matter of the speech in which the Drs. expositions are defective But the holy Ghost no where that I know resembles the meer visible Church by the tabernacle but the invisible in which the spirit of God dwels or rather every believing Saint 1 Cor. 3.16 17. 6.19 Heb. 3.6 1 Tim. 3.15 or the body of Christ Joh. 2.19 Heb. 8.2 or heaven Heb. 9.24 and the uncleanness resembled by the legal uncleanness is such as excludes and the holiness such as admits into communion with God union with Christ entrance into heaven 2 Cor. 6.16 17. Revel 21.27 and the sanctification resembled by the Jewish washings is that which is invisible by the spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 not meer outward baptism and therefore if proportion or agreeableness could prove a sense of those terms the sense would be fairer for the expounding of holiness rather of real then relative holiness The Dr. adds As for his question of Cornelius it is most vain the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truly in him in respect of his devotion fearing praying c. and that outward priviledge of admission into the congregation of the Jews which alone was the thing which in the account of God or sober men was denied Cornelius These be pitifull sophisms and in no reason farther to be insisted on Answ. All the discourse is not about meere relative sanctification sure Dr. Hammond when he expounds sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 by being converted to the faith and the same with saved v 16. means it of real sanctification But were all the discourse about relative sanctification yet the question was not vain but attains the end for which propounded sith Cornelius accounted unclean by Peter Acts 10.14 was not out of the Church of God no not out of the Church visible being of good report among all the nation of the Jews Acts 10.22 though he were not in the policy of Israel and therefore uncleanness hath another notion then the non-admission into the visible Church Christian by Baptism of which is enough said before Nor are any of these things I alledge sophisms but plain answers nor any otherwise pittifull then that they meet with such a such a superficial and slight reply from the Dr. Of the different interpretatioâ—s from the Drs. of 1 Cor. 7.14 in Tertullian c. 39. de animâ and Augustin l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. and l. 3. c. 12. enough before And Hieromes different interpretation is that which is in the comment on 1 Cor. 7.14 in these words left out by the Dr. Item ideâ— vir uxor invicem sanctificantur quia ex traditione Dei sanctae sunt nuptiae mentioned here before sect 92. And Ambrose or who ever was the Author of that Commentary under his name in locum operum tom 4. sancti sunt quia de conjugiis legitimis natis both which agree with my exposition The two testimonies the Dr. brings out of Cyprian and Nazianzen are impertinent the former makes a distinction between baptizandum and sanctificandum the latter if it call Baptism sanctification yet it doth nor call Baptism sanctity the word ascribed to children 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore rather the first part of the v. is to be expounded if any thus sanctified id est Baptized which yeelds such a sense as the Dr. will not own and is shewed before not at all to be satisfied by him Neither the antiquity of Cyprian nor Gregory Nazianzen's skill in Greek assures us they understood the sacred Dialect How much Tertullian whom Cyprian counted his master and how much Origen of whom Gregory Nazianzen learned mistook the meaning of Scripture and generally the Fathers may be discerned by their writings remaining or if any list to take a short cut to satisfie himself he may see much in Sixt. senens Biblioth l. 5. and 6. In the 4 th ch sect 1. of Dr. Hammonds Defence there is little or nothing which at present I need reply to much of it being spoken to before Onely I have thought it necessary to go back besides my first purpose to Review the two first Chapters of his Defence because he doth so often tell me that I do inartificially deny his conclusion without answering to his premises SECT XCVI The Jewish custome of Baptism for initiation was not the pattern of Christian Baptism as Dr. Hammond would have it CH. 1. Sect. 1. of his Defence Dr. Hammond having excepted against my words about waving though it were his own term qu. 4 § 21. the more imperfect ways of probation tels us though infant Circumcision prove not infant Baptism a duty Yet it evidences the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by analogy with Gods institution of circumcision among the Jews and so certainly invalidates all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. T. drawn from the incapacity of infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of infants c. And this the rather because the Apostle compares â—aptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. â— 11 12. and then adds some savings of Fathers which are of no validity for his purpose of the other thereâ— nothing true For the arguments drawn from incapacity fore going necessity of preaching qualifications have their force from the institution of Baptism by Carâ—t which lye not at all against the circumcising infants which hath another institution and hath no analogy with Baptism to acquiâ— infant Baptism for unlawfulness or unfitness except the Dr. can prove which I am sure he can never do that the Church as in the prelatical language he useth to speak hath power to make that lawfull and fit to be done in the Sacraments of Christ which is otherwise thâ—n Christ hath appointed The Apostle doth not at all compare baptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. But these things are so fully argued Review part 2 sect 5 c. here sect 8 that till these sections are better answered then Dr. Hammond doth here the arguments will be valid against Infant Baptism The force of the Drs. urging Christs actions to little ones Mark 10.16 Matth. 19.14
where terms Baptism the Sacrament of regeneration nor if the expression be allowed will it follow Baptism is to be but once Foâ— 1. it doth not follow natural birth is but once therefore supernatural new birth which is onely so metaphorically is but once as it follows not we die naturally but once therefore we die to sin or through sin but once Natural birth hath not degrees therefore neither regeneration 2. Baptism is not regeneration though it were yeelded to be the sacrament of regeneration and therefore though regeneration could be but once yet Baptism might be often 3. â—hose that hold intercision of regeneration and faith which I do not will say that regeneration may be often and faith begin ofâ—en 4. Baptism may be termed the sacrament of regeneration either as the cause or sign of it If as the cause of it so it should rather follow it should be often administred as the word is often pâ—eached to beget us again If as the sign so it may often be used to signifie it though it be but once done as the breaking of bread is oft used to signifie Christs death though he died but once The 3d. argument from once Circumcision is of less force For neither is it true that our Baptism succeeds Jewish Circumcision nor is it proved that in no case a person might be twice circumcised nor if both these were granted will it follow that the rule of circumcising but once must be a rule to us of baptizing but once any more then the Jews Circumcision was tied to the 8th day therefore so must our Baptism Yet this reason of Mr. Cr. may be thus urged against infant Baptism Circumcision was tied to the 8â—h day therefore to circumcise on another day were sacriledge Baptism is tied to Disciples or believers Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.15 16. therefore to baptize infants who are not Disciples or believers cannot be justified without sacriledge at the rate of Mr. Crs. reasoning The rest of that Section and the next Section need no other answer then what is already made there being no argument needfull to be answered nor any thing almost but scostiâ—g Rhetorick cavils misâ—representations of my words and the passages aâ— Disputes which were rightly represented in the 2d Section of my Plea SECT C. The arguments of Mr. Cragg for infant Baptism are re-examined MR. Cr. in the dispute at Abergavenny began thus Some infants may not be baptised therefore some infants may be baptised and this the Relator who was likely to be himself or one whose relation he viewed and approved terms an Enthymema To which in my Pleaâ— answered 1. the consequence could not be made good according to Logick rules but by adding this Proposition All that may not be baptized may be baptized 2. That it is like these arguings Some infants may not have the Lords Supper therefore some may some boys are not to be ordained Bishops therefore some are To this he replies Part 2. sect 1. 1. That the Relator and I were both mistaken Which if true it was ill done that he did not rectifie the thing ere iâ— was printed 2. That my censure of this arguing as frivolous arose from ignorance or inadvertency that betrayed me to a double mistake 1. That there was no way of arguing consecutive by two Propisitions buâ— Enthyâ—ematically so that they were immediately reducible to a syllogism compleat in mood and figure 2. If an Enthymema and reducible that it must necessarily be resolved into his syllogism as he calls it All that may not be baptized may be baptized some infants may not be baptized ergo some infants may be be baptized Truly this is so frivolous and deserves so much contempt that a fresh man would laugh at it And then he goes on I would gladly know to what mood of the first figure for it hath sub prae his monstrous syllogism belongs consisting in the premises of two negatives in the conclusion of an affirmative whereby as eveâ—y Puny knows two Maximes are violated 1. That of pure negatives nothing is concluded 2. That the conclusion should follow the unworthier part whereas he extracts an affirmative conclusion from negative premises Answ. I am content that an ingenious fresh man judge whether there were any ignorance inadvertency or mistake in my answer to this arment and whether there be not gross ignorance and Sophistry in his argument and in the reply impudent boldness to avow such a shamefull act and that any wise conscientious Christian judge whether the argument at first or this reply could come out of any other then a wrangling spirit bent to baffle a respondent and make sport for a company of vain auditors and readers without any care befitting a Christian teacher to clear truth At first when I denied the consequence he proved it not but brought a syllogism concluding another thing then the consequence and whereas then his syllogism appeared to have four terms he brings another syllogism in which he would infer that because subcontraries may be both true therefore that proposition Some infants may be baptized must be true as if because both may be true it follows that proposition must be true whereas every fresh man knows that though both may be true yet it is true also one may be false and that may be the proposition he infers notwithstanding the â—oâ—ce of that rule Now in the reply he discovers the same spirit Though his relator with whom he must concur or else they juggle with Readers term his dispute an Enthymema yet he would not have it so conceived buâ— tels us there is a kind of argumentation in Keâ—kerm syst Log. l. 3. tr 1. c. 1. defined one sentence or proposition following another without disposition of the medium as in conversions But doth he shew there is any such câ—nversion or any other way of consecution of sentences allowed by Keckerman or any Logician in his argumentation Then when I had reduced it to that syllogism to which the Enthymeme was to be reduced according to Logick rules he hath the impudence to term this my syllogism and â—o suggest as if I were not able to make a syllogism or reduce that to a syllogism which was reducible whereas the syllogism was his own virtualâ—y as all Logicians know that understand the rule about Enthymemes though it were formed by me rightly and the monstrosity of it must â—ie at his door not mine who value little his judgement of my abilities better known to others of better esteem then to him And for the way he new forms it it is quite another argument then what he made at the dispute and of which the minor is to be denied which is thus There are some infants besides them that are excluded Baptism but this is contrary to the antecedent in the Enthymeme Some infants may not be baptised which should be the minor He adds that the force of the argument lies in the immediatoness of the propositions that what