27. Mr. B. goes on thus The 22th arg That doctrine which leaveth us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infants in the world is certainly false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth any infants to bee members of the visible Church doth leave us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infants in the world therefore it is certainly false doctrine No reasonable temperate Christian will deny the major I think The minor I know will be passionately denied Mr. T. takes it hainously at Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. that they pinch him a little in this point as if it were but to raise an odium upon him And yet when hee hath done all for the mitigation of the odium which hee saith was his end Apol. pag. 62. yet he doth so little towards the vindication of his doctrine that hee confesseth it suspendeth any judgement of infants wee can neither sâ—y they are in the Covenant of grace nor out Apol. pag. 62. Hee labours to prove that there is no such promise or Covenant in Scripture as assures salvation to the infants of believers but that God would have us to suspend our judgement of this matter and rest on the Apostles determination Rom. 9.18 yet that there is a hope though not certain yet probable and comfortable taken from some general indefinite promises of the favor of God to the parents and experience that in all ages hoth been had of his merciful dealing with the children of his servants Apol. p. 112. Answ. What I took hainously at Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. I did justly what I said that there is no such covenant or promise in Scripture as assures salvation to the infants of believers I meant it of them as such or universally what I said that God would have us to suspend our judgment of this matter I meant whether this or that particular infant be in the Covenant of grace To Mr. Bs. arg I say if his major be meant of such a grounded hope as is certain from faith believing a particular promise of God concerning believers infants dying in infancy as Mr. B. seems to understand it I deny the major if very probable and likely from such declarations and promises and experiments as we have I deny the minor and shall follow Mr. B. I will first saith he prosecute my argument and then consider of these words understand therefore that 1. I do not charge their doctrine with a positive affirmation that all infants do certainly perish but with the taking away of all positive Christian well grounded hope of their salvation Answ. Yet by your charging us with this that by our doctrine they are not so much as seemingly in a state of salvation you do charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that they all certainly perish And it will appear by that which follows that with you no hope of their salvation is Christian and well grounded but what is cerâ—ain upon a promise of God apprehended by faith in which is the chief difference between us You add That the question now is not of particular infants of believers but of the species or whole sort that so die not whether this or that infant be certainly saved or we have any such hope of it but the question is whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will justâ—fie and save any infants in the world or any infants of helievers at all Answ Between whom the question is as Mr. B here saith I do not understand the question between me and my Antagonists is not as Mr. B. here sets it down I have always asserted that there is a certainty and hope that God will justifie and save some infants in the world some infants of believers and have often acknowledged those that Christ prayed for laying on his hands were elect ones but the question is whether there be any such promise to a believer and his natural seed wâ—ich assures salvation to them as the seed of believers and consequently whether there be a certain hope of theâ— all dying in their infancy that they shall be saved This I have denied because I know no such promise in Scripture and if there were it would prove the salvation of those at age though prophane as Esau For if the promise belong to the seed as such and it includes salvation then it assures 〈◊〉 all the seed of belieâ—ers whether dying at age prophanely or in infancy So that it is not true that the question is not whether this or that infant bee certainly saved or we have any such hope of it nor is it true that the question is of the species or whole sort that so die or whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will justifie and save any infants in the world or any infants of believers at all yea Mr. B. in the words next before would not charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that all infants do certainly perish But the question is whether there be a certainty from a promise that he will save them all dying in infancy nor is the question of the species or whole sort of infants but of the particular infants of believers Now saith he I affirm 1. that there is a ground of Christian hope left us in this that God doth save some infants yea and that particular ones though that be not now the question Answ. Now this I affirm too though I assert not such a certainty by promise to infants of believers as Paedobaptists do 2. Saith he That they that put them all out of the visible Church leave us no such hope I will begin with the later which is the minor in the argument And 1. I take it for granted that to be a visible member of of the Church and to be a member of the visible Church is all one He that denieth that will but shew his vanity And that the invisible Church or the sincere part is most properly and primarily called the Church and the body of Christ and the Church as visible containing also the unsincere part is called the Church secondarily and for the sake of the invisible and so it is called the body because men seem to be of the invisible Church therefore they truly are of the visible If we were fully certain by his own external discoveries that any man were not of the invisible Church that man should not be taken to be of the visible Therefore the properties and priviledges of the invisible Church are usually given to the visible as to be Saints holy all the children of God by faith Gal. 3.26 to be Christs body 1 Cor. 12.13 to be branches in Christ Joh 15.2 c. because as the sincere are among them so all visible members seem in the essentials of Christianity to be sincere therefore if any converted Jew or Pagan were to be taken into the Church upon his prâ—fession we ought not
for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
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
baptism and that baptism was not administrable in or by or to that church of the Jewes but in a distinct company by a select officer to a severed people from that church Nor do I know it to be true that baptism is a church-ordinance to be in ordinary dispensation administred onely in and by a church of Christ but conceive it a ministerial ordinance to be administred by one single Minister without the presence or consent of a church of Christ nor do I think baptism was at that time the Jewish ordinance being neither appointed in their law nor by Ministers chosen by them nor by their authority nor according to their direction nor for the setling of their church-discipline or authority but in these and all other respects opposite or distinct from the Jewish church And although I grant the Jewish people or church though Pareus com in locum saith Dominus areae suae h. e. ecclesiae imo totius mundi Christs floor yet from hence it followes not they were Christs visible Church there being other reason why they are called Christs floor because Christ imployed his fanne to wit his preaching among them being Minister of the circumcision Rom. 15.8 though they were not Christs visible church that is a company or people professing themselves to be his Disciples Nor is it true that in John Baptists and Christs time all sorts which John baptized hypocrites or upright ones were interessed in the Jewish church as Christs floor nor any such thing proved from Matth. 3.11 12. the being in the floor importing onely their position no benefit or interest accruing to them thereby But Master Cobbet goes on Into this Church-fellowship also did Christs own Disciples by that new way of initiation visibly seal persons which were the reformed part of that Jewish church continuing still their relation to those officers of the Jewish church and their fellowship in the Church-ordinances then dispensed and not separating from the same either gathering into distinct churches or calling to them other ordinary church-officers which yet were not actually given by Christ untill upon his ascension Ephes. 4.8 11 12. Ans. The Disciples of Christ did not visibly seal persons by that new way of initiation into the Jewish Church-fellowship the fellowship they had in the Jewish church was by their birth and circumcision and the law they were under which they submitted to while it was in force and observed such legal ordinances as were appointed them acknowledging the Priests and other Officers of the Jewes according to their place yet in respect of profession of Doctrine they were by baptism separated from the Jewes and were gathered into a distinct church had Christ and his Apostles and the 70. as their Officers in ordinary afore the ascension of Christ nor is there one jot of Scripture that doth in the least countenance this fond conceit of Master Cobbet that Jewish Church-membership gave title to baptism or baptism visibly sealed persons into Jewish Church-fellowship Master Cobbet having cashiered the spurious reasons as he imagins why Peter required of the Jews to whom he said The promise is repentance afore baptism he takes on him to assigne the genuine reasons thus But the reason rather was partly because as was said they were under such offence Ans. He required repentance because they had sinned in crucifying Christ but repentance was not required to take away the offence of the church the Jewes were of nor for the removing of a suspension from the seal For Peter was no Jewish Church-officer neither did any of the Jewish church in way of Discipline deal with those Jewes by any church-act tending to their correction for that sin yea the rulers of the Jewes with the people did generally avow that act as well done nor was any thing more offensive to them then the profession of Christ and repentance for the killing of him But Peter requires repentance as a necessary prerequisite universally to baptism and as the way to remission of sins which their perplexed soules needed Master Cobbet addes And partly because albeit their church were a true Evangelical church yet it was not so pure and perfect but had many gross mixtures both of ceremonial administrations which were now to be laid aside and of most palpably and openly corrupt and rotten members Ans. Neither doth Master Cobbet offer any proof for this his speech neither is there any likelyhood that Peter ever intended to urge repentance by reason of these things sith in none of his speeches he doth take exceptions at their church by reason of them nor had this been a sufficient reason to urge them to repentance afore baptism because though they had covenant and Church-right to baptism yet their right was to be suspended to the seal without repentance because they had gross ceremonial mixtures and openly corrupt members the Jewish church of which they were members being a gospel-church essentially the same with the christian if Master Cobbet say true for if this were a reason the New-Englâ—â—â— Elders do ill to admit godly persons to the seal with them which came from â— Paâ—ish-church in England in which were the like mixtures and corrupt members without like repentance nor doth it appear that those Jewes had any hand in those ceremonial administrations and though they sinned a great sin in crucifying Christ yet it waâ— through ignorance Acts 3.17 In a word were it granted Master Cobbet that Peter did require repentance for any of these reasons yet the argument is no whit infringed thereby that bare interest in the covenant doth not give title to baptism without repentance sith it did not give title to these Jewes even then when notwithstanding their offence and the corruptions in their church yet the promise was asserted to belong to them de praesenti in respect of external right and administration if Master Cobbets exposition hold good which is directly opposite to the requiring of repentance to baptism by reason of a suspension of their right to the seal by reason of offence and corrupt mixtures But let 's hear Master Cobbet a little further And partly saith he because it was now requisite not onely to acknowledg the promised Mâ—ssiah of Abrahams loynes to be he alone which by his bloud should come actually as well as virtually to ratifie the covenant of grace visibly made with them as they did in receiving the seal of circumcision but that they own the Lord Jesus who was crucified by and among them as he which alone did thus which amongst other testimonies baptism witnesseth therefore more was now required of the adult Jews than formerly which yet was not required of their unripe children Ans. I deny not circumcision to have had this use that it might signify that the promised Messiah should come out of Abrahams loynes and I take it as certain that baptism was appointed that thereby the baptized should own the Lord Jesus and witness that he was the Messiah and that
for his questions why your children is in the verse it hath been answered because of their imprecation Matth. 27.25 to which he replies thus To see the sad shift of errour is wonderful Can any man imagine that the parents could doubt more or so much of their childrens being accepted and saved when God should call them who were innocent and only under the sudden rash curse of their parents when they saw that the promise was to themselves who were the actual murtherers of the Lord Jesus Answ. To me who am so well acquainted with the shifts of Paedobaptists it is not wonderful to see the shifts of errour This very reply what is it but a vain shift For he supposeth the children were innocent which he cannot prove and that the curse was sudden and rash which seems rather to have been deliberate and that they saw the promise was to themselves and Christ offered pardon to themselves when there was nothing but horrour on their consciences for crucifying Christ till after Peters speech to them and that if the parents were not imagined to doubt more or so much of their childrens being accepted and saved as themselves then there was no reason to insert your children by occasion of the imprecation Matth. 27.25 whereas if they doubted any whit yea if for the present they did not think on that curse yet might afterwards as there was cause they should there was reason enough for Peter to insert those words whether they tended to take away a present or possible fear in them concerning their children But there is more of his trifling yet behind 2. Saith he Such a consideration would rather sadden them then refresh them to mention the calling of their children For they might more doubt of that then of any thing whether God would call them or no and be as far to seek as ever they were that they would have but cold comfort upon this account this was enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye Answ. The phrase and be as far to seek as ever they were intimates the Jews had attained some comfort before this speech of Peter which is manifestly false from the Text and that telling them that the promise was to their children if called by God would rather sadden them then refresh them it was cold comfort enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye which is in effect all one as if a man should say when a man is in a swoon hot water will rather sadden him then refresh him or when a man is sad it is cold comfort enough to break his heart to give him a cup of Sack But Mr. Sidenham will not be thought sine ratione delirare For saith he they might doubt more of that then of any thing whether God would call them or no. What was it likely they should doubt more of their childrens calling and pardon if they were called then of their own pardon who were then under horrour of soul for their own grand crime of killing Christ or if they did thus doubt would it break their heart to be told that there was a possibility and hope that the promise was to their children who might be called I have heard that if it were not for hope the heart would break but I never heard that the telling of a person of a thing of which there was hope though he might doubt of it would break his heart But Master Sidenham addes The old way of conveying the promise is cut off no promise but to called ones our poor children are uncalled and God knows whether ever they may be called of God thus might they reason Ans. It s true they might thus reason But that they did or by Peters words as expounded by me were likely to reason thus is against reason to imagine The old way of conveying the promise I imagine he means the giving the initial seal to their infants that is Circumcision Now will any sober man think that in that perplexity they were in through conscience of their guilt and danger of wrath impending on their children by reason of their impious curse when Peter tells them to stay them from despair that yet in Christ sent the promise was fulfilled for remission of sins to them and their children if each of them were called of God that is did repent and believe that they would repel this comfort by questioning the losse of Circumcision and bemoaning the want of it to their infants I know the Jews were zealous after for Circumcision and the Law even those who became Christians yet sure in that perplexity there was not the least thought of such a poor priviledg as an initial seal but of the freedome of themselves and children from their guilt and curse But I would know where this doctrine is that Circumcision conveys the promises or is the old way of conveying them and what Scripture saith the promise of remission of sins here meant as Master Sidenham himself expounds it is to any but called ones Paul saith Rom. 8.30 whom he hath called them he hath justified Hos non alios saith Augustine and Orthodox Protestants as from the Text may be evinced sith all these agree to the same persons to be predestinate called justified glorified Is this such doctrine as were enough to break their hearts But let 's hear him out But when he includes them in the same promise with parents and exhorts the parents to repent upon this ground that the promise is to them and their children this savours like a Gospel comforting-exhortation and could not be but of great efficacy upon their spirits Answ. Me thinks it should be comfortable to them that the promise was to them and their children upon condition of calling that is sanctification repentance believing It is Antinomian doctrine not Gospel to say justification is to a person uncalled that afore he believes he is justified actually before God even while he lives in the height of sin It is true the promises of the land of Canaan and other benefits were to Abrahams natural seed but the Gospel-promises of remission of sins and everlasting life in Christ were never to Abrahams or any believing parents natural seed as such but only to Abrahams spiritual seed elect and true believers Master Sidenham addes 4. What strange mysterious tautologies would be in this one verse if that last sentence should refer to all the former expressions we must read it thus to make out their sense The promise is to you parents of the Jews when God shall call you and they were then under call and to your grown children when God shall call them and to all which are afar off when God shall call them Can any man with his understanding about him think the holy Ghost should faulter so much in common expression of his minde when there was no need of adding of calling to any part but to those that are afar off who never
come and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition Answer Thess things are manifestly false for though godliness have the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 yet the promises Levit. 26.6 c. are not made to every godly man that he shall ly down and none shall make him afraid that he shall chase his enemies c. but rather assurance is given that he shall be persecuted 2 Tim. 3.12 Mark 10.29 30. Nor have they promises upon the same condition for Exod. 34.24 it is promised that none should desire the Israelites Land while they did appear thrice in the year before the Lord but to us there is not that promise nor upon that condition But saith he earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully heavenly things more generally and sparingly than they are now to us and on the contrary spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us than to them and earthly promises more generally and sparingly Answ. This is not all the difference for I have shewed that to us an earthly rest is not promised at all but the contrary assured to us to wit suffering persecution Mr. M. adds And that these temporal benefits which you mention viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed the bitth of Isaac and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace they were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us These things I not onely asserted â—ut proved in my Sermon If you mean no more than this that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ and were subservient to it or were types and shadows of it you mean no more than what we all grant who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it than there is in that made with us and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration Answer I deny not but that the possession of Canaan birth of Isaac multiplying Abrahams seed were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed by elect Jews and Gentiles according to the mystical hiddenâ—sense of the words nor do I deny that they were subservient to the promise of Christ whether it be to be said they flowed from the promise of Christ or tended to the fore-signifying of Christ to come the grace of the Gospel and the heavenly inheritance and rest is a doubt Surely they flowed from Gods special love to Israel above any other people Deut. 7.6 7 8. And I grant that Circumcision ratified spiritual blessings chiefly that is as the chief thing promised yet in the sense in which I think Gameron meant it Thesi 78. de triplici foedere primarily that is according to the first and manifest sense of the words it sealed earthly promises peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason to wit the peculiar promises to Abrahams natural posterity nor do I see cause to mislike Grotius his speech Annot. in Luc. 1.59 Infantium autem circumcisio ostendebat foedus esse gentilium And this mixture of the Covenant with Abraham to wit that it contained not onely promises common to all believers but also promises so peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity that all of them were not according to the Law to be made good to any Gentile though a Proselyte circumcised namely the inheritance of the Land of Canaan of which none but the natural progeny of Israel were to be inheritours is so manifest that the denial of it I can hardly impute to any thing but dulness or meer pertinacy Yet why these promises so peculiar to them should be denied to be of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham I see no reason they being integral parts Christ it is true is the substance of the things promised as they were Types yet the things promised in respect of their natural being had a substance besides and in relation to the Covenant were as much the substance or substantial parts of it as the spiritual promises yea sith those spiritual promises if I may so speak did subsist in the expressions of temporal blessings it follows in my apprehension that if the promises of the spiritual blessings were of the substance of the Covenant then surely the promises of temporal blessings which those very promises did express and under the shadow of which they were made should be much more of the substance of the Covenant Nor do I conceive any grosness in it to imagine of God that he should in a Covenant of grace founded in Christ intend in the seal of it to ratifie temporal blessings when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing onely temporal As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture nor is it very handsom sense specially according to Mr. Ms. doctrine who calls Circumcision the old administration of the Covenant and if it were an administration of the promises which were administrations of the Covenant of grace then Circumcision was an administration of an administration But Mr M. speaks to me thus I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made circumcision a seal of Canaan we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith whereby he was justified but I no where reade that it â—ealed the Land of Canaan Answer To gratifie him I tell him that I read Circumcision called a token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 which Covenant was the Covenant mentioned before in that chapter and in that v. 8. the promise of the Land of Canaan is made and Acts 7.8 Stephen calls it The Covenant of Circumcision which he shews not how it was otherwise fulfilled in that speech but by bringing them out of Egypt and placing them in Canaan in which he fulfilled his promise to Abraham vers 6 7 16. It is true the Apostle calls Abrahams Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4.11 But I finde not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams surely it cannot be said truly of any ones Circumcision but a believers As for what he saith That we have now carnal promises and therefore our covenant may be as well mixt as that with Abraham I answer it is true We have promise of the life that now is and that which is to come and so our Covenant is in a sort mixt of spiritual and temporal promises but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles not proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting in which sense I called it a mixt Covenant Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant we have outward privileges and ordinances as Baptism and the Lords Supper and that many now are members of
discovery of these times denies them The second member he after falls upon the eternally beloved and chosen of God and largely amplifies In these Abrahams seed may continue though the other be cast off to whom yet God hath continued in successive generations a God in covenant and continued to them the priviledges of being his people though now he was upon the rejection of them Answer I should hardly have thought a sober minded man much less a man reputed an ancient grave Divine would so slightly have handled such a Scripture in which he saith is my triumphing argument but that I meet with this passage defective in what was to be done and made up of flirts falshoods impertinencies 〈…〉 opposite to the Apostle It is defective 〈…〉 main things first in applying the distinction of the Apostle to the 〈◊〉 of the objection by shewing how the word faâ—ls noâ— if â—he one sort of seed of Abraham be rejected 2. In not shewing any invalidity in my deduction of my Conclusion thence that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. â—7 7 as Evangelical is made are onely the elect His â—â—irts are at me 〈◊〉 denying the Israelites according to the discovery of these times what the Apostle yeeldâ— Falshoods that the Israelites according to the flesh pleaded all those priviledges reckoned up v 4 5. For they were so far from pleading it as a priviledge that Christ came of them according to the flesh that they abhorred and accursed him 2. That I deny the priviledges which the Apostle yeeldeth them Which also are meer impertinencâ—es to the solution of the objection and to the distinction of the Apostle who doth not at all in the expression af Children of the flesh mention those priviledges nor mentions Children of the flesh as importing an investiture into those priviledges as Mr. Bl. seems to have conceived but barely by that term notes their naturall descent from Abraham insomuch that Ishmael is meant as a Child of the flesh who was no way vested in those priviledges v. 4 5 In stead of telling whether the eternally chosen and beloved of God were the seed meant Gen. 17.7 and â—o the word of God fâ—iled not he onely tels us In these the seed of Abraham may continue though the other he cast off which is impertinently and doubtfully exprest as if there were not a certainty but onely a possibility of the seed of Abraham continuing in the eternally beloved and chosen of God It is in like manner impertinent to the business to tell what God hath done in successive generations when the objection is of the inconsisteâ—cy with his doings and his promises concerning the present generation Lastly it is directly against the Apostle who opposeth the children of the promise to the cast off to say that he hath continued a God in covenant to them whom he hath cast off and continueth â—o them the priviledges of his pepole though he was upon the rejecting of them And it is a strange exprâ—ssion when there is speech of rejection opposite to eternall love and choice of God to say God is now upon the rejection of them which intimates a beginning of a rejection But Mr. Bl. thinks to satisfie all by the words of Gomarus which having set down at large he then saith In which we have these three things 1. Mr. T. his objection wholly solved 2. The Apostle reconciled to himself And 3. the doctrine of Covenant holinesse from the Apostle fully established which when Mr. T. hath well considered with that which was spoke before having the whole current of the Scripture against him he will have little list to make this one Scripture his asylum To which I answer first there are many things in the words of Gomarâ—s liable to exception as â— that â—e saith The Jewes great priviledges mentioned 〈…〉 objected But the thing that was objected was not those priviledges but the word of God concerning Israel and Abrahamsâ—â—ed â—â—ed 2. That 〈…〉 That thâ—se priviledges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes Which is not true in the sense he 〈…〉 present unbelieâ—ing 〈…〉 〈◊〉 attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes by vertue of their outward â—all because salvation is revealed and offered to them under condition of obedience and that offer sealed with circumcision wherein 1. he saith the offer of salvation under condition of obedience was sealed with circumcision But I had thought the thing Pedobaptists would have sealed with circumcision had not been the offer of savation upon condition of obedience but the covenant of God Gen. 17 which is another thing than the offer of salvation which is by men indeed according to the covenant but it is not the covenant for that is Gods act and is presupposed to the other Besides there are some promises at least in the covenant absolute not upon condition as the promise of regeneration in respect of which the covenant cannot be conditional and therefore the offer and the covenant are not to be confounded nor do I think Pedobaptists will like this that that offer was sealed with circumcision Besides there was no offer made to the Jewes of salvation under condition of obedience An offer is made by preâ—ching circumcision was on the eighth day was there any that preâ—ched at circumcision salvation under the condition of obedience to the circumcised and then circumcised the child to seal that offâ—r Nor did the Iewes use circumcision to seal the offâ—r of sâ—lvation under condition of obedience to Christ but to bind them to keep the Law of Moses in expectation of righteousness as appears from Acts 15.1.5.9 10. Gal. 5.3 Rom. 2 25 c. 2. Nor do I see any truth in that which he saith That those priviledges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes by vertue of their outward call because salvation is â—â—â—ealed and offered to them under condition of obedience and that offer sealed with circumcision For neither do Church-priviledges belong to persons barely by reâ—son of an outward call which is but an offer of salvation no man is accounted a Church-member having right to the seal as they term it because salvation is offered without some consent nor did those priviledges in any sort accrue to the Iewes upon an outward call by which salvation was offered to them upon condition of obedience the proceeding of Christ from them their having Abraham Isaac Jacob for their fathers their having the Law given them c. were not upon such an outward call but Gods respect to them Deut 7.6.4 It is not true that from thence all Israelites are promiscuously called children of the Covenant as Acts 3.25 For it is true onely of them that were after the Prophets as well as the covenant sith they are called children of the Prophets as well as of the covenant and neither Title is given to them because of the outward call alleaged but because they were the posterity of those to whom the Prophets
14. art 2. The principall acts of saving faith are accepting receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification sanctification and eternall life by vertue of the covenant of Grace ch 17. art 2. The perseverance of the Saints depends upon the nature of the covenant of grace The other speech he would clear is thus by me expressed Baptism seals onely the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. So in the Directory of Baptism That it is the seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternall and after And that the seed and posterity of the faithfull born within the Church have by their birth interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it In the Rules of direction in the Ordinance Octob. 20. 1645. That the Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ. And therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak To this saith Mr. M. I utterly deny your consequence that unlesse there be absolute promises of saving grace to infants the seal is set to a blank For give me leave but to put the same case First for the â—nfants of the Jewes was the seal put to a blank with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let me put the same case in grown men who make an external visible profession and thereupon are admitâ—ed to baptism can any man say that all the saving graces of the covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors Is it not abundantly known that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had he made a promise he would have performed it Answer To the words in my Examen the seal is put to a blank was added as some speak which I did to intimate that it was Paedobaptists phraseology not mine and that they counted this an absurdity not that I did so So that my consequence was it being counted frequently in their writings an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank that is that baptism should be administred to them that had not the promise and it seals onely the promise of saving grace if the promise of saving grace belong not to the infants baptized then in vain are they baptized according to Paedobaptists Hypothesis for the seal of the promise is put to them to whom it is confessed the promise is not made Mr. M himselfe in his Sermon pag. 43. Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme The covenant then sealed is the covenant of these saving graces which if it belong not to infants baptized but another outward covenant in vain are they baptized for they have not the covenant which baptisme seals And that this is the sense of other Writers appeares by the words of Ampsing Diolog eontra Anabapt p. 195. Dico ergo Omnibus fidelibus baptismum competere cum ipsorum semine tam mulieribus quam viris tam infantibus quam adultiâ— horum omnium enim se Deum fore declarat Deus his remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine his mentis renovatioâ—eÌ„ per spiritum sanctum his vitaÌ„ aeternam promittit ac regnum coelorum quare quoque ipsis obsignabitur hac Dei gratia Ames Bellarm. enervat tom 3. l. 1. c. 4. ch 9. Protest Circuâ—cisio à primâ suâ— institutione habuit promissionem illam annexam quâ nulla est major Ero Deus tuus seminis tui post te Gen. 17. quam Christus ita interpretatur Matth. 22. ut vitam aeternam illa doceat contineri Paulus Ephes. 2.12 Ostendit spem vivam ex illâ pendere I wil add the words of Calvin Epist. 229. which are in stead of many otheâ—s both because of the great eminency of the man being accounted almost an Oracle by many of my Antagonists and because they are full to the present purpose they are thus in English This principle is still to be held That baptism is not conferred on infants that they may be made sons and heirs of God but because they are already with God reckoned in that place and degree he grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh Otherwise the Anabaptists should rightly keep them from baptism For unlesse there should agree to them the truth of the outward sign it would be a meer profanation to call them to the participation of the sign it selfe Moreover if any deny baptism to them our answer is ready that they are already of the flock of Christ and of the family of God because the covenant of salvation which God maketh with believers is common also to the sons as also the words sound I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Gen 17.7 unlesse this promse went before by which God adopteth the children of believers not yet born it is certain baptism is ill bestowed on them Which words do plainly express the covenant of salvation which is made by God with believers is common to the sons that so it is meant Gen. 17.7 that with God they are afore baptism reckoned in the place and degree of sons and heirs of God who adopteth them not yet born that unlesse the truth of the outward sign that is according to Mr. Ms. adoption regeneration remission of sins c. did agree to them it were profanation to call infants of believers to the participation of the sign and Anabaptists should rightly keep them from Baptism Therefore Calvin thought the covenant of saving grace Gen. 17.7 made by God to believers infanâ—s which Mr. M. disclaism and otherwise infant-baptism is profanation and it is rightly opposed Yea the shifts that are used to free their doctrine of infants interest in the covenant and the sealing of it from the difficulty of verefying it against the exceptions before alledged do all seem to suppose the covenant in which infants have interest is the covenant of saving grace As when Mr. Baxters plain Scripture c. pag. 223. will have Baptisme seal onely the conditionall promise Mr. Philips vind pag. 37. expresseth the sealing by offering Mr. Davenport's Confess of Faith p 39. maketh the benefits of the covenant not to be offered in the Sacraments but to be exhibited onely to true believers Mr. Cotton's grounds of Bapt. pag. 70 The covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all but onely offereth it and seals what it offereth Dr Homes that the administration of the covenant of grace belongs to believers children though not the efficacie Dr. Twisse that Infants are in the covenant
of grace in the judgement of charity and that baptism seals regeneration c. not conferred but to be conferred Dr. Th Goodwin that they are to be judged in the covenant of grace by parcels though not all in the lump yet all make the promise I will be the God of thy seed applied to infants of believersâ— contain the promise of saving grace and therefore I had great reason to conceive Mr. M. so meant his second conclusion As for the two cases he puts I neither grant all the Infants of the Jewes nor visible Christian professors adult had all saving graces who were circumcised or rightly baptized by the Apostles nor do I say they were sealed with the seal of the covenant it 's the Pedobaptists expression not mine except where I use the term to express their mind nor do I count it an absurdity to say the seal was and is to be put to a blank that is that those should be baptized to whom the promise of saving grace is not made when I speak after mine own mind But in the place of my Examen pag. 46. in which I alleged that as an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank it was not because I took it so to be but because the Paedobaptists so count it as Mr. Calvins words before recited shew SECT XXXI Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant and the severall sealings of them BUt Mr. M. desires me a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and he teâ—s me that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Iesus Christ became a Minister of the Circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers and so to every one who is admitted to partake of baptism according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer the Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Bapiism Answer Mr M. would have me to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and I am very willing so to do as knowing that as Mr. M. imagines that I am mislead for want of considering thereof so I am sure Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists are both mistaken and do abuse others in this point by reason of their inconsideratenass or superficial consideration of this thing The word Sacrament is a Latin word in profane Authors signifying an oath made by a Souldier to his Generall in Ecclesiastick Writers it is applied to all the mysteries of religion and it is used most by the African Writers Tertullian Augustine c. as the word Mystery is by the Greeks Chrysostome Cyril c. Chamier Paustrat Cath tom 4. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 14. Saepe jam dictum latissimam fuisse olim Saramenti significationem serò tandem contractam in angustos istos terminos quos hodie vix migrat quod diligenter attendendum Certè sacramenti definitionem nullam est invenire ante Augustinum qui suo exemplo posteris praiit deinde Augustini definitione c. Whence I inferre that as the term Sacrament so the definition of a Sacrament is but a novelty and possibly the great contentions about the number of the Sacraments some making seven some three most Protestants two onely would be lessened if moderate learned men had the handling of it I confesse that sundry Texts of Scripture do plainly shew the two rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper to be the chief rites of the Church as 1 Cor. 10 1 2 3 4. 12 13. Eph. 4 5. Mark 16.16 1 Cor. 10.16 17. 11.23 c. Yet that the Scripture either calls these Sacraments or sets down one generall nature of them in a certain definition of them cannot be demonstrated They are certain rites appointed for certain vses according to certain rules but such a nature or essence genericall as distinguisheth them from all other rites as laying on of hands c. denied to be Sacraments I find not in Scripture Divines elder and later have framed their definitions according to their own conceits After Augustines time that definition was commonly received in Schools That a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace yet the Ancients did rent such speeches as occasioned the opinion commonly received in Schools afore the reformation by Luther and Zuinglius that they did conferre gratiam ex opere operato give grace by the â—aâ—e outward use of them Zuinglius denying them to be any more than signs the Lutherans denying that they give grace by the bare use of them without the concurrence of faith to which the Lutherans ascribe all the efficacie the Papists object the baptizing of infants who did not believe used by them all whereupon the opposers of infant-baptisme falsly termed Anabaptists proved infant-baptism inconsistent with their own doctrine I wil set down Mr. Bedfords words in his Epistle to Mr. Baxter printed in the Friendly Accommodation between them pag. 352. The Anabaptists took occasion from that position of Luther No Faith no Baptism Coetaneous with him was Zuinglius and others who to overthrow the reall presence insisted upon it â—hat Sacraments were but signs for representation and when that doctrin was once broached the Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it To answer whom the Lutherans maintain that by baptism or before they are made believers as the words of the Lutherans in the Conference at Montâ—elgard cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect 15 p. 143. shew Osiander epist. Histor. Eccl. Cent. 26. l. 2. c. 68. pag· 449. Cum autem baptismus â—it lavacrum regenerationis teste Paulo sentimus nos Deum dare fidem infantibus vel ante baptismum ad preces parentum Ecclesiae vel in ipso actu baptismi regenerationis quae siâ—e fide esse non potest And to this opinion did many in England warp when the face of the Church of England became ceremonious and tended to symbolizing with the Lutheran Protestants or with the more moderate not Jesuited Papists in the time of the late Prelates potency as may be seen by the passages cited by me in Examen part 3â— Sect. 15. pag. 143. and by the printed writings of Dr. Davenant Dr. Ward Mr Thomas Bedford which have been refuted by Mr. Gataker and Mr. Baxter nor is it likely but still the same mind is in Mr. Bedford notwithstanding the late Synectism or rather clawing of one another which hath been between him and Mr. Baxter in their painted Frindly Accommodation In which Mr. Cranfords Epistle hath these words to Mr. Bedford Brother you know my mind that I conceive the ground of Anabaptisme to have been the erroneus Doctrine
mayst love the Lord c. And his words Vindic. Foed ch 7. pag. 46. That the Sacrament doth actually seal to believers and penitent ones are answered by Mr B. Apol. against Mr Bl. sect 10. thus I perceive Mr. T. and you are more of a mind than I was aware off SECT XXXIII That it is no error as Mr Baxter calls it but a Truth That the Covenant of grace is made onely to the elect BUt that I may acquit my self of Mr. Bs charge of errors in these points I shall answer first what he saith about my fifth imagined error because as Mr. B. saith Appendix to his Aphorisms pag. 66. It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally till you first know well what it is that they seal And here I think it needfull to set down Mr Bs words against Mr Bl. in his Apol. p. 103. Sect. 52. Arg. 17. That doctrine which signifieth an unsealed covenant for giving right to the covenant of grace is unsound But such is Mr. Blakes therefore no Scripture can be brought to prove such an outward covenant of Gods And it is against the common reason and custome of men that a second covenant should not be drawn to convey right to the seal of the first covenant seeing right to covenants seals go together and if there must be another covenant to give right to that then by the same reason there must be another to give right to that and another to that and so in infinitum To the Antecedent it is apparent that Mr. Bl. distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and inward covenant It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised whereof some are inward and some outward for though he explain not himself fully yet I know no other sense that it will bear It is evident that his outward covenant hath no seal For it is a covenant de conferendis â—igillis If therefore it have a seal it is either the same which is promised or some other other I never heard of They no where tell us what is the seal of their outward covenant The same it cannot be for the same thing cannot be the materia foederis or the legacie it self or the benefit given and the seal too of that covenant whereby it is given And pag. 6â— Mr Bls common phrase is that they are in the outward covenant and what that is I cannot tell and then proves that God makes no such outward covenant From whence I inferr 1 That Mr. B. had not cause to blame me for not disdaining Mr Blakes meaning when he understands him no better 2 Nor to magnifie his writing so much in which he finds so many flawes 3. Nor to rest so much upon an imagined ground of mens right to baptism by Gods promise or covenant grant which the cheâ—fest assertors of Paedobaptism cannot well tell what it is 4. That by Mr Bs judgment there is no such outward covenant of God as Mr Bl. and other Paedobaptists infer infant-baptism from and for the inward covenant or covenant of saving grace Mr M. Mr G. and others disclaim it as made to all the infants of believers Let us view what Mr B. saith about the covenant sealed by baptism and its sealing In his Confut. of my six imagined errors plain Scripture proof c. pag. 223 he thus speaks Errorâ— Mr T. holdeth that the Covenant whereof Baptism is the seal is the absolute covenant of grace made onely to the elect Confutation Many more mistakes he utters in the way to this about the Covenant This he publickly pleaded for in his Dispute and alledged Dr. Twisse as affirming the covenant of grace to be absolute To which I then answered 1. That to thrust in mens names and words when in disputation we are enquiring what the Scripture saith was unseasonable and diverting 2. That Dr. Twisse doth constantly in all his writings affirm That the promises of remission of sin and salvation are conditionall though the promise of the grace I will take the hard heart out of their bodies c is absolute This I dare affirm as having read six of Dr Twisse his books again and again And then he adds somewhat of Dr. Twisse which I leave to others to answer as they shall see cause Answer That Baptism is the seal of the covenant is not my expression except when I speak in answer to Paedobaptists according to their mind and in what seal and manner I allow it I have said before What I said of Dr Twisse in the disputation was neither unseasonable nor diverting nor untrue The dispute was so far as I can gather from my memory and the notes I have of the dispute wheâ—her the words Deut. 29.13 did prove that God did make the covenant â—here with all that are said to enter into covenant which I â—enied and Mr. B. endeavoured to prove from the words and that he may be to thee a God and from Deut. 30.6 where he promiseth to circumcise the heart of them and of their seed which I proved could not be sith the covenant of grace is made only to the elect and it is absolute in that promise I will write my lawes in their hearts which is the same with circumcising the heart and so could not be meant of all that entred into covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12 which Mr B. since acknowledgeâ—h in his letter to Mr. Bedford when he saith thus The Text seemes plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant estate but in their adult Deut. 30. but of the elect onely and in respect of that promise the covenant of grace is absolute which I thought seasonable no way diverting from the business to confirm by Dr. Twisse his authority whose tenent Mr B. confesseth was That the promise of the first grace I will take the hard heart out of their bodies c. is absolute And to shew that I did Dr. Twisse no wrong I shall alledge some words of his which I find in his Animadversions on Corvinus his Defence of Arminius against Tilenus p. 235 Negamus Deum pacisci foedus graâ—iae cum omnibus singulis dicimus hoc fieri solum cum electis that is We deny that God makes the covenant of peace with all and each we say it to be made onely with the elect pag. 346. At foedus gratiae absolutum est quod nube testimoniorm divinorum comprobatum damus that is But the covenant of grace is absolute which also we prove by a cloud of testimonies But Mr. B. having given Dr Twisse a lash on the by falls thus on me But Mr. T. his answer to me was That the promise of saving grace is not conditional and that though some parts of the covenant be conditionall yet it is all together that is called the covenant the leading promise being not conditionall therefore the covenant is not conditionall and that it was a grosse palpable error
he proves nor to shew how he proves out of the text he allegeth but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages However I shall view his dictates He denies that the Jewes had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel but the elect only Rom. 9.6 7 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of workes as is plain from Rom. 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. Gal. 3.12 and 4.24 25. Heb. 8 9 10 11. c. and 12.18 19 21. It is false that he hath any where proved that the external Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision for he did not appoint the females or males under eight dayes old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight dayes old He bids us see Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26.3 4 5. and 28.12 13 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan the multiplying of them c. that God injoyned circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant This covenant as containing the promise of Canaan c. to the natural postority of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is expressed to be by reason of Abrahams obedience Gen. 26.5 circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levit. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak sutable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16 c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith Iohn 8.56 and elswhere Now it is not true that those covenant Fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob recieved the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and workes made with them For though the Jews succeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17 18 19 21. noâ— is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10 as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law It is no where said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16 nor they termed his seed lump branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually that is by natural generation or by following his faith by vertue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches but as propagating the branches Nor need we say that he either received a covenant oâ— works alone in referrence to them all elected or that he recieved the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above Mr. C's dictates are meer phantasms without Scripture The substance of the Covenanâ— is a novel expression and ambiguous I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical yet I concieve it not purely such but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixt that is containing political and Evangelical promises I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came yet so as that when thay set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22 23. They had also Gods oracles with them deliverance from Egypt Christ to be with them in the wilderness nor do I deny these to have bin by vertue of Christs mediation yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews What ever be meant by the Covenant the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers And though I say they were by vertue of Christs mediation yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only for others only obliquely by consequent and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth I deny not that filling the Temple with smoake Rev. 15.8 allusively to that which was 1 Kings 8.10 11. Isai. 6.1 2 3 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies I neither do nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 But the wrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gr translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4 c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21 22 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuelâ— land Esâ—i 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3 laâ—â— compared with ch 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief If God promised to be a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17 7 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise I wil be a God to them If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision yet had no lots in Canâ—an then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices For though the typical sacrâ—fices in respect of purifâ—ing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation yet none were purâ—ed by Christs blood but the elect The high Preist bare the
infants but also all infants if it be so much for their good welfare preservation real happiness and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement and sith they are in their power as well as parents yea before them and they may list them into Christs army enter them into Covenant and the Church they are bound to do it Yea considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds that by Christs commission Mat. 28.19 Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born and none can do it so soon as Midwives they ought to do it according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses immediately upon their birth Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the infant is not sui juris but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own childe As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but onely for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already and more shall be Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called this last speech is denied He goes on thus And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world perfectè sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the lawes and capable of honors and right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers and that nature revealeth to us that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Under the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents and have the immunâ—ties of that society 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much lesâ— under the Gospel to the members of Christ then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence Exod. 34. and in the 2d Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes as many texâ—s of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or naturâ—l guilt So much of that Answ. 1. All these considerations if they were yeelded to be true would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible which would contradict the Scripture Rom 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. yea rather sith the 4th consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption which is into the invisible rather then the visible Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 3. It is a gross conceit and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau which is intimated as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be that as the members or seed of Adam so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire as I conjecture I do not contradict peremptorily as not knowing how he stated the question nor what his proofs were Yet it seems to mee to be an errour nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid Once more saith he Yet before I cite any more particular texts I will add this one argument from
what regard is the new frame betterâ—d by casting out infants which were in the old Answ. By leaving out infants and taking in onely believers the Church is more spiritual Qu. 8. Whether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith in the Articles necessary to salvation repentance and obedience And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old save onely that a more full and express revelation of Christ requireth a more full exâ—ress faith Answ. The former question is somewhat difficult it being hard to determine what Articlâ—s were necessary to salvation which is a question so hard that I should not be unwilling to learn of Mr. B. This I can onely say that I know not what profession each Jew did make or was to make I find a confession injoyned Deut. 26. and imprecation ch 27. I finde idolaters blasphemers and some others adjudged to death yet I finde not in the times of mal-administration of Moses Laws that idolaters and such great sinners were cast out of the Church but were members of it The later is answered before often enough Mr. B. tels me You may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the 7. last questions and towards the middle that occasioneth the first As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Churchmembers I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it Answ. I knew Mr. B. so well that I expected I should have questions enow though I desired onely a few Texts it s his vain to multiply questions which might be omitted and serve to weary the reader and respondent and for advantage to himself to insult on his antagonist though without cause But how ill he deals with me in writing so many sheets about questions taken from my words when I desired onely a line or two about his texts and how ill he deals with me and the reader who will not distinctly shew me the priviledges of his visible Church-membership the denial of which he makes so hainous and from which he argues so much I leave to the considerable Reader to judge But Mr. B. is yet more severe to me after all my work in answering him I must be corrected ere I be dismissed SECT LXIII Mr. Bs. ten Calumniatory questions and Conclusion of his Letter are answered ANd now saith he I have gone thus far with you in an enquiry into the truth I entreat you be not too much offended with me if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self Q. 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of to maintain that infants were visible Churchmembers not by any promise or precept but by a transeunt fact and that there was no law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely a fact of God which is a transeunt thing not repealable Answ. I am resolved not to be angry with Mr. Bs. interrogatories he ministers to me imagining he doth it like an Ordinary in salutem animae though I pitty him that takes so much on him as thus magisterially to censure what he does not or will not understand presuming perhaps he may take on him to determine as an irrefragable Doctor after so much magnifying of his writings by learned and unlearned ones But to his question I answer negatively and return it back to him is it not an undertaking palpably absurd to make visible Churchmembership to be a right to a benefit by Gods promise as the sole efficient and anothers faith as the condition But saith he either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant making or not if you do what a saying is it that infants were made Churchmembers not by Covenant but by a Covenant making not by a Law but by a Law making If not either you must say that God makes duty without any law and gives right to the benefit without any promise or Covenant-grant as the cause or else that it is no benefit to have right to Churchmembership and no duty to enter into that relation and to accept of that benefit and to bee devoted to God Which ever of these wayes you chuse and one you must chuse or change your opinion hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous or else more unbeseeming a Divine from a learned sober man of that profession Pardon the high charge Let the indifferent juâ—ge Answ. That I need chuse none of the wayes hee mentions nor change my opinion is amply shewed Sect. 55. this high charge would have been leâ—t out had he more sobriety and humility I look upon it and overlook it as ridiculous and contemptible and go on Qu. 2. Is it not a great disgrace to all your followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism and be so confident that they are righter and wiser then others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a law promise or Covenant is And do you not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by your meer interest or confident words these people are changed and held to your opinion Do they know what a transâ—unt fact is that without law or Covenant makes Churchmembers I say do they know this which no man that ever breathed till now ner ever man will know again And do you not proclaim them men of dâ—stempered consciences that dare go on in such a Schism on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain Answ Ne saevi magne sacerdos The followers of me in the point of Baptism are not led by shifts but the plain word of God Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.37 from which Mr. Bs. dream of a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed his conceit of infants discipleship mediate by the faith of the parent is too silly a conceit to draw an intelligent man that will examine it specially when they have so plain Scripture proof for their warrant as the institution of Christ and practise of the Apostles which they follow without Schism endeavouring a reformation of that great corruption of infant Baptism which hath been very pernicious to the Church of God If any Schism have been a great cause hath been in Mr. Bs. virulent charges of the truth as if it were a damnable errour accursed of God and his followers violent opposition of which Bewdley hath had sad experience of men for doing their duty in being baptized after profession of faith and breaking bread together though convinced by Mt. Bs. own arguing in his Book of Baptism pag. 342. that it should be so And if in this point they conceive themselves righter and wiser then others
promise gives ground of confidence and comfort that the thing shall be in its due time which is promised but a promise of any mercy in general cannot assure the futurity of visible Churchmembership no not though it were of more then corporal or special mercy and therefore this argument his own words do sufficiently evince to bee onely added to make a number without strength 2. Saith he They may object that it is uncertain what is meant by a thousand generations whether it be the remote or the nearest progeny To which I answer 1. I judge it to be onely to the immediate children of godly or ungodly parents that the promise and threat in this Commandment is made to else there would bee a contradiction between them For if the third generation of a wicked man should have godly parents between then the promise would belong to them and consequently not the threat and so on the other side The meaning seems plainly to me to be this that God will encrease the punishment of the children of ungodly parents according as they succeed their parents remembring the sins of the grand-fathers in punishing their children they being still the children onely of the wicked And that he will multiply mercies on the posterity of the righteous the more still because they had righteous progenitors supposing still that they are the children of such Answ. To interpret a thousand generations or the third and fourth by one onely is such a piece of Arithmetick as I should conceive none but an Ideot or natural fool would use The imagined contradiction is easily avoided by conceiving that it is not a plain promise or threat of what God will constantly do but a declaration of what hee doth often or in some cases which exposition is confirmed from hence in that we see so much variation in Gods dealings as necessitates us so to limit it Though Josiah were a godly Prince yet God would not shew mercy to his sons and though Manasseh repented yet for his sins wrath fell on his posterity and the whole people But let Mr. Bs. interpretation or mine or any others be righter yet the speech must needs have such limitations as wil disable it from yeilding a certain rule whereby the children of all visible professors visible Churchmembership may bee proved and therefore it is frivolously alledged by Mr. B. to that end 2. Saith he But I further answer What if this were not understood must wee therefore reject that which may bee understood There is somewhat doubtfull in the text viz. what mercy it is particularly and to how many generations if ungodly progenitors intervene And there is somewhat beyond doubt in the text that is that God estateth his mercy on the immediate off-spring of his people Now must I throw away that which is past doubt because of that which is doubtfull So we may throw away all the Scriptures Answ. We must not reject that which may be understood nor must we wrest the Scripture to infer from it that which cannot be inferred but omit the allegation of doubtful texts and urge that which is certain That which hee conceives undoubted is I conceive uncertain That God estateth his mercy on the immediate off spring of his people The instance of Josiahâ—s children is sufficient to shâ—w it not to bee universally true That which he acknowledgeth doubtfull is enough to shew that nothing can be from this text certainly inferd for Mr. Bs. purpose and therefore in the close of this Chapter Mr. B. confesseth that which is sucifficient to shew that the visible Churchmembership of all infants of godly parents much less of meer professors cannot bee gathered from Exod. 20.6 I pass on to the next Ch. 22. he saith thus The 17th arg is drawn from Psal. 37.26 His seed is blessed that is the righteous mans seed whence I argue as before If God by his unchanged law and promise have pronounced the seed of the righteous blessed then certainly they are members of his visible Church But hee here pronounceth them blessed therefore c. 1. I have proved before that hee hath so done by no society out of the Church They that say he haâ—h pronounced any other society blessed let them shew it But it is absurd once to imagine that God should pronounce a society blessed and yet take them for none of his visible Church 2. That this promise is an unchangeable promise I take for past doubt till Mr. T. shew me where it is repealed a little better then he hath shewed mee the repeal of infants Church-membership It is made to the righteous and their seed in general and not to the Jews onely it is writâ—en in the Book of Psalms from whence Christ and his Apostles fetch many texts for confirmation of their doctrine And if it had been spoken but to the Jews yea or to one particular person yet if it cannot be proved to bee restrained to them as being from a reason proper to them the Scripture teacheth us to apply it to all the people of God Heb. 12.5 The Apostle applieth that to all believers which was spoken onely to Joshua I will never leave thee nor forsake thee So Heb. 13.6 from Psal. 118. Heb. 10.16 17. Rom. 10.6 Answ. 1. That the speech Psal. 37.26 compared with v. 25. seems rather to be a narration of what the Psalmist found by experience then a promise of God Nevertheless sith there are promises to like purpose elsewhere as Psal. 112.2 Prov. 20.7 I will not deny the speech Psal. 27.36 to imply a promise nor will I say God hath revoked or as Mr. Bs. language is repealed it 2. Nor will I say that this promise was proper to the Jews though I conceive that the promises to posterity have more reference to the Israelites then other people by vertue of the national and legal Covenants made to that people and I think Mr. Bs. reason of no force that it is not made to the Jews onely because it is written in the book of the Psalms for promises proper to them are there as Psal. 89.4 21 c. Psal. 132.11 c. 3. I deny not promises to one particular person may be safely applied oft times to others 4. I deny that when Psal. 37.26 it is said his seed is blessed and Psal. 112.2 the generatiâ—n of the righteous shall be blessed this must be understood of every one of their seed or at all times as in their infancy the speech being true onely of that which happens often though not always Mr. B. himself p. 149. saith Even as when he saith the seed of the righteous are blessed he doth not tie himself to make every one blessed with his special blessing though he do it ordinarily And therefore it is most frivolously alledged to prove an ordinance of every infants visible churchmembership unrepealed though the parent be no righteous person but a visible professour and very vicious even an enemy to godliness 5. There 's
in the giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in paradise then it was a Covenant of works this he must grant unless he will have a mixt Covenant partly of grace and partly of works which he opposeth in his answer to me about Abrahams Covenant But in the giving that Law according to Mr. M there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise Ergo. 6. That which God finds fault with is not the Covenant of grace but accâ—rding to Mr. M. God finds fault with it Ergo. 7. That which is termed the first Covenant in opposition to this Covenant is not the Covenant of grace But such according to Mr. M. is that at Mount Sinai Ergo. 8. The Covenant of grace is the better Covenant But such was not that at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. And truely I finde so many Protestant Divines terming the Covenant at Mount Sinai the Covenant of works Perkins on Gal. 4.24 Pemble of Justification sect 4. c. â— Cotton in his way of Congregational Churches cleered p. 46 47. however in some respect hee will have it to have been a Covenant of grace yet to the carnal seed â—aith it was a Covenant of workes and proves it out of Paul And adds And so have the chiefest German Divines as well as Piscator and Polanus tâ—ken the Covenant on mount Sinai to bee a Covenant of works See Piscator Ezek. 16. observat ult in v. 60. and 62. and Polanus ibidem and Synt. Th. l. 6 c. 33. Pisc. observ e v. 6. Heb. 8. Dicson paraph. Gal 4.21 22 23 24. Hebr 8.6 9. Becman Th Exercit. 5. p. 67 De saedere operum aut legis legimus Exod 19.5 Deut. 5.2 1 Reg. 8.21 Jer. 31.32 Heb 8.8 9 10. To whom I add my Antagonists Mr. Geree vindic vindic p. 9. Mr. Baillâ—e in his Anabaptism pag. 141. and might do many more if it were necessary This is enough to shew my doctrine to have been unjustly termed most erroneous by Mr. M. beeing Pauls Mr. Ms. and others named and therefore rightly owned by me To my words Exam. p. 10 The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter v. 6 The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away v. 7. The ministration of condemnation v 9. which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Mr. M answers thus Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discern that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Answ. I wonder that a man of such note should wonder at that of which the reason is given and should take upon him to defend his own Sermon and yet pass by my reason against his allegation without rehearsal or answer to it In form it stands thus That which was the letter which killeth written in Tables of stone opposite to the New Testament and the spirit which giveth life the ministration of death of condemnation by Moses was the Law or Covenant of works for it is onely the Covenant of works not that of grace how darkly soever delivered of which these things can be said But such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai Ergo. 'T is true it was the Apostles scope to hold forth the preheminence of the Ministry of the Gospel but not barely above the Ministry of Moses vailed Ceremonies for the Apostle prefers it before the Ministry of the Letter written and ingraven in stone v. 3 7. which was the moral Law but above the Ministry of the whole Law which comprehending all the commands Mosaical promulged Covenant-wise and not singly Moses ceremonies are by me termed the Covenant of works and of this I am still confident Mr. M. skips over his impertinent allegation of Gal. 4.1 c. and grants 1 Pet. 2.9 the spiritual part to belong onely to the invisible Church of which he denies not the whole v. to be meant but onely tels me the whole nation of the Jews who had the honour to be termed holy the children of God Deut. 14.1 to have the adoption Rom. 9.4 were not inwardly holy or effectually called which I readily grant nor need I prove that Rom. 9.4 Deut. 14.1 were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed having not denied it but do expresly grant of Rom. 9.4 that it speaks of peculiar priviledges of the Jews and prove thence the Jewes had some priviledges above us and that the want of some priviledges they had may bee recompensed by some priviledges wee have and thence gathered that is a feeble reason from the Jewish priviledge of infant Circumcision to prove infant Baptism yet nothing that Mr. M brings shews 1 Pet. 2.9 to bee meant of any other then the elect nor that believers priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged What he saith that the comfortable manner of administration and baptism are enlarged beyond Circumcision to females and all nations is granted but this groves not priviledges of the Covenant of grace to be enlarged to each believer now although there are more believers now And for Gal 3.28 the words there is neither male nor female are not added to shew Baptism to be administred to whom Circumcision was not for then neither bond nor free should be added for the same reason which had not been right for bondmen were circumcised formerly as well as then baptized But to shew a general equality of all believers in Christ and therefore that passage is meant onely of true believers Having shewed the impertinency of Mr. Ms. allegations for his 5th conclusion I answered the argument drawn thence for infant Baptism thus 1. It is no good argument God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too without Gods institution but arrogant presumption to claim it 2. That God gave many peculiar priviledges to the Jewes which we have not as that Abraham was the father of the Faithfull Mary the Mother of CHRIST no family out of which CHRIST came but Abrahams no nation that God hath promised after many hundred years rejection to re-ingraff besides the Jewes This Mr. M. endeavoured to prevent in his Sermon by saying These were personal priviledges belonging to some particular persons not the whole Church of the Jewes nor from the Covenant but that to have infants belong to his Church and to have the initial seal are and if that we have it not for ours the
personal profession but deny 1. That thâ—â— promise Gen. 17.7 I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed is a tacit and implicit profession or makes of it self parties in Covenant externally 2. That infants born of covenanted parents are in covenant with God because they are born of such parents as are in covenant with God Gen. 17.7 What is said Deut. 4.37 Deut. 10.15 is meant onely of the people of Israel as the very words brought out of Egypt as it is this day shew nor is there a word in those verses of their being in covenant with God because born of such parents but of Gods special choise of that people It is false which he saith that the Apostle Acts 2.39 speaks in the very terms and words of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 It is true rather that hee speaks in never a term or word there used It is as false that the Apostle commanded any other to be baptized Acts 2.38 then whom he commanded to repent Did he not presume that Anabaptists as hee terms us were very Blockheads hee would not not presume that wee should believe his vain dictates when the very copulative term shews the same are spoken to in one and the other command and the words being an answer to the question v. 37. shew they are directed to those who spake v. 37. And the word you used in the precept of Baptizing contains the same with those who were to receive remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost and are distinct from their children v. 39. and therefore cannot be meant of their children much less of their infant children whom it had been ridiculous for Peter to have commanded to be baptized How pertinent the answer had been as I expounded it is often shewed before though their children crucified not the Lord Jesus nor were concerned either in the evil of their parents who crucified the Lord of glory nor in the good of their repentance more then stones yet I know no Anabaptists whose grounds infer that the Jews children who crucified Christ were not visibly in Covenant with their parents not capable of actual hearing the word mourning for and repenting of their sins as Zach. 12.10 Matth. 3.8 9 10. nor concerned either in the evil of their parents nor in the good of their repentance more then stones nor do I conceive it true that the opposites of infant Baptism say that Covenant promises are no more made to children then to stones but that these are vile calumnies of Mr. Rutherford unfit for such a man as he is taken to be How Isa. 2.2 3. 19.24 25. Psal. 22.27 Revel 11.15 Isa. 60.1 2 3 4. Mal. 1.11 Psal. 2.8 9. 72.7 8 9 10. are to be understood of persons adult onely and yet infants not cut off from the Covenant is shewed Review part 2. sect 9. and elsewhere It is not contrary to Acts 2.39 to say that Covenant promises are not to the children of Believers and yet it hath been fulfilled that the Gentiles and Heathen are become the Lords people What he saith out of Exod. 20.6 Psal. 37 26. 112.2 Deut. 28 is answered here sect 64.70 71. It is not true that Paul Rom. 11.16 saith the same of the Jews root and branches Fathers and children which he saith 1 Cor. 7.14 of the unbelieving yoke fellowes sanctification in the yoke fellow and their childrens holiness Nor is it true that the same Covenant which was made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was made with the Corinthians 2 Cor. 6.16 or any of the texts he cites there being none of them that promise that God would bee a God to them and their seed His allegations from Heb. 7.22 Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. are shewed to bee frivolous here sect 66. and elsewhere What he talks of a Father having no warrant to offer the Covenant of grace to one Pagan more then another if children be not in covenant is vain the offer of the Covenant of grace being nothing else but the preaching of the Gospel which is to be to all Mark 16.15 whether in Covenant or no. The allegation that the promise Gen. 17.7 is made onely to the elect Rom. 9.8 is a plain proof of this position that the natural children of Abraham and consequently Believers children now except elected have not that promise made to them and therefore are not in covenant by Gods act of promise to them which doctrine Mr. Rutherford himself taught in his Apologetical exercit 2. c. 2. p. 306. when he said The elect alone are said in Scriptures federate sons and heirs of promise Rom. 9.8 And to Christ alone the Prince and leading heir are the promises made Gal. 3.16 Psal. 89.26 27. in him to his seed and children given to him of the Father Heb. 2.13 Nor can he here deny that the sons of the promise are the chosen of God in whom the word takes effect Which if true then it is most false that a Believers seed not chosen is in covenant with God by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 and his allegation of it and Acts 2. â—9 and other places for baptism of believers infants whether elect or not as having that promise made by God to them is manifestly impertinent Nevertheless we need not say that there are none covenanted with God but the chosen under the New Testament or that there is no such thing as an external visible covenanting with God under the New Testament but say that no infant doth visibly externally covenant with God so as thereby to be entitled to Baptism sith no persons are to bee baptized by Christs appointment but such as in their own persons do profess the saith The priviledges mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 Mr. Rutherford himself appropriates to the Jews Due right of Presbyteries ch 4. sect 5. pag. 192. What he saith pag. 77 78 79 80. is all answered before chiefly in answer to Mr. Blake Review par 2. sect 9 or here sect 46 47 48. or in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal And if it were not yet the Reader may discern its impertinency sith the thing hee endeavours to prove is an external visible covenanting in the New Testament which can be onely on mans part and being in covenant thereupon and right to Baptism and is not denied whereas his position he should prove is that the Covenant choise on Gods part is extended to the seed of Believers as such in the New Testament p. 73. His words pag. 80. They cannot be baptized but as in covenant with God are true if meant of being in covenant by their profession externally but so infants are excluded if of Gods covenanting or promise are false and so are those other words We are the same way in covenant as the Jews were and our visible Church now and the visible Church then are of the same constitution I call not the Covenant Gen. 17. civil but mixt containing some promises civil some spiritual or rather
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
the place will the place be clear For not two priviledges as the Dr. makes it but one priviledge to wit holiness which the Dr. makes to be baptism is ascribed to them by a double means freedome from heathenish pollutions and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism Whereas freedome from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism and if prerogative of birth â—e meant of federal holiness of which is not a word there and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer it is either an inept tautology both being the same or incongruous speech which should be thus mended by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture nor Tertullian Nor do Tertullians words following de Anima c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled prove that by holy Tertullian meant baptized For in the words before to which ita so refer he makes holy to be the same with entring into the Kingdome of Heaven and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius enough hath been said already Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostomes words prove that holy is as much as partaker of baptism in the Ancients language much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14 to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14 that the term young Children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy But the Dr. proves it is 1. By the authority of Tertullian who saith of infant children that they are procreated holy and Nazianzen who using this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. Noâ— is there any thing said to make it in any sort probable that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle in which is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor that hee should render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth but onely useth a description of young age which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where 2. The other reasons are farther from the thing For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers that the parents faith profits onely their infant children some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue that faith of parents profits children who were not infants The other reason runs upon this mistake which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning but is denied by me â—hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14 sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever I said holy for admitted to baptism is a sense of the word no where else found But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared both from the usage of â—he word among the first Christian writers which is answered and the Jewish of which in that which followes and saith I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy Rom. 1.7 and sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile Answ. True But doâ—h hee term any infant so in those places or give them those titles barely from Baptism doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my minde but I think as I did his interpretation new strange and absurd I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc mer. remiss c. 26. and the like is said l. 3· c. 12. Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be which the Apostle said to be in the children oâ— believers yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism and the beginning or remission of sins To this the Dr. answers T is true he saith it belongs not to that question whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism profits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven And the meaning is such sanctification except it be that of baptism cannot avail to remission of sins Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumeni mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers who being termed holy 1 Cor. 7.14 should seem not to need Baptism which Augustin answers 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification but not determining which is there meant 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni it belongs not to that â—uestion of Baptism not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of except it be that of Baptism it cannot avail to the remission of sins c. to wit mentioned ch 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant onely of baptism of infants of believers by vertue of the believing parents faith As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them SECT LXXXXII Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus First then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a
sine Baptismo compeâ—ere salutem ex illa maximè pronuntiatione Domini qui ait nisi natus ex aqua quis erit non habet vitam c. However Ambrose and Augustine determine of the salvation of grown persons without Baptism if they believe desire to be baptized be Martyrs yet both they and many more held both Baptism and the Lords Supper to be necessary for infants unto salvation by an Apostolick tradition as M. Perkins Demonst. of the probleme in the point of Baptism proves though perhaps they could not reasonably grant the one and deny the other That Calvin was a mâ—n well versed in Antiquity for his time it 's not denied nor that he was a man well acquainted in the Scriptures yet that in neither he was in this point in the right is so fully demonstrated before that I may safely say Calvin was not therein Calvin as he is in his opposition of the Papists And if Mr. M. or his friend think it not meet to be tied to Calvins judgâ—ment in the point of the Sabbath and Lords day and Usury notwithstanding his skill in Antiquity and Scripture the same in equity is to be allowed to us about the point of Baptism I like Mr. Ms. acknowledgement with Riveâ— that tradition is in most points uncertain and therefore he that will build sure must build on the Scripture and therefore we must necessarily come to arguments from the Scriptures which if they evince not the thing we shall in vain call to Tradition If Mr. M. had not fiâ—st in his Sermon forestalâ—ed his hearers and readers with the pretence oâ— the Churches possession for 1500. years and upwards and Dr. Hammond resolved all his proof of infant Baptism into his exposition of 1 â—or 7.14 which he had no way to make good but by Tertullian and some of the Ancienâ—s I had spared this labour of shewing tâ—eir and and the Ancienâ—s mistakes Thaâ— Doctrine and practise of Baptism of Infants â—hich Austin saith to be according to the sentence of the Gospel is rejectâ—d by Proâ—estants who iâ— they would in this as in other things they have done 〈◊〉 according to Scripture and all their own principles must baptize no infants till they be made believers till then they do but prevaricate and profane the holy Ordinance of Baptism SECT XCIX Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled I Return now to Mr. Cragg Part 1. sect 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths outvying the number of the lines in which he is a false accuser In the first he misâ—recites my words which were not that the Epistle affirms that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork but thus As false it is thâ—t the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named which were true For though it was not in those words said by me that the Epistle did so affirm yet it is true 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practised Anabaptism me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers or that they baptized them or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them 2. The very words of the Epistle are the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork then Phipher c. there you have the spring and rise of it and therefore in my words there is no untruth but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech and slâ—nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation and the first â—uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers The 2d thing he chargeth on me as untruth was not expressed as Mr. Cr. inâ—inuates that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists but thus the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism which cannot be denied to be true unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing or the baptized no believers or that they call it not Anabaptism It is also false that he saith of me that my judgement and practise is that all that will be saved must be baptized again when they become actual believers and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can The 3d. untruth as he calls it is that baptising of believers without infants or excluding infants had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and he notes that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism which is another thing had its spring thence But he neither shews what other thing Anabaptism is nor doth he prove it to be an untruth but by rendring my own instances against it invâ—lid But therein he dâ—tâ— buâ— abuâ—e me who alledged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth nor is there any thing said by him but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defence and is aâ—swered before here sectâ—â— â—â— 98. The 4th untruth he châ—rgeth me with is that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ and he thâ—â—ks to â—vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19 But he saith â—othing but whâ—t is â—â—â—ully refuted before Review part 2. sect 5 c. part 3. sect 97. and elsewhere so that I neeâ— say no more here to it The 5th untruth he imagines is that infant Baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denied by the Anâ—ipaedobaptists the proof lies upon them But by his â—â—ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists to prove they did baptize infants sith they claim a right to it which muâ—â— be proved by precepâ— oâ— example of the doing it validityâ—o â—o shâ—w infant Baptism not to be according to Gods will sith in meer positive instituted worship wherein â—od hath set down what he will have done he will have it so done and no otherwise It is proâ—ed bâ—fore Review part 2. sect 5. c. part 3. sect 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age de facto are vain there being no intimation of any such reasonâ— in the History of the Apostles Acts Yea the story is against his surmises for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities and in them they went from house to house Acts 16.15 34. 20.20 Hierusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins which cannot be meant of infants Though infants be a parâ— of a Nation yet Mat. â—8 19 Is. 2.2 by nations no infant is meant nor Luk 19.19 is inâ—ant Baptism intimated The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act.
Gospel Covenant and that in him all nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the Covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahamâ— promise but also a promise to them and their seed which plainly shews that he imagines Gal. 3.8 the Gospel Covenant to be a promise to believers and their seed who are their natural seed as in Abraham his seed is implied which conformably must be his natural And if Mr. Cr. did not in the dispute mean Abrahams natural seed he went from the point to be proved and by me denied that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not simply everlasting to the natural seed of Abraham sith they were dispossessed of Canaan His suggestions therefore of my using officious untruths and pious frauds are but the venome of his spirit which throughout his book he discovers and most pestilently in that Section for which the Lord rebuke him What he next saith that when I say the thing promised Gal. 3.8 was justification and that of the heathen and that through faith therefore this text proves not Abrahams natural seed in Covenant under the Gospel is As if all this might not be and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel who professed were justified and had faith as well as the heathen which I grant but then they were not onely Abrahams natural seed but also his spiritual to which I grant the Covenant is made Gen. 17.7 and is everlasting and if he can prove infants of believers to be such there 's no question but they are in Covenant under the Gospel and to be baptized till then he can never prove either from Gen. 17.7 or Gal. 3.8 that Abrahams natural seed much less infants of believing parents to be in the Gospel covenant which whether hee had reason to bee ashamed of attempting the Reader may judge That the entring into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11. was a tranâ—â—unt fact and not a thing perpetually binding I had thought none would deny nor argue as Mr. Crag doth it was by command Deut. 29.1 they werâ— v. 29. to do the words of the Law and that was a command and the revealed things belong to them and their children for ever therefore the entring into Covenant v. 10 11. was a command perpetually binding under the Gospel which is too frivolous to spend time in answering and his argument that if wives and servants were in Covenant under the Gospel much more infants is alike frivolous â—ith he himself makes no other then believing wives and servants in Covenant under the Gospel which when he proves of infants their being in Covenant will not be denied This is enough in answer to that Section and most of the 8th and 9th Sections of the third part I said his allegation is vain of Heb. 8.6 to prove that if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons He asks me what then will it follow if a Covenant was made to no more then before therefore not to all that were before Answ. No yet it will follow that the text is vainly alledged to prove the co-extension to persons that speaks not at all of that thing nor is it at all to the purpose that it is extended to more to wit to Gentiles For 1. however that text speaks not of it 2. It is extended to more nations of the world besides the Jews but to none but believers of those nations and consequently not to infants of believing parents as such That the new Covenant contains promises of better things then the old Covenant and differs more then in administrations is shewed before Sect. 43. and yet theâ—e is no such thing implied as if there were salvation in any other then Jesus Christ unless he could prove salvation were by the promises of the Law My third Paradox as he cals it that the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers is proved before Sect. 33. That there are in the Gospel Covenant promises of external ordinances made to all visible members is more then Mr. Cr. proves or any other and therefore I count it a figment I know none but spiritual promises in it which Mr. Cr. grants are made absolutely and terminated or performed onely to the elect and invisible members which is the same with my Paradox but hath more assertors then his most gross speech that the meliority of the Covenant consists principally in outward ordinances manner of administration and dispensation extent and amplitude of the proposal not of grace and glory He adds of which there was alwayes the same reason Enoch Abraham Eliah Moses were as well justified by faith which is true but not according to the Covenant of the Law but by the Covenant of the Gospel which it seems Mr. Cr. understands not though he assume the title of a Preacher of the Gospel Mr. Cr. saith of me His last assertion is that because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers therefore they are not to infants as the natural seed of believers The antecedent is proved to be false for though the spiritual part of Gospel promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the elect yet they are conditionally proposed to all Professors and the external part which consists in administration of ordinances is equally belonging to all visible members But are the promises to all professors because they are conditionally proposed to them If so we may say the promises are to the most obstinate infidels to eveâ—y man in the world for to them they are conditionally proposed Sure this is not according to the doctrine of the Scripture which makes the promises to bee the believers inheritance 2 Cor. 1.20 2 Pet. 1.4 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Heb 6.12 17. according to the doctrine of Protestanâ—s the Saints Legacy yea Paedobaptists make them their priviledge Rom. 9.4 though the promises there were other promises As for an external part of Gospel promises which consists in administration of ordinances equally belonging to all visible members it is a mere figment no where in Scripture And the sayings of Mr. Cr. Part. 3. Sect. 11. p. 261. Christ is said Heb. 8.6 to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could noâ— be if infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant that the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth right tuition self-profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant that what he hath said Examen part 3. sect 1. Antipaed part 1. sect 5. touches not the true state of the Controversie but is a confused
that Author to be afore the 3d. century and consequently not that Dionysius the Arâ—opagite mentioned Act 17 34. as some Papists would have it but are by learned men both Papists and Protestants refuted whereof may be seen Magdeb. centur 1. l. 2. c. 10. Scultet med Patrum l. 11. c 9. Perkins prepar to the demonstr of the probleme 2. Though Dr. Hammond conceive that that Author is to be placed in the 3 d age by reason of some words of Photius which for want of books I cannot examine yet Salmasius ad Colâ—ium saith p 1â—9 quamvis subdititius ille Dionyâ—â—us Areopagita sit auctor nec antiquior quinto seculo p. 441. quem certa fides est scripsisse circa finem quinti seculi And that which Scultetus ubi supra observâ—s that in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes many things of Temples of â—ltars of Holy places of a Quiâ—e of consecration of Monks of the tonsure and shaving of heads iâ— me thinks a good argument that the Author was somâ— idle dreaming Monk no elder then the 5th century and is so far from being accâ—unted a Wâ—iter of esteem among Divines that he is rather censured as one who by his curiosities hath corrupted Divinity 3. Whether those who deemed infanâ— baptism unreasonable were infidels who derided it or Christians who scrupled it is noâ— câ—eared by the Dr. Nor is it aâ—pareâ—t that by Divine guides are meant the Apostles 4. Bâ—t if it were that Author makes it no other then an unwritten tradition if he did he would â—ave alledged some Scripture for iâ— and the words our Divine Officers being instructed not as Dr. Hammond translates it by Divine tradition but unto or of the old tradition have brought down unto us do shew that he counted it a tradition unwritten and delivered from one Officer to another until that time Now it is granted that in the end of the 3d. and following ages infant baptism and in like manner infant communion were counted traditions Apostolical to save infants from perishing and such seems to have been the opinion of that Author Pamelius annot 89. on Cyprian de lapsis Tractat hunc locum D. Augustinus Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Haud obscure autem hic quomodo suprâ— indicatur vetus Ecclesiae consuetudo communionis parvulorum qualem etiam indicaâ—e videtur Dionysius Areopagita sub finem Eccles. Hierarch sua adhuc aetate D. Aug. Epist. 107. ad vitalem All which being consideâ—ed this testimony is so far from being a most convinciâ—g â—estimoâ—y of the derivation of infant baptism from the Apostleâ— â—hat considering upâ—n what ground they observed it and how much vanity was in the Ancients in their retaining many fond customes and fathering them on the Apostles and when common defending them by Scriptures perverted it is a convincing testimony that infant baptism was no more froâ—â—he Apostles then infant communion both meer corruptions taken upon mistakes and defended by abuse of Scripture Mr. M. Mr. Cr. Dr. Homes Dr. Hammond alledge Gregory Nazianzen his 40th Oration about baptism in which he adviseth the baptizing of infants which saith Dr. Hammond is a plain testimony of the Churches doctrine at that time the 4 th century about the year of Christ 70. he flourished and died in the year 389. Against this sundry things are objected 1. that the same Author saith as I find his words in Chamier paustr. cath tom 4 l. 5. c. 9. § 66. where he gives instance in his 40th Oration of baptism of those who decease without baptism Neither can they receive it either perhaps by reason of infancy or some altogether involuntary chance by which it is that even they who would obtain not that gift From whence it is manifest that in Gregory Nazianzens time infants did decease without baptism and that they could not receive it by reason of infancy Nor is this objection salved by making the reason of these childrens not receiving baptism because that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their children to baptism because they dwelt among infidels or Paynims where they could not enjoy the benefit of the word and sacraments for themselves or their children therefore they were necessitated to put off the baptising of their children which seems to be Mr. Ms friends evasion in his Defence p. 24. in that he applies this passage in Nazianzen as well to the hinderance of the baptism of children as of elder persons For the words of Nazianzen shew that as some deceased without baptism by reason of some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unvoluntary accident whether by the hand of God or men so others he saith deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely by reason of infancy and that by reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not in power or capacity to receive it Which is a plain testimony that however in câ—se of apparent daâ—ger of death then infants miâ—ht receive baptism according to his opinion yet ordinarily they were not in the power or capacity to receive it and so did sometimes die without it 2. It is objected and thereby this observation is confirmed that when he comes in the same Oration to set down what he would have done about infants baptism he resolves 1. that they should be baptized if danger did urge it that they might not miss of the common grace intimating thâ—t otherwise they should 2. He gives his judgement for others that they should wait longer 3. The reason he giveth of this longer waitiâ—g is that they may hear some mystical or spiritual thing may be taught to answer somewhat and if they understand not fully perfectly and exaâ—â—ly yet they are instructed and informed 4. That not as Dr. Hammond to give colour to his conceit of sanctifying to be the same with baptizing 1 Cor. 7.14 by this means they may be baptised souls and bodies for if this were good reading 1. they should baptize themselves 1. they should bapâ—ize â—heir souls which were ridiculous but so as that they sanctifie both souls and bodies by or with the great mystery of initiation Which shews he conceived 1. that by baptism benefit did come to infants though they perceived it not 2 that it sanctifies their bodies 3. that it is beâ—ter done when children are taught to answer 4. then they sanctifie soulâ— and bodies 5. that danger of death was a forcible impulsive to move to the baptism of inâ—ants 6. that without baptism infants should misâ— oâ— the common 〈◊〉 To 〈…〉 Dr Hammond thus 1. It is clear that it no way prejudgâ—s â—he doctrine and practise of the Church formerly set down 〈…〉 him that infant children indefinitely considered might be bâ—ptized and if dangâ—r apprâ—acâ—ed must how young soever they were which is as contrary to the Anâ—ipaedobaptist and so to Mr. T. as any thing Answ. 1. The phrase the doctrine and practise of the Church is according to the Prâ—latical language I think as