Besides the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a covenant and Church seal is covenant and Church interest Hence called by the name of covenant when yet it is but a sacramental sign and seal of it Gen. 17.13 Act. 7.8 that is first hâ—ld out and sealed as the convoy of all other desired good 2 Pet. 1.4 But especially in that initiatory seal the signation of the covenant is of more considerable weight then the external symbole ceremony and circumstance either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered If washing of a person in the name of the Trinity be a clearer and easier symbole then that of cutting the flesh yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and the other And to shew that the covenant is the main thing considerable therein hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the ground-work of the commandment it self as of Circumcision so of Baptism and much more of the application of either to any in covenant Gen. 17.9 10 11. Therefore scil because I have said I will be your God I command you to do thus and thus not because I have commanded you that I therefore promise to do this for you or do you thus and thus at my command and then on therefore I will do so and so for you Answ After the rest of his dictates he here tels us the main in the initiatory seal to be attended is the covenant which I grant but deny that it follows therefore that the rule which the administrator is to observe according to which he is to administer it is the persons interest in the Covenant so as that he must administer it to all and onely those who are in Covenant or to whom the promâ—se is made by God For besides the many reasons to the contrary even concerning Circumcision before given Mr. Cs. own reason is against him For if the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal is Covenant and Church interest and therefore infants in Covenant to be circumcised and baptized by the same reason infants in Covenant are to be admitted to the Passeover and to have the Lords Supper sith they are seals they are Covenant and Church seals infants have Covenant and Church interest in the initiatory seal these things are to be attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal and therefore in every Covenant and Church seal as well as the initiatory As for what he saith about Gen. 17.9 10 11. though I have sundry times observed that the reading v. 9. therefore is not necessary yet omitting that exception I grant what he saith of that Text but withal note 1. that the command is inferred not onely from the promise to be their God but also from the promise of the land of Canaan v. 8. and therefore it might as well follow They to whom God will give the land of Canaan are to have the initiatory seal as that they to whom he promiseth to be God 2. That which is said Gen. 17.9 10 11. is onely of circumcision 3. If it were granted that the covenant is the groundwork of the command it self as of circumcision so of baptism yet it follows not much more of the application of either to any in covenant For though the covenant were Gods reason why he would appoint circumcision yet that 's no rule to us but his command onely a reason of the will of the commander is not always a direction about the command certainly not about each point in the command as Mat. 28.18 it follows not All power is given to me therefore preach and baptize all over whom power is given to me Besides in this very thing the covenant could be no direction whom to circumcise ordinarily sith ordinarily the circumciser could not know to whom in particular the promises whether Evangelical or domestical did belong when they were to circumcise them Yea though Abraham knew Ishmael had no covenant interest there being no promise made to him in it but the contrary declared Gen 17.19 20 21. yet he was to circumcise him and did so The like may be said of Esau and others Mr. C. adds So the Gospel prophesie and promise is prefaced and put in the preamble to that injunction of their baptism by John Luk. 3.3 4 5 6 c. Answ. It is true that the prophesie of John Baptists comming and work and of Christs comming Isa. 40.3 4 5. which I acknowledge to be a Gospel promise are set down as the warrant of Johns preaching the Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins but this doth noâ— prove that this was his rule in baptizing to baptize every one even infants and those onely who had this interest in the Covenant of grace that to them and each of them God promised remission of sins Yea sith Johns Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance it is clear he required repentance of the baptized as the antecedent to his Baptism and therefore not barely such Covenant interest as Mr. C. ascribes to all infants of believers onely in profession He goes on thus Hence the Gospel and so the Covenant of grace held out as grounding Baptism Act. 2.38 39. And childrens Covenant right was held out as one branch of that Gospel as we proved and from the same principle that they were also to be sealed by Baptism yea albeit the Apostles urged repentance yet the seal is propounded as to the promise Peter said be baptized for the promise is to you And this was no meer moral motive but a Scriptural groundword inforcing it as it was a Scriptural groundwork virtually injoyning and requiring them to repent for the promise is to you Answ. Hence should if there were any good sence in Mr. Cs. speech refer to something precedent from whence that which he speaks is derived which I discern not but a dark way of dictating fitting such as love to puzzle not to inform a reader It is before largely shewed that neither childrens Covenant right external from parents faith hath been held out by Mr. C. as one branch of the Gospel sect 44. of this part of my Review nor that barely from this principle they were to be baptized but that repentance in each person to be baptized is made the antecedent to Baptism sect 22 23 and elsewhere That Peter said not as Mr. C. sets down his words is apparent from the Text Act. 2.38 39. that the promise is urged as a motive to those to whom Peter spake to do their duty of repenting and being baptized is so plain as that Dr. Thamas Goodwin upon the reading the first part of my Review sect 5. did acknowledge it and it is proved so sect 21. here and elsewhere Nor doth Mr. C. here or elsewhere shew it to be any other Scripture groundwork then as a motive to the baptized each of them first to
Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane Heathen practises but this could not be an end in the baptizing of native Jews ordinarily for they were not born in uncleanness but sanctiâ—y according to the Hebrew Doctors having not been polluted with idols and therefore the end or reason of baptizing Proselytes not agreeing to the native Jews that baptism was not requisite to them and therfore used not ordinarily of them It is true when they had gotten strange Gods among them which defiled them they were required to be clean and change their Garments Gen. 35.2 and perhaps some defilement of the Israelites by idolâ— in Egypt might occasion that command Exo. 19.10 But there was no reason of this in the ordinary entring of the infants of Israel into the Covenant who were not thus defiled 6. The baptism of John Baptist for remission of sins was distastfull to the Pharisees and Lawyers who thought themselves pure Luk. 7.29 30. therefore it is likely they usâ—d not such a baptism of native Jews as imported an acknowledgement of such defilement as they took themselves and infants to be free from 7. The Dr. saith Letter of Resol qu. 4th § 18. They that were thus baptized were said to be born again and that as if born of a new mother as it is oft said in the Talmud to which our Saviour refers when he talks of regeneration of which saith S. Paul baptism is the laver of being born again from above of water c. Joh. 3.3 5. And this was so vulgar a notion among the Jews that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus that he understood it not Art thou a ruler in Israel and knowest not these things But if there were such a regeneration by water of native Israelites which had been the pattern of the baptism of Proselytes Nicodemus doubtless had known it and answered otherwise therefore his wonderment was that Christ should require regeneration of him by water who was a Jew by nature who need no such regeneration and not a sinner of the Gentiles and consequently no such known custome ordinary of baptizing native Jews 8. The Dr. ibid § 17. saith â—hey that were thus received as Proselytes by Baptism put off their former relations of kinred c. To which surely our Saviour refers when he talks of leaving father and mother Mark 10.29 And Tacitus the Historian nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quà m exuere patriam parentes liberos fratres vilia habere their Proselytes are first taught after renouncing the gods to put off their countrey parents children brethren to despise them And the later Jews have a saying that he thaâ— hath maried his own sister or entred any the most incestuous bands by becoming a Proselyte ceaseâ—h to have that near relation of bloud to her and may 〈…〉 with her as with a â—ife which false suâ—erstructure in them is yeâ— a testimony of â—he truth whereon it is falsly founded by them And this is a testimony also of this that the Jews did not thus baptize native Jews because they never allowed such incest at they would have done if they had by baptism regeneâ—ated thus native Jews and conceived of the effect of it as they did of Proselytes baptism 9. We read of the circumcision of Christ John Baptist Timothy Paul but wee read not of their baptism by water as the custome of the Jewes was to enter into the Covenant Proselytes therefore there was not a custome of baptizing native Jewes infants 10. There 's no way mentioned of initiating Jewish females by any ceremony into Judaism no description in the Talmud Gemara Maimonides of observing any such thing as the Dr. sets down Letter of resol q. 4. sect 9. concerning Proselytes to have been used towards the Jews sundry of the things done to the Proselytes at their baptism were such as were proper to strangers as namely the baptizing into the name of a freed man or a servant the limitation of the priviledges of the baptized which are evidences that this baptism was not used to native Jews but onely to Gentile Proselytes All which being considered there was neither unkindness nor injustice to Dr. Hammond or his Reader in my discourse and it is necessary for him to consider better the considerations which I have offered in this matter unless hee will become non-suit which have certainly force in them though this thing were omitted by me which yet was not perfectly omitted as his language is by me nor the contrary supposed without proof But the Dr. however refuseth not to attend me in all my motions and I hope I shall at long running overtake him To what I said Baptism it seems was a custome of all nations as well as the Jews ciâ—ing Grotius for it on Matth. 3.6 and Matth. 28.19 the Dr. answers Of the truth of this Observation I shall raise no question onely I wonder what he could fancy from thence to conclude for his advantage and then he fals to â—onjecturing But by my words he might have easily resâ—lved himself what I aimed at in this to wit to shew the Jews baptism of parents and children is not undeniably proved to be the pattern of Christian baptism and Christs institution of baptism but a copy according to that pattern iâ— iâ— bee true that it were derived from the â—ame common fountain the â—ons of Noah in remembrance of the deluge according to that famous verse among the Greeks the Sea sweeps away all the evils of men to which S. Peâ—â—â— alludes in making Baptism the antâ—type â—o Noahs floud which the Dr yeâ—ds To this I added that I knew not that Dr. H. or any oâ—her hâ—th alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers that might evince that the custome of baptizing or baptizing infants was derived from the Jews initiating Proselytes by baptism To this saith Dr. H I answer 1. By asking Mr. T. whether he be ready to pay thâ—t reverence to the authority of the Fathers as to bee concluded by their affirmations To which I say I am ready to pay that reverence to the Fathers which is meet but to be concluded by their affirmations is more then is fiâ— tâ—e same liberty is to be allowed mee which learned men take usually to dissâ—nâ— from them when Scripture or reason lead another way He â—aith If he be wonder why the uniform consent of them that infants are to be baptized should not prevail with him Answ. And I wonder 1. that the Dr. should pretend an uniform consent of the Fathers that infants are to be baptized when for the two first ages there 's not any just evidence of the consent of one Father for it in tâ—e third there is a dissent of Tertullian and in the 4th of Nazianzen and the rarity of its use and thaâ— upon such erroneous grounds as it was practiâ—ed
that was by preaching as is plain concerning John Matth. 3.1 2 5 6. and concerning the Apostles Mat. 10.5 6 7. Ergo Whence 3. I further aâ—gued that way the Apostles were to Disciple all nations by which they were to disciple the lost sheep of the house of Israel but that was by preaching Ergo discipling supposeth precedent instruction To this saith the Dr. I answer that the account last given is fully satisfactory to this excâ—pâ—ion also For supposing the Apostles to publish wheresoever they came the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the good news that was come into the world by Christ and the hearers not onely to come in themselâ—es but to bring â—heir whole families and so their infant children with them there is no difficulty to imagine that they had thus made proclamation received all and made all disciples young and old that either came or were brought and so it being the instruâ—ent to draw the parents themselves and to move them to bring their children to discipleship it is still very visible how children should be discipled and conseâ—uently baptized by them Baptism being the constant ceremony of discipling And though I am not able to affirm how it was actually in Johns Baptism yet this I may say that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus it very possibly might be both in Johns and the Apoâ—â—les baptizing Answ. It is so far from being satisfactory that there is neither pertinency nor truth in this answer For the Dr. answers as if the thing I proved were not that making disciples presupposeth instruction because it is by preaching but that iâ—fants might be made disciples though making disciples bâ— by preaching which is indeed not to answer to the argument but to a consectary deducible from the conclusion of it which though it were not inferâ—ed nor consequent yet the conclusion might be true that discipling presupposeth some precedent instruction and is not wholly subsequent to it Nor is it true For 1. supposing the Apostles should do as he speaks and the hearers come in as hee imagines yet there is difficulty to imagine thaâ— they that had thus made proclamation received all and made all disciples young and old that either came or were broâ—ght unâ—o them sâ—ecially considering how John received nâ—ne wee read of but such as confessed â—heir sins and the whole people that were baptized of him justified God Luk 7.9 believed him Matth. 21.32 oâ—hers not and the Apostles are said to make disciples afore they baptized Joâ— 4.1 and aâ—oâ—e they bapâ—ized required repentance Act. 2.38 those who were baptized gladly received the word v. 41.2 It beeing granted that they made disciples by preaching preaching being the instrumâ—nt to draw the parents themselves and to move them to bring their children to discipleship yet it is not very visible how children should bee discipled For 〈◊〉 â—ffection or conceit might mâ—ve them to do that upon preaching which yet might not take effect nor be received by the Apostles 4. Nor is Baptism consequent on such a discipleship by offer or vow of pâ—rentâ— witâ—out profession of the party to be bapâ—ized there being no institution for it which is the onely rule about bapâ—izing 5. Neither iâ— it â—rue that Baptism is the constant ceremony oâ— discipling though it be granted to be the ceremony of disciples a person is first a disciple afore baptized Joh. 4 1. they first made disciples then baptized them 6. It is nâ—t â—rue that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might not very possibly be both in Johns and in the Apostles baptizing as the Dr. imaginâ— sith if there be degrees of possibility it is not very possible they should make any othâ—r disciples and baptize them then such as the Evangelists story relates they did But the Dr. tels us 1. For John 't is true indeed that his Baptism attended his preaching yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that none were baptised by him but those who particularly heard and obeyed his preaching For 1. why might not those that heard it divulge it to others and bring them before they heard him to desire to bee baptised and upon their confessing their sins and professing amendment hee baptise them Answ. Not likely before he had preached somewhat to them however if his preaching were brought to them by others they were not baptized afore instruction 2. Why might not those that heard it or heard of it give that heed to it as to bring all that were dear to them of what age soever by that means to secure them from the wrath to come when Noah preacht repentance to the old world and upon the decree of sending the flood upon the world of the ungodly called all to come into the Ark to him to escape the deluge suppose others besides Noahs family hâ—d hearkened to his preaching or suppose hee and his sons had had infant children can we imagine they would have lefâ— their infâ—nâ—s to that certain ruine and not have taken them into the Ark with them And Johns baptism was answerable to that Ark in respect of that approaching ruine on the Jews stiled the kingdome of heaven v 1. and that evidenced to be a bloudy kingdome explicated by casting into the fire v. 10. And can we imagine the Jews that believed John and came to his Baptism did not bring thâ—se childrâ—n with them to save them from the predicted evils and then I profess not to see any reason to render it incredible that John Baptist should thus receive and baptize those infants though the Scripture affirmiâ—g nothing of it and tradition as far as I know as little I shall neithâ—r affirm nor believe any thing This only is certain that among the jews of that time infant children were known to be capable of entring into covenant with God after this manner and of being partakers of the benefit of the Covenant by that means And one thing more I may add that Christ himself who was by his sinlesness as unâ—ualified for the repentance which John preacht as the infants were by their incapacities did yet come and was received to Johns Baptism v. 13. and then in case infants were brought why might not they be received also Answ. Because it was not appointed to them And this is a reason which the Dr. may see if he will to render it incredible that John should receive and baptize infants though infants of Proselytes born afore their Proselytism were by Jews baptized who baptized upon a far different reason to wit the pollution through idols which did adhere to the Gentiles nativity to wash away that and to engage them to the observance of Moses Law for righteousneâ—s whereas John Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins even native Jews directing them
these false suppositions that God had promised to be God to those whom he commanded to be circumcised and that the promise of being their God was the formal reason of their being circumcised that when God promised to be a God of to Gentiles he meant it of external adoption and priviledges The consequence he would prove by four Argument 2. The promise of propriety in God was not a specialty therefore the Infaints of Christians being certainly no less in the promise then were the Infants of Jews aforetime they are rightly judged to be in it as they were Where the conclusion is altered which was to be proved therefore if the Infants of the Jews were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God then the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise and instead thereof that which should have been the antecedent the Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews Infants aforetime is made the chief part of the conclusion and in stead of the right antecedent this ambiguous antecedent is put that promise of proriety in God was not a specialty which he says he would prove by seven arguments but sets not down which branch of the promise was not a specialty whether that I will be thy God or that I will be the God of thy seed nor in what sense it was not a specialty nor doth his speech that it was not a specialty appear equipollent to that he should have proved The Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews dnfants aforetime but he dictates so ambiguously and indistinctly that more labour will be necessary to understand him then to refute him He tells us the promise of propriety in God was not peculiar to Abraham and visible professors and Abrahams natural seed where he supposeth that the promise I will he thy God and the God of thy seed was true of meer visible professors and Abrahams natural seed which is most false and contrary to Rom. 9.6 7 8. Luk. 20.36 37 38. He brings the words Exod. 12.48 49 the stranger was as our home-born and there was one law for both which are spoken meerly of allowance for them to eat the Passeover with them to prove a like propriety of the Infants of visible professors of the Gentiles in the promise of propriety in God Gen. 17.7 He brings Gal. 4.28 which was spoken onely of true Believers born after the Spirit to prove visible professors and their Infants to be judged in the promise of propriety in God He saith Isaac was in the promise as an Infant of Believing parent whereas Paul saith no for then Ishmael and Esau had been in the promise but by special calling or election Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. He applies those texts Gal. 3.14 Rom. 11.17 Rom. 15.8 9. Gen. 17 5 7. to prove a promise to every Gentile visible professour of faith and their Infants which are onely verified in the sense the Apostle useth them of true Believers as Abraham was who are justified as he was He allegeth that which the Apostle Rom. 11.28 saith The children are beloved for the Fathers as it were meant of Infants of every Gentile visible professor which is spoken onely of the elect Israelites and the ancient Patriarchs Abraham c. That which is said Psal. 138. 1 3. of children of him that fears God sitting round about his table like Olive plants to prove visible professors and their partaking in the promise of propriety in God He saith The former part of that promise I will be a God to thee Gen. 17.7 is undeniably common to all Believers which in truth is undeniably proper t Abraham not simply as a Believer but either as a natural Father or Father o Believers according to the spiritual part of the promise He saith Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former they are called as they were an holy Nation a peculiar people a royal priesthood 1 Pet. 2 9. Tit 2.14 And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did and in which there is a national agreement in doctrine worship and discipline as was in the Nation of the Jews is to be accounted to the Lord in every age Psal. 22.30 even Egypt and Assyria with Israel Isa. 19.21 and many call Abraham Father who obtained the Fatherhood of many Nations Gen. 17.5 and may be accounted a national Church no less hen that Nation was whereby those speeches 1 Pet. 2.9 T it 2.14 Gen. 17.5 as expounded Rom. 4.17 which are meant onely of the elect and true Believers of every Nation are applied to a national Church like the Jews consisting of a great part of either ignorant persons that know little or nothing of Christianity or persecutors of godliness profanely despising the word and hating the godly He applies that Mat. 18.10 little ones who are said vers 6. to believe in Christ and the offending of whom hath so great a penalty to little one in age He applies Jer. 30.20 which is spoken of the Jews upon their return from captivity as appears vers 18.21 concerning their prosperity in Canaan to the restitution of their Infants to an initial seal at the calling of them to the Christian faith whereas if it were so meant the Prophet should foretell that the Jews children at their calling to Christ should be as a foretime that is should be circumcised as they were before the Prophets time not baâ—tized More things there are liable to exception in his arguments whereof what pertains to the text Act. 2.39 Rom. 11.17 1. Cor. 7.14 is sufficiently discussed in â—y Ample dsquisition of those texts That which concerns the reasons that God promiseth mercy to thousands and such like arguments being urged more fully by Master B. I shall answer when I meet with them in his book His arguments pag. 18. to prove his Consequence The Infants of Chaistians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they are to be baptized are insufficient The first is from circumcision of Infants to which hath been often answered That was done by vertue of the Command not by vertue of the promise and therefore without the like Command the like promise if it were granted would not prove the like practice What is said of John Baptists and the Apostles not denying baptism to any whom they judged to be in the promise seems to intimate that they baptized men because they judged them to be in the promise But there is not a word thereof in any of the Evangelists but their comming to John confessing their sins glorifying God in embracing his Counsel professing faith as the reason of their admission to baptism To his second reason Being in the promise is the reason rendered by the Apostles for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38 39. Therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized I answer 1. He says not truely that being
the person baptized repents of his sins and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements communion with Satan and engageth himself to be Christs disciple Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water it minds us of Christs death burial and rising again and testifyeth our salvation by him and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons and true believers for it assures salvation onely to them not to all that are baptized and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it So that if from hence that baptism is the administration of the Covenant a title be derived for infants to be baptized it can intitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant which are only the elect or true believers But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious For 1. when it is said it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant the expressions sometimes are as if it were the administration it self calling it the new administration as I shew in my Apology sect 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant which is either non-sense or at least inâ—ptly spoken 2. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the outward or inward Covenant The latter I presume they will not say for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therin regenerarion remission of sins and if so then it administers them in a natural way and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato or in a moral way but baptism can administer regeneration remission of sins c. no other moral way but by assuring or perswading or the like what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy nor to any but the elect now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such then it is not baptism but to such if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is except they mean the outward administration which is no other then baptism as I shew Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say that baptism is the administration or appointed for the administration of baptism 3. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God or Gods promise to the baptized If the former then it is no more but this that baptism is the administration that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christs disciple which is indeed the best sense of it but then it will not fit them for so it is not in infants for they signifie no profession or engagement of theirs by it If the later then by baptism God doth promise man but that 's not true his promise is in the Word before baptism or he signifies his promise formerly made this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others either baptized or unbaptized as the then baptized and not at all of use or avail to infants who cannot apprehend the signification or he assures the benefits of the Covenant and that can be only to elect or true believers or that he contains them by it and so it gives grace ex opere operato 4. The Covenant of grace is I take it the Covenant of saving grace opposite to the Covenant of works the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law Gal 3.18 This covenant was made mixtly Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. purely Heb. 8.10 11 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one or the other or both The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision and to seal the same Covenant that it did But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan and greatness in it But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed so Mr. Geree here we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed But if so 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did and so succeeds not in it's use nor is there a reason given but their own conceit why it should seal one part and not another 2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant then it administers not this promise that God will be a God to a believer and his natural seed as such For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found Gen. 17.7 3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16 But this is not administred by baptism which signifies Christ already come 4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abrahams seed by faith Gal. 3.29 Rom. 4.11 12. But they are only the elect Rom. 9.7 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant onely to elect persons and true Believers 5. There 's ambiguity also in the term the Gospel covenant is extended The Gospel covenant is The just shall live by faith that God will be a God to Abrahams seed by faith But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant which is but a fiction that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile 6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onely to the Elect onely it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary But he shews no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise sure such a construction was unknown to Paul Rom. 9.6 7 8. when he expounded that very promise Gen. 17.7 nor doth such a construction agree with the words sith when God saith I will be a God to thee and thy seed the meaning according to M. Geree should then be I will be a God to thee that is every believer and to thy seed that is every believers natural seed which are
ye see and heare Acts 2.33 to you and your children and all that are afar off that is for their benefit by moving them to own Christ. But me thinks if the promise were meant of that gift it should be meant thus The promise is to you that is God hath promised to give to each of you c. this gift of the holy Ghost because the words immediately before v. 38. are and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost But thus the proposition should not be true For all afar off who were called of God had not that gift and therefore it was not promised them Nor had this sense been so fit as to comfort them sith that gift might be given and was to persons whom God rejected As for the other exposition that the promise is that God will be a God to them and their children as to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 it cannot be the promise meant Acts 2.39 For 1. there is not the least intimation in the text of that promise 2. There was no such promise in all the Scripture that God would be a God to those to whom Peter then spake and to their children as their children no nor such a promise as this I will be a God to a believer and his seed For if this promise were made to the seed of every believer then either God keepes it or not If not then he breaks his word if he do then he is a God to them But that is not true For neither in saving graces nor in Ecclesiastical priviledges v.g. Church-membership and baptism is God a God to every one that is the seed or natural child of a believer Yet if it were true it had been false being spoken to those Jewes who were not then believers nor perhaps many of them evet believers in Christ. And it is most false that the Christian Church-membership and baptism did belong to the Jews as Jews by vertue of any covenant made with that nation For then John Baptist did ill to expostulate with them for coming to his baptism Matth. 3.7 and to disswade them from alleging they had Abraham to their father v. 9. and to tell them of another sort of children of Abraham that had more right to it then they Yea John the Baptist and the Apostles did ill to require personal repentance and believing if they had right to such priviledges by a promise without them Nor is the promise said to be to any children but those that are called of God and therefore not to infants uncalled and consequently this Scripture is very ill applyed to prove federall holyness of believers infants Master Cobbet addes Secondly it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent But let it be considered 1. That the Apostle doth not say the promise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the Fathers with respect unto them or in reference to Christ who was not now to come but already come as the Apostle proveth from v. 3 to 37. Nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled to express it thus in the present tense the promise is to you or to such and such but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same for which let Rom. 15.8 1 John 2.25 Ephes. 3.6 Nehe. 9.8 23. 2 Chron. 6.15 1 Kings 8.56 Acts 2.16 17 33. and 13.32 33. Josh. 21.45 and 23.14 Matth. 1.22 23. and 21.4 Luke 1.54 55 68 69. and Psal. 111.9 Rom. 11.26 27. be considered Ans. 1. How the verb substantive is in the present tense and the promise referred to Christ who was now come agrees with the words and scope of the Apostle is already shewed And my sense is like or the same with Master Ms. when he said in his Sermon pa. 17. The plain strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed and the new Annot. in Locum The promise is to you Christ is promised both to Jewes and Gentiles But the Jewes had the first place Which is agreeable to the speeches of Mary Luke 1.54 55. and of Zacharias v. 68 69 71 72 73 74 75. 2. It is true that the expression in that manner is not usual and it is confessed that in the places cited and many more the fulfilling of a promise is otherwise expressed But what then doth it follow that is not the meaning which I give If it did by the same reason neither Master Cobbets is right For it is usual to express a promise belonging to some of a thing yet to be done in some other expressions as 1 John 2.25 2 Pet. 1.4 yea in the place Rom. 9.4 of which Master Cobbet pa. 31. saith for the promise iâ— to you or belongs to you as Rom. 9.4 hath it the expression is not in the Dative case as Acts 2.39 but in the Genitive But it is needfull to consider how Master Cobbet himself expounds the words Sect. 1. He saith thus The promise is to your children not was to you c. as intending any legal blessing but a promise then in force after Christs ascension to effect some promised blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used to signify the free promise or covenant of grace to which they had visible right Sect. 3. remission of sins may not be excluded but must be one principal thing intended It is that promise to which baptism the seal is annexed Sect. 4. Nor was Abrahams charter less then what here avowed by the Apostle Scil. that the promise even of sins did belong to the Jewes and to their children in respect of external right and administration and no more is pleaded for But repent and be baptized de futuro for the promise in praesenti is to you Scil. in respect of external right Sect. 7. And this promise here mentioned Acts 2.38 39. containing in it remission of sins and so the righteousness of faith The promise of remission of sins is or belongeth to you Scil. in the external right and administration of it So then according to Master Cobbets exposition the promise meant is remission of sins and of this it is said that it is not it was to them and the manner how is that it is to them or it belongs to them in â—he external right and administration of it The promise or covenant he means here belonging to them to be Abrahams charter Gen. 17.7 Jerem. 31.33 34. holding out at least an external interest therein to them being Jewes not yet believing Fathers or repenting for that is rather mentioned as exerted after many words besides v. 40 41. yea rather they were offensive members of the Jewish Church which was then a true visible Gospel-Church they were as persons under censure though they had jus ad baptismum yet not jus in baptismo without repentance yet they were covenant-Fathers and dispensers of the external right of it to their children though their children were not
promise to which baptism the seal is annexed now the seal is ever to the covenant which is not barely to Christs being sent in the flesh but to benefits contained in promises by his coming Ans. Had Master Cobbet heeded my words in my Exam. pag. 60. And was it not a comfortable Argument for men in that case to be told that notwithstanding all this the promise of Christ and remission of sins by him was yet to them and their children c. And pag. 61. The promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children and to all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall call that they might be turned from their iniquity and baptized in his Name for the remission of their sins these objections had been spared they proceeding all against me upon this mistake which my words heeded might have rectifyed as if I had expounded the promise Acts 2.39 of Christs being sent and coming without some promise annexed and particularly that of remission of sins by Christ Whereas I did expresly include it in my paraphrase as my words recited shew gathering it from the mention of it v. 38. and conceiving it to be implyed in the expression to you v. 39. that is for your benefit by remission of your sins And therefore these three objections are answered by shewing how according to my exposition the promise of Christ sent includes also the benefit of remission of sins But on the contrary all these objections are against Master Cobbets own exposition For 1. It had been but cold comfort to tell them of a promise of remission of sins onely in external right and administration 2. It had not been available for their reviving healing succour and support 3. According to Paedobaptists suppositions baptism is not a seal of that covenant in which remission of sins in external right and administration onely is promised but as it is in the Directory it is a 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 eternal Therefore the promise Acts 2.39 according to Master Cobbets own arguments and Paedobaptists hypotheses is not of remission of sins onely in exâ—â—rnal right and administration Master Cobbets third exception Sect. 3. about those afar off whether Israelites in the dispâ—rsion or in after ages or the Gentiles be meant hath been considered before But whereas he saith The Apostles afore Peter Sermon Acts 10. knew by Christs declaration of his minde to all his Apostles touching the discipling and inchuâ—ching of the Gentiles the conversion of them onely they knew not whether it might be by joyning them first by way of addition as proselytes to the Jewes rather then by gathering them into other distinct Churches his speech is not right For 1. Though it is true Christ had declared his minde Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 about conversion of the Gentiles yet either Peter understood not Christs minde or did not remember it afore the vision Acts 10.2 It is apparent from Acts 11.3 that the exception against Peter was not for that he had gathered Cornelius and his company into a distinct Church and not joyned them as Proselytes to the Jewes but that he went in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them which shâ—wes they held it unlawfull so much as to preach and converse with any uncircumcised though he were a proselyte of the gate as Cornelius appears to have been As for not joyning the Gentiles as proselytes to the Jewes they knew that well enough that they were not to be so joyned sith neither John the Baptist nor Christ or his Disciples did ever by baptism joyn any as proselytes to the Jewes but did take even the Jewes themselves who embraced their Doctrine into distinct Churches or Schooles though they did not erect any new political States or Common-wealths as the nation of the Jewes was Master Cobbet further excepts against me in these words 4. It 's affirmed that this promised of sending Christ was to them their children and those afar off as many as our God should call that they may be turned from their iniquity and be baptized for remission of sins and yet also that the promise what ever it be supposed to be was to them all with that limitation that they repent or that they be called What is it to as many as the Lord shall call or convert or cause to repent and yet is it that they may be turned from their iniquity is it to persons called and yet also to uncalled persons is it to them that they may be called yet the persons to whom the promise is are as many as are supposed to be called how can these two be right yea it is to them all upon condition that they be called and yet also that it is to them that they may be called Why if it be to them that by Christ they may be called then is that promise to persons as yet uncalled and their calling is an effect following their interest in that promise as a cause and not preceding their interest in the promise as a condition Ans. the promise is of sending of Christ for remission of sins their calling is a consequent of Christs being sent who was sent to turn them from iniquity that is to call them and this calling was for a further benefit remission of sins through Christ sent and so their calling is a condition of the remission of sins by Christ sent nor is the promise of remission of sins by Christ sent to any but those who are called The calling is a consequent to Christs sending as a prior benefit and an antecedent to remission of sins as a subsequent And thus the knot Master Cobbet conceives is easily loosed SECT XXIII The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between covenant-interest and baptism-right and infant-baptism are vindicated from Master Cobbets answers THere are other passages in the following Sections on which I animadvert Sect. 4. he saith Acts 2. he doth not intend it thus your children i. e. Abrahams children for Abraham is considered rather by him as a patern having the precedential Copy of the Covenant mentioned And it had been incongruous to have said It is to your children that is to Abrahams children Concerning which passage I say that though I conceive it a mistake to understand by your children Abrahams children yet Master Cobbets words intimate sundry things which are liable to animadversions 1. The promise Acts 2.39 is supposed by others and by Master Cobbet Sect. 7. to be that Gen 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee but this was the covenant it self and not a precedential Copy of the covenant mentioned I think Master Cobbet cannot shew any other after Copy in which God promised to be the God of a believer and his seed which it is confessed he did to
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
true believers are termed the Circumcision in opposition to the Judaizing Teachers termed befor v. 2. the concision by a figure of speech termed Eutelism or slighting them in that in which they gloried and they are termed the Circumcision because they were truly circumcised before God in heart and were his people And the Jews 1 Cor. 12.13 are said to be baptized no otherwise then the Gentiles who believed who were not circumcised in the flesh and therefore could not be termed baptized because circumcised but Christian believers whether Jews or Greeks bond or free are all said to be baptized and to be made to drink because they were baptized with water and did partake of the Lords Supper as 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr. C. adds more of these toys Hence first instituted for a seal to the circumcised Jews to shew it was in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to them but the same with circumcision in a manner onely as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ as to come this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come that was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith or that whereon his faith acted to righteousness of justification Rom. 4.11 even the promise of grace in Christ Rom. 10.6 7. with Deut. 30.14 Wherein 1. he dictates without any pretence of proof that Baptism was first instituted to the Jews to shew that which he says nor is there the least intimation thereof in Scripture 2. He seems to me to unsay by his limitation in a manner what he said before it was the same in the essentials For that which is the same in the essentials is altogether the same and not in a manner 3. It is false that baptism was the same in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to the Jews with circumcision For it was as much in the essentials of sealing Abrahams Covenant to the Jews if I may use Mr. Cs. gibberish that Circumcision sealed the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 9 10 c. as that it sealed Christ to come but surely Baptism never sealed the promise of the land of Canaan 4 That which I find of the seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 is meant of Abrahams personal Circumcision and of no other and therefore is inepâ—ly applied to prove sameness of sealing of others Circumcision and Baptism 5. I conceive it somewhat inconsiderately said that Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith which would impâ—y that it assured that Abraham faith was righteous whereaâ— the meaning is that it assured that Abraham had righteousness by faith before he was circumcised as v. 10. he had asserted 6. The other explication is worse for it iâ—timates as if the Apostle meant that the righâ—eouâ—ness of faith ascribed to Abraham is to termed as that whereon his faith aâ—ted to righteousness of justification even the promise of gâ—ace in Christ whereas the meaning is not that it sealed the righteousness he was to obtain by acting faâ—th in a promise but that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had many years before he was circumcised Mr. C. goes on in the same vâ—in of dictating thus Hence when Christ is called the minister of circumcision it is thus explained by the end of the sign administred â—cil to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers Rom 15.8 Act. 7.8 Gen. 17. â—1 Which speech seems to intimate as if Christ were termed the minister of circumcision as if he did minister Circumcision to that end to confirm the promises But that is too absurd for such a man to vent sith he ministrâ—d â—ircumcision to none and the meaning is plain that he was the minister of circumcision that is of the circumcised jews among whoâ—â—he preached and lived as Peter is said Gal. 2.8 to have had the Apostleshâ— of the circumcision that is of the circumâ—ised Jews And in this sense â—eza Willet Diodati the new Annot. Dicson Piscator c. expound it Now this being promised it is eaâ—â—e to percâ—ive how iâ—perâ—inently this â—ext wâ—ich mentions not at all Baptism nor any use of Circumcision at all but onely the end of Christs ministery among the circumcised is alledged to prove that Baptism agâ—ees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal The Texts Act. 7.8 Gen 17 1â— aâ—eas little tâ— the purpose there bâ—ing no mention of Baptism and they onely proving what is not denied that Circumcision was the token of Abrahamsâ—ovenant â—ovenant As little is that wâ—ich follows Hence the promise premised and then Baptism annexed as the seal Act. 2.38 For neither is it proved that the promise there is the same with Abrahams Covenant and how piâ—â—ifully Mr. C. mistakes the meaning of it is shewed before sect 22 23. nor a word about Baptism as a seal annexâ—d to the pâ—omise but an exhortation to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and â—ssurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost which are annexed to repentance as much as to baptism What he adds Hence that washing annexed to the word Ephes. 5.25 26. But that the word there is the word of promise much less of Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17 or that it is mentioned as sealed by Baptism or thaâ— therein it agrees with Circumcision is not proved The word is the Gospel preached by which men are made believers and then baptized and so purified as Act. 15.9 Tit. 3.5 Act. 20.32 26.18 Job 3.15 17.17 c. Nor is it any more pertinent which follows 2. Saith he Itâ—s a baptizing in the name or covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit he having exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Wherein 1. he seems to expound baptizing Matth. 28.19 into the name of the Father Son and Spirit thus into the Covenant-fellowship which is somewhat strange there being neither there nor elsewhere where the like phrase is used any mention of Covenant or Covenant fellowship and his arguing God hath exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Ergo baptizing is in the name and Covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit is a baculo ad angulum 2. But were his exposition allowed yet what this is to prove that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or any other Covenant I am yet to divine Is baptizing all one with sealing is Covenant-fellowship all one with the Covenant 3. Saith he It 's a seal of the remission of sins and therefore of the promise tendering the same hence joyned Act. 2.38 39. Act. 22. But neither is the promise there joyned as a thing sealed by Baptism but as a motive to the duties of Repentance and Baptism nor is the remission of sins mentioned as sealed by Baptism but as a consequent obtained by Repentance and Baptism as conditions pre-required thereto nor is a seal of remission of sins all one with a seal of the Covenant 4. Saith he The
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
part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized pag. 710. arg 4. we must baptize none that profess not their consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of grace with God in Christ p. 79. arg 5. we must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins the rest have speeches to like purpose in which though he puts in sometimes and their seed yet his proofs do all overthrow that his own addition and tear off his patch which he hath printed to his argumenâ— and as fully militate against his book of baptism as Mr. Blakes tenet so that to me it seems that by Divine providence without his intention una eademque manus vulnus opemque tulit Nor do I think but that if conscientious Christians chiefly Schollers would read over that second disputation they would be satisfied that infants ought not to be baptized but themselves and that Mr. Baxter hath cheated the world by his book of baptism and shewed himself therein an inconsiderate writer But however this fall out it is a great rejoycing to my soul that God hath so long preserved my life and strength though now declining to finish this part of the Review also and to see that part of it printed which is in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument in his book of baptism about his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership and its repeal which some have given out as unanswerable because this answer hath been so long in publishing not considering that besides the not knowing of his minde about it till 1655. I have been necessitated to answer many others and together with my constant labours some other employments extraordinary with domestick distractions necessity of respect to my bodily strength want of help of books in some points of learned men to whom I might have recourse of an amanuensis and chiefly the difficulty of getting it printed by reason of the great charge which this book amounts to and yet is not so readily put off as other smaller writings and such as sute more with the minde of Readers of whom few seem to search after truth impartially especially in controversies of this kinde In this which is done my witness is in heaven how faithfully and sincerely I have dealt which makes me slight the unrighteous censures of those Mr. Blake mentions of Mr. Baxter Mr. Firmin Mr. Gattaker Mr. Ford Mr. Crag and the rest And for Mr. John Goodwin who so much magnifies Mr. Baxters book I wish he and Mr. Horn his second would read this writing which I take to be a sufficient answer with the two fore-parts of this Review to what is said by Mr. Baxter and themselves in the point of Infant-baptism As for the point of Schism or Separation which Mr. Baxter and he charge Anabaptists with I take my self no further concerned then mine own fact which if they can prove to have been unbrotherly or unrighteous I hope God wil so frame my heart as to testifie my repentance if not I advise them to take heed of rash judging and all their followers of following them in that sin If the objection be still set on foot That those that are as they term us Anabaptists do fall into many false opinions prove Quakeâ—s c. I wish them better to examine reports of us then Mr. Farmer Mr. Breton and others have done of me afore they spread them and to look into the state of the societies of their own judgement who if they be not guilty of such fallings I shall rejoyce with them and hope they will learn to pitty and endeavour to restore those who are fallen in the spirit of meekness if they be that they will remember that it should be no more objected to us then to themselves For my own part I hope I shall not abet any such errour nor do I know of any such errours or miscarriages in the Churches to which I have associated which are not opposed and censured by us Nor do I think it equal we should be charged with that errour or miscarriage which we condemn And I make bold to admonish Paedobaptists in the Lord that they take heed of those practises which tend to the disquieting defaming hindering their brethren in the work of Christ because of the supposed errour as they term it of Anabaptism lest they happily fight against God and wrong their brethren remembring that he that doth wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done and there is no respect of persons with God Col. 3.25 And to the end they may search their own consciences and rightly judge of themselves I presume they may do well to lay to heart thâ—se following quâ—stions 1. Whether it be not a manifest perverting of the Gospel of Christ to maintain that the Covenant of Gospel grace is made to each beleever and his seed 2. Whether it be not against the Gospel to maintain that the command of Circumcision Gen. 17. doth any way bind Christian beleevers now in their practise 3. Whether it be nor against the Gospel to entitle pâ—rsons to the Church visible Christian by their natural generation of beleevers 4. Whether it be not a manifest will-worship to practise the positive Rite of Infant-Baptism as Gods worship which is confest to have neither precept nor example in the New Testament 5. Whether it be not a profanation of Baptism to use it otherwise then Christ appointed 6. Whether by justifying Infant Baptism the relinquishâ—ng of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies which have as much of reason tradition authority of the Church as it be not condemned 7. Whether it be not an oppression and exercising of dominion over mens consciences to tie them to acknowledge Sacraments to be in their nature seals of the Covenant of grace which the Scripture terms not so nor can be proved plainly from it and to impose on them the practise of Infant baptism under pain of guilt of sin which Christ never appoâ—ntâ—d 8. Whether it be not manifest hypocrisie to oppose the Cross Surplice c. and to be zealous for Infant baptism 9. Whether they who justifie Infant baptism and oppose baptism of Believers at age confessed to be according to the institution of Christ and primitive practise are not partial in Gods Law and may expect to be made contemptible before all the people 10. Whether they who do so do not break the solemn Covenant of endeavouring reformation according to Gods word 11. How they that say they baptize infants into the Name of Christ who sprinkle or powr onely some water on them without any profession of the infant can be acquitted from saying falsly 12. By what rule those who are acknowledged visible Church-members in infancy câ—n be denied the Lords Supper 13. Whether it be not a signe that Paedobaptism is not according to rule when there are so many
c. and restraining that promise in the Evangelical sense onely to the children of Abraham which were elect by God Nor is there a word Act. 2.39 to make it good in Master Drew's sense For 1. Master Drew proves not that the promise Act. 2.39 must needs be the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed His argument is It must needs relate to a former engagement to the Jews and therefore to that Gen. 17.7 But this is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative it relats to a former engagement therfore to this which Logicians deny to be good proof But saith he I know not what engagement this can have reference to if not unto the promise Gen. 17.7 I answer though he know not and so may be one of those that are blind and yet have eyes which he chargeth on his opposits yet others see other promises namely that to David of raising up Christ to sit on his throne mentioned Acts 2.30 or the promise of the Holy Gost mentioned V. 33. or the promise of blessing mentioned Acts 3.25 Any of which may be the Promise meant Acts 2.39 more probably then that Gen. 17.7 2. Where it is said The promise is to you if we either consider the scope of the Apostle or other parrallel texts Acts 3.26 Acts 13.32 33. the promise is is as much as to say the promise made to David Acts 2.30 or to Abarham Acts 3.25 is fulfilled in raising up Christ or the Promise of the spirit is fulfilled in the shedding forth of its gifts of which Promise mentioned V. 17.18 Piscator and others understand it and that for you that is for your good blessing and your children and all that are afarr off as many as the Lord our God shall call not as M. Drew means there is a promise of being a God to you and every one of your children continually to be fulfilled as soon as ever they are in being 3. It is false which M. Drew presupposeth as if the meaning were the Promise is to you that is the Promise of being your God is to you believers and to your children that is to all your Infant children as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles For 1. that speech is made to the Jews as M. Drews own words seem to import onely and their children and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is false that when it is said the Promise is to you the meaning is to you as believers For neither were they then believers as I prove in my Ample disquisit Sect 5. nor is it certain whether some of them were ever believers the occasion and scope seems to intimate rather that they were considered there as persons who had crucified Christ 3. Neither is it true that the Promise is to their children that is to their infant children as their children M. Gataker discept de bapt Infant vi 〈◊〉 pag. 12. saith thus To the obtaining the promise as well repentance as partaking of baptism at least in this place is exacted so that hence the promise of remission of sins cannot be proved to be made to Infants when they are entered by baptism unless also they repent 4 nor do I know how it can be true which M. Drew sayes in any sense for his purpose that God hath promised to every believing Gentile now to be the God of his seed as he did to Abraham by which he would expound the words Acts 23.9 the promise is to your children For in respect of spiritual blessings accompanying salvation it is not true every believers child is not elect in the Covenant of saving grace a child of the resurrection nor in respect of outward Ecclesiastical privileges Neither did God Promise Circumcision to every child of Abraham not to the males under 8. dayes old nor to the females nor hath it any colour to interpret I will be the God of thy seed that is they shall be circumcised much less that God promised to every Gentile believers child he should be Baptized or have right to Baptism sure not to professed unbelievers to abortives or still born Infants For my part with all M. Drews light I cannot understand how according to M. Drews exposition the promise Gen. 17.7 is inforce and applyable to believers under the Gospel as he saith Nor do I conceive it true which he ads If this stand good then the Command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good to For were it granted that it were true that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles yet there is not a word in that text or any other to prove that therefore every believers Infant child is to be baptized it being false that the Covenant of grace doth of it selfe intitle to Baptism as I have proved in my Examen part 3. S. 1. in my letter to M. Baile or Additions to my Appology Sect. 3. in the Ample disquisition Sect. 5. where also it is proved that though the promise Acts 2.39 be alleged why they should be baptized V. 38. yet not as the reason of their right to Baptism as M. Drew makes it but as a motive encouraging them to it as their duty and in performing of it first to move then to repent and then to be baptized The reason is not as M. Drew makes it The promise is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized and the minister ought to do it to you and your Infants but this the promise is to you and your children therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins nor is there a word in the text or elsewhere to prove that dictate of M. Drew God will own believers children therefore he will have them markt for his even in infancy by baptism more truely saith M. Gataker discept Infant de bapt infant vi Eâ—fâ—c pag. 9. Acts 2.38 39. is nothing found concerning Infants to be baptized In that they are Commanded to repent and to be baptized unto the remission of sins it is altogether like to that saying of the Lord Christ he that believeth and shall be baptized shall attain salvation Matth. 16.16 But M. Drew thinks to take off the exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth priviledge of believers children under the Gospel The first exception is that the promise is of extraordinary gifts of the spirit and he answers This doth not sute with the promise made Gen. 17.7 which was to be performed to Abrahams children and yet they had not those gifts But 1. this Answer goes upon his mistake that the promise Acts 2.39 must be that Gen. 17.7 2. he supposeth that the
this Review in the ten first Sections that I think it unnecessary to say any more to what Master Drew here speaks And for what he saith If believers Infants were taken in under the legal administration and left out in the Gospel-administration the covenant dispensation under the Gospel is more uncomfortable thâ—n that under the Law it is but a vain speech as if the circumcision of Infants were such a matter of comfort that the having of no priveledge under the Gospel did recompense the loss of it without Infant-baptism as if Infant-baptism were of so great comfort to parents that without it other comfort concerning their children were nullified whereas these things arise upon mistakes as if Baptism were administred according to a persons interest in the covenant and circumcision was so and that the denying Infants Baptism is putting them out of Covenant which is but ungrounded talk as shall be further shewed in that which follows Yea when the Paedobaptists answer the Papists who would have the work of outward Baptism to take away original sin from the Infant-baptized they say onely that it seals the covenant but doth not seal the fruit of the covenant but upon condition of Faith and Repentance so that the Infant hath no benefit by the covenant or the seal without Faith or Election and so much benefit hath any unbeliever or his Infant yea the unbeliever hath more advantage then the Infant for the unbeliever hath the moral use of the sealing of any baptized person which the Infant hath not When they talk of the covenant to Infants of believers they say it is but condicionally that they do believe that God will be their God and in the same manner the covenant belongs to all men in the world to unbelievers and their Infants and when they speak of the benefit of Baptism they say it onely seals the covenant not the persons partaking the fruit of it excepting he be an elect person dying in Infancy which yet he may have without the seal till he believe yet he hath not the moral use and comfort of it till he understand and believe at which time the Baptism in Infancy is altogether unknown to him So that indeed the comfort which Paedobaptists give to parents is either the same I give without Infant-baptism or if parents did examin it it would be found delusory What Master Drew speaks about Baptisms succession to circumsion and his imagined full proof from thence for Infant-baptism I shall put off till I review the Dispute about Master Ms. third Concl. This is enough to satisfie that Master Drew's reasons are blunt and not sharp as was supposed SECT VI. The Arguments of Master Josias Church in his Divine warrant for Infant-baptism from their being judged in the promise is answered THere is another writing of Master Josiah Church intituled The Divine warrant of Infant-baptism of which I passed a censure in the first part of this Review Sect. 21. and I might let it pass being as the commanders of it say Dogmatical rather then Polemical and leave it to those that affect such superficial writings Yet because Master Roberts and Master Geree have commended it and Master Baxter pag. 6. of his Plain Scripture proof puts it among the chief books of which he saith If any of the men of Bewdly have taken up the union of Antipaedobaptism and have not read and studied him with others and been able to confute them he hath discovered a seared conscience which is a most unreasonable and uncharitable censure to shew the folly and vanity of Master Baxters and others conceit I shall give the Reader some taste of his overly handling the point His first Argument is thus The Infants of Christians are righty judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they may be Baptized To it I answer 1. The antecedent is ambiguous not expressing what propriety in God he means whether of justification regeneration and salvation or of outward protection prosperity among men or Ecclesiastical privilege nor where that promise is which he calls promise of propriety in God nor whether he means it of all Infants of Christians or some and if of some of which he means it and of which not nor of what sort of Christians whether such as are Christians onely by profession or really such in Gods account nor with what judgement he means whether of charity or verity probably or certainty nor upon what evidence they are with any of these sorts of judgement rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God So that I finde nothing but Sophistry in this dispensation the antecedent being perhaps true in some sense in some false and therefore it is but wast labour to refute it or answer his proofs till that he distinctly set down what he asserts and how his proofs suite with his assertion Yet I shall cast away some animadversions on this writing least my silence be disadvantage to the cause I maintain That which I conceive he means is this All the Infants of Christians by visible profession are rightly judged by a judgement of charity though not of certainty to be included in the promise of propriety in God in regard of eternal adoption and priviledge expressed in those words Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed therefore they may be Baptized Of which Argument I deny both the antecedent and the consequence The antecedent he takes upon him to prove by ten Arguments 1. The Infants of the Jews so long as they continued visible professors were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God for it was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors Gen. 17.7 12. Ergo Answ. Did not Master Church affect new phrasifying which serves onely to puzzle in plain words he had said To the Jews Infants· the promise was made of being God to them therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly to be in that promise Of which neither is the antecedent true universally taken but contradicted by Paul Rom. 9.7 8. where he expresly denies the promise I will be the God of thy seed to be true of Abrahams natural seed universally taken Nor if it had been true doth it follow that what was promised to Abrahams seed is true of every true Believers muchless of the seed of every meer visible professor of Christian faith who are neithet themselves nor their children in any Scripture sense Abrahams seed nor is the proof of any weight That the promise of propriety in God was sealed to the Jews Infants by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors therefore the Jews Infant were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God For this reason in plain terms is no more then this the Jews Infants were to be circumcised Ergo they were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God that is that God would be their God which rests upon
a bird in a net seeking some evation from this objection though all in vain He tels us they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake Acts 2.8 11. and not all Jews for they were of divers languages and that they were adulti But what is this to the avoyding the objection that notwithstanding it is said the promise is to you yet they were not intitled to baptism without repentance He then discourseth that repentance was in them onely in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostle accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them For in that distance from his preaching and their baptizing so many could not have repentance visible by its fruits and discernable and thence would gather if such hainous sinners were baptized upon probability of repentance therefore Infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance To which I reply 1. It is expressly said ver 41. they that gladly received the word were baptized therefore there were visible fruits of repentance and faith discerned by the Apostles and other Disciples who were many and could confer with them in that space of time and baptize them in that day though their conversion was easily discernable without distinct conference with each 2. His argument is not worth a rush notwithstanding Cyprians words to back it to prove infant-Infant-baptism For it goes upon this frivolous supposition that Infants because they have no actual sin may be baptized though they shew no repentance much rather then hainous and great transgressors upon probability of repentance As if lesser sinners might be baptized upon no testimony of repentance because greater sinners are baptized upon probability of repentance which if true the more civil and orderly persons though pharisaically minded as if they needed no repentance have much more right to baptism then publicans confessing their sins because but probably penitent 3. All this is nothing to answer the objection but to strengthen it that notwithstanding the promise was to them yet they were not to be baptized till their repentance either in facto esse or in fieri either visible in fruits or at least probably conceived of which neither is to be said of Infants Yet Mr. Church is not ashamed to conclude thus Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Appostle for baptism whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired and that if any disable the reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their converts wheras he that disables the inference from being rightly judged in the promise to right of baptism doth vindicate the Apostle from weakness which paedobaptists do by their exposition and inference thence blemish him with and cast the blame of weakness onely on Mr. Church and such inconsiderate expounders and disputers as he is I had not thought to have said so much of so poor a piece as that book is yet lest any say it is not answered I add SECT IX Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to be of the visible Church Christian. HIs second Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized To which I say His words are ambiguous it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the visible or invisible Church of all infants of Christians or some but conceiving it meant of all and of the visible Church of Christians I deny the Antecedent And for his ten Arguments not one proveth it The Medium of the first is the Antecedent of the former Argument to which I have answered before denying that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God expressed Gen. 17.7 in those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But I deny the consequence also that if it were true that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the visible Church nor is it proved by that which he allegeth For they onely are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel which are strangers from the covenant Ephes. 2.12 For if it did prove that all that are strangers from the covenant of Promise are aliens from the visible Church of Christians yet it proves not that all who are in the covenant are in the visible Church but the very truth is neither the one nor the other is proved from that place for this only is asserted there that the Ephesians who were Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands no Proselytes were in the time of their infidelity Idol-service then without the policy of Israel and the covenants of Promise but it doth not follow that every one that was then uncircumcised in the flesh and out of the policy of Israel meaning the outward policy was stranger from the Promise of Propriety in God meaning of it of saving Propriety for Cornelius Acts 10. was a stranger from the policy of Israel being no citizen but unclean as being a Gentile uncircumcised yet then he feared God God heard his prayers accepted his alms c. much less now that every one that is rightly judged to be in the Promise of Propriety in God is of the visible Church or every one that is rightly judged of the visible Church is rightly judged to have the Promise of Propriety in God His next Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his children In the old world some were called the sons of God as children of his people Gen. 6.2 3. And the infants of the Israelites were called by him his children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21. and their lawfull seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age untill the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they shall be converted and of the Jews when they shall be grafted in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his handmaid therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Answ. Not one of these Texts proves the Church-membership of Christians infants The term Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3. is attributed to persons before the Floud and those not infants but such as took them wives of all that they chose which could not be said of infants nor are they said to be Sons of God because children of believers but because they professed the true worship of God Dei filios professione Christ. Cartwright Eborac Annot. in locum Such as descending from Seth and Enoch professed the true worship of the true God New Annot. I omit the opinions of Josephus Aquila and many of the Ancients recited by Mr. Gataker against Pfochenius cap. 13. and
meant of being without the city or heavenly Jerusalem vers 14. and Dogs there are ranked with Sorcerers and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters and such like neither of which needs be said of infants though we say they are not visible members in the Christian Church and that they are not yet believers Christ an infant was head of the Church yet visibly he appeared not the head of the Church till he was manifested to be so Infants may be members of Christ the head invisibly but not visibly till they shew faith SECT X. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship entitles them not to Baptism IN the third Argument is not much more than was said before and is answered Jews infants were meet for circumcision because of the command to them ours not meet for Baptism because we have no command or example it is true Matth. 18.22 A little childe is made a Pattern to those that are saved in respect of humility or freedom from ambition but it doth not thence follow that this meer negation of ambition doth qualifie them for Baptism unto which actual Discipleship or Profession is ordinarily necessary Christ admittted to him and blessed little children Mark 10.13 but did not appoint to baptize them which it is likely he would if he had judged them meet for it If Parents may enter into covenant for their children and dedicate them by solemn vow as Hannah did of which there is cause of doubt whether now it is to be done as then yet it follows not they are to be baptized sith Baptism is to be the persons own engagement not anothers for him yea if this reason be good each Parent may baptize its own childe though a woman sith Hannah could dedicate her childe by vow to God If Israel be holiness to the Lord Jer. 2.3 yet it follows not believing Gentiles infants are meet for Baptism Joel 2.16 the children that suck the breast are required to fast if this prove them meet for Baptism by like reason should the Ninivites children and cattle be meet too Jonah 3.5 7 8. The Psalmist was cast on God from his mothers belly Psal. 22.10 not by dedication to God but by special providence as vers 9. shews Infants of Christians it is rightly judged may have in them the principal things signified by Baptism but not that they have them till they shew it If Mr. Church could make it good that God undertakes for what is wanting in the infants of his people through infancy as he doth for what is wanting in his people through infirmity he should say somewhat to purpose but I am out of hope to finde any good proofs from him but trifling dictates and impertinent allegations Psalm 119.122 is a Prayer wherein the Psalmist prays God to be surety for him for good that is says the New Annot. to put himself between him and his enemies as if he were his Pledg it is no undertaking he will and if it be it is nothing for his infants surely not to supply what is wanting in them by reason of infancy for Baptism He will circumcise the hearts of his peoples children Deut. 30.6 but this is meant of their elect children onely and not necessarily to be performed in infancy Christs promise Matth. 18.19 is upon condition of agreement by two or three to ask in his Name nor is it said for them and theirs however not without subordination to his secret purpose and other limitations That of Isai 22.24 is rightly expounded in the New Annot. by learned Mr. Gataker All his kindred and allies with their issue as well small as great shall partake of Eliakims honour in one imployment or other so that this with the other Texts might as well prove a man in the Moon as that which Mr. Church infers Therefore such infants are judged meet for Baptism His next that Christians infants have righteousness by imputation Rom. 5.19 as they have guilt by imputation is true onely of the elect but makes them not meet for Baptism till they are called What he says Shews of grace are not necessary to the judging infants of Christians meet for Baptism is said without proof the contrary is proved before All his Reasons he brings to prove it serve as well to prove them not necessary that a person be judged meet for the Lords Supper Infants may be rightly judged to have original sin in them without shews because the Scripture says so but tells us of none meet for Baptism but disciples and believers The Israelites infants did as much eat the Lords Supper as were baptized 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. If the Text proves the one it proves the other Baptism is called Baptism unto repentance Matth. 3.11 as well as Baptism of repentance It is well it is confessed that Johns Baptism was called the Baptism of repentance but it is true also that it is often so called Mark 1.4 Luke 3.3 Acts 13.24 19.4 and but once unto repentance and it might have been observed which Beza notes on Matth. 3.11 that it might be there read at repentance or when they repent as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 12.41 is rendered at the preaching of Jonah however if it be read unto repentance the meaning is to the same effect that when he baptized them they professed repentance for the present and for the future In answer to the Objection infants by like reason should have the Lords Supper he tells us that the ceremonies are different in the one the person is to be active in the other passive but the Scripture says not so but requires Baptism as a duty and thereto profession of faith as a prerequisite He saith Baptism is the Sacrament of entrance into the church the other of progress but this proves the rather that infants should have the Lords Supper sith they are to grow and make progress after their entrance What he saith it cannot be given to infants is false for they can take Bread and Wine and it was given them six hundred years together as many both Protestants and Papists confess What he saith Argument 4. pag. 30. Sealing the covenant by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people aforetime was not peculiar to that church-state is manifestly false for that sealing was no other than circumcision which if it were not proper to the Jewish Church-state nothing was It is frivolous which Mr. Church says The commission to baptize must be expounded by the command to circumcise What is said about the antiquity of infant-baptism is elsewhere answered Exam. part 1. Apol. Sect. 15 16. Praecursor Sect. 3. Dionysius Areopagita is a spurious Authour as whole Juries of Protestants and Papists confess Salmasius saith in his Letter to Colvius pag. 179. that he is no elder than the fith age pag. 441. it is certain that he wrote about the fith age There 's plainer proof for Episcopacy being in use nearer the Apostles days than for Paedobaptism it is no
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as many as is a limitting term appropriating the thing said to those subjects forenamed who were so qualified as to be called by the Lord. Thirdly which was the prime inducement I conceived the speech of Peter had not been true without that limitation And this I long since told Master M. in my Exam. part 3. Sect. 6. pag. 60. If the promise be of saving graces if of Christ sent if of the outward ordinances of baptism c. if of the Holy Ghost in extraordinary gifts it is none of these wayes true without that limitation For neither God promised saving graces nor outward ordinances nor extraordinary gifts nor sent Christ to them their children or all that are afar off without calling them and every of them And but that Master Bls. Master Bs. and such like wonderers heedlesness and peevishness are no strange thing to me I should wonder that Master Blake should no better heed my words in my Examen nor Diodati his words who he saith fully pitches upon the true sense of it which in his Annot. on Acts. 2.39 are these shall call namely by his Gospel So he doth restrain the Israelites to whom the promises are directed onely to those who by Gods gift believe in Christ see Rom. 9.8 Gal. 4.28 which had Master Blake faithfully set down in stead of some other words I find in him his Reader might have discerned how false it is that the promise is to an infant child of a believer as his child without calling and have discerned that it is not my device onely but that which others before me apprehended and so no more boldness in my dealing with the Scriptures then was meet and the Apostles words to have this plain sense the promise is to you being called of God and to your children being called of God and to all afar off being called of God and to no other And to requite Master Blake I may more truly say It 's a wonder how it came into Master Blakes head to call this limitation an amplification For though the words to all that are afar off contain an amplification of the mercy either to the posterity of the Jewes or to those in the dispersion or to the Gentiles of which I will not now dispute yet the words as many as the Lord our God shall call are a plain limitation of his speech as I have proved But Master Blake addes of me 2. In that he saith this promise belongs to them not simply as Jewes but as called is a full contradiction A Jew uncalled at this time before the Kingdome was taken from them is as much as a convert unconverted or a Gentile disciple undiscipled In case he think to come off by limiting it to an effectuall call the Scripture by himself quoted doth evidently contradict it Christ came to give them that effectuall calling and not onely to those that were thus called Ans. Master Blakes charge of contradictions is as frivolous as his wonderment Master Blakes conceit of a calling into such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy is but a dream of his own for which he hath not one Scripture nor other proofe The calling is to communion with Christ and an effectuall calling else the proposition were not true nor is there any contradiction in any of the places by me quoted to this exposition the promise of Christ is fulfilled for the remission of your sins and your childrens and all that are afar off as many as the Lord our God shall effectually call and no other nor hath Master Blake shewed any For though Christ came to give effectual calling yet it is true also he came to give remission onely to those that were thus called nor is there any opposition much less contradiction in those speeches Master Blake goes on He yet said Peter doth exhort to repentance and baptism together and in the first place perswades to repentance then to baptism which shewes repentance to be in order before baptism To which he answers not by denying it but by giving a reason of it because they had crucified Christ c. To which I reply this grant shewes that they had not right to baptism without repentance though the promise were to them they were in the Church-state of the Jewes c. and consequently Master Blakes proposition false Those to whom the Covenant of promise appertains in his sense have a right to baptism What he addes And yet he shewes that they and their seed are under the promise of God and puts them into a way in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender in his present way of administration to be continued his people still in Covenant and that as is plainly enough signified that they might enjoy it in their former latitude to them and to their children that the Jewes even those that had not yet embraced Christ were not yet dispossest of the promise but stood as a people of God in visible covenant and their children in the sense in which Master Blake means is false and yet were it true it is against Master Blakes proposition sith notwithstanding this being in covenant yet were they not admitted or to be admitted to baptism without repentance He addes Master T. hath yet this evasion and saith the text speak◠not expresly of infants but of children indefinitely and if infants be not children we will be content that they be cast out of covenant and will hold no plea for their Church-membership and baptism Ans. As infants are children so are men and women of twenty or more years old and therefore the term children unless it be proved to be taken universally or particularly of infants the Covenant-state as they call it though we should grant such an estate there meant would not be thence concluded And yet infants were to be circumcised not simply because they were Abrahams seed nor because in Covenant but by reason of Gods command And though a woman and disciple be not Synonyma yet women being numbred among disciples it is an express example of womens coming together to break bread which mentions the disciples breaking bread nor was I at all put to it much less hard put to it when this came in for an answer For without this an answer was given before to the Argument and this was added as an over-plus and so was that which Master Blake nibbles at in that which followes I had said the text speaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all of whom we are but of the children of the Jews and therefore if that promise be extended to infants which doth not appear the promise is to be expounded so as to note something peculiar to the Jewes infants To this Master Blake thus saith If the Gospel held out any such transcending priviledges appertaining to the seed of the Jewes above the Gentiles Master T. may do well to produce a text for it otherwise we shall take
he speaks thus And he â—aies Arise and be baptized which are not Peters words Acts. 2.38 but the words of Ananias to Saul Acts. 22.16 My tenth exception was usually Paedobaptists in their paraphrases put not in any thing to answer repent v. 38. which is true though Master Stephens be alleged in my sixth exception as paraphrasing it by covenant for your selves and your children Master Blake grants the Apostle presseth to a duty and such as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers If so then he doth not infer a right to bapâ—ism barely from their interest in the promise What he saith right and duty very well stand together and that the Apostle fitly makes use of their interest as a motive I deny not It is true the Apostle mentioned more to whom the promise was then he then perswaded to repent for he mentions the promise as pertaining to the absent or unborn but he perswades none to be baptized but the penitent nor mentions any to whom the promise was but the called of God To my Argument from the precedency of repentance to baptism Acts. 2.38 against infant-baptism he answers as before ch 37. to which I have replyed before As for Master Stephens his paraphrase avowed by Master Blake as the Apostles meaning that if the Jewes who had crucified Christ would receive him as the particular Messiah the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation it is far from the Apostles minde For the Apostle doth not make the eontinuance of the promise as the benefit consequent on their receiving Christ and the receiving of Christ the condition of continuance of the promise but the being of the promise is alleged as a thing already existent nor is there any likelyhood that the Apostle Peter would urge them to so hard duties as repentance receiving Christ by so slender a reason as the continuance of the promise of visible Church-membership and baptism to them and their infant children yea the text it self shewes that the things by which he would perswade them to receive Christ were the assurance of remission of sins and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the alleging the promise v 39 is to take away the great objection against these great benefits from their crucifying of Christ and their imprecation on them and their children Matth. 27.25 If then Master Stephens build his word of command to baptize father and child on that paraphrase he builds on a foundation which will not hold Master Blake addes To this the word repent refers as may be made plain But what he means by this assertion I do not well understand it being ambiguous what he means by this whether the paraphrase of Master Stephens that the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation if they would receive Jesus as the particular Messiah or the word of command to baptize father and child and in like manner what kind of reference he means whether as a medium to prove it or as a motive to it If he mean the same with that which his allegations seem to tend to his meaning is that the promise of visible Church-state was to the Jewes as they had been formerly if they did receive Christ and the term repent refers to it as the motive Now though I grant that the promise Acts. 2.39 is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v 38. yet I deny such a promise to be meant v. 39. as Mr. Bl. and Mr. Stephens fancy Nor do any of Mr. Blakes allegatione prove it For Acts 3.25 doth not speak of such a covenant as Master Blake means but of that Evangelical covenant wherein God promised Christ and saving blessings by him Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant onely but also of the Prophets Now the Prophets there are the same with all the Prophets v. 24. and those Jewes to whom Peter spake were no otherwise their children then in that they had been raised up of and sent to that nation in their predecessors times and they are in like manner called children of the Covenant because they were the posterity of those ancestors specially Abraham to whom that Covenant was made But this doth not prove that they were then Gods visible people that the Covenant of visible Church-state did belong to them and their children or that such a covenant is meant Acts 2.39 What Master Blake allegeth from Matth. 8.12 Matth. 21.43 that they were in danger to be cast off doth prove rather the contrary thet the nation or body of the Jewish people who had rejected Christ were not in covenant with God and although those particular persons Acts 2.37 to whom Peter spake v. 38 39. were more awakened then others yet they could not be then said to be in the covenant of visible Church-state being not then believers in Christ. What Master Blake allegeth and infers from Matth. 21.31 32. Luke 7.29 30. I assent to but know not what it makeâ— for his purpose Yea me thinks his calling baptism to which Peter exhorted entrance into a new covenant-way crosseth Master Stephens paraphrase of continuing the same promise to them and their children In his third allegation he misreports me as if I excluded all consideration of right in the Jewes and their children from those words which are Acts 2.39 Whereas that which I said was this that from the promise Acts 2.39 what ever right be imported by it Peter doth not infer their being baptized as a right or privilege accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim but as a duty to which he perswades in a moral way What good interpretation I give of those words v. 39. suitable to Peters exhortation I have set down Exam. pag. 61. Review part 1. pag. 41. and elsewhere Master Blake if he could should have overthrown it Master Cobbets exception is answered in the next section Mr. Bl. hath been oft told that the children are mentioned Acts 2.39 because of the imprecation Matth. 27.25 That the words Acts 2.38 39. are carried in that way that interest in Covenant and Covenant-Seals in Mr. Bls sense formerly ran is supposed but not proved by him That the Jews yet persisting in their adherence to Moses not embracing Christ should be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptism is such a dotage as me thinks Master Blake should disclaim That the words of the text Acts 2.39 hold out such a covenant-right as Master Blake imagins in Scripture-language according to the grand charter of heaven I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is said but not proved by Master Blake Whether my exceptions against the Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38 39. or Master Blakes answers are frivolous shifts the intelligent Reader will perceive My Antipaedobaptism is enough to refute Master John Goodwins charge and my censure of his interpretations others have made good As for
called And herein is the difference between them and those afar off the Gentiles it is to the Jews actually to the Gentiles de praesenti onely intentionally till they be called of God which he understands not of an effectual saving call but calling into visible covenant and church-estate and then it belongs to their children as to the Jewes This I gather to be his meaning out of scattered passages Sect. 4 5 7. I shall 1. observe some things concerning the exposition in general 2. Clear my own exposition from objections 3. Make some animadversions on several passages in the latter Sections of this ch of Master Cobbet I observe that he brings no proof but his own saying that the promise is that Gen. 17.7 or that it belongs to any in external right or administration or that the Apostle meant the belonging of the promise to them in respect of external right and administration For to say it is the promise to which baptism seals is to prove an unknown thing by a more unknown sith baptism neither there nor elsewhere is termed the seal of the promise or covenant nor doth the Apostle mention baptism as sealing or administring the promise nor do I understand that there is any such thing as an external right and administration of the promise or by vertue of the promise but by vertue of the command And therefore I judge all this talk to be a parcel of gibberish which the Scripture yields no hint of but Paedobaptists have formed it from those leading errors that the nature of Sacraments is to be Seals of the covenant that the reason of a person being circumcised was interest in the covenant Gen. 17.7 that there is the same reason of baptism as of circumcision Besides I would know to what the right is and of what the administration is which he cals external and in what sense it is called external External he seems to make all one with quoad homines in foro Ecclesiae and the promise is of remission of sins the sense then is you have a right and administration of remission of sins in respect of men and in the Court of the Church A right is a title to a thing which a man may claim an administration is a serving or bringing in as when a Deacon gives money to the poor Gâ—hazi reacheth water to Elishah If there be sense in Master Cobbets exposition this should be the meaning You Jewes who crucified Christ and your children though neither yet believers nor repenting persons have a right and administration of the promise of remission of sins Gen. 17.7 though not in respect of God or the Court of heaven or your own consciences yet before or by men or in the Court of the Church so that you may claim absoluâ—ion from them and they do or ought to administer it to you by a sentence or baptism or some other way Which were to make the Apostles speak non-sense and impious falshood Non-sense the words bearing no such meaning according to the Scripture-use or other approved authors Falshood in that he should tell them they had such a right and administration as they had not and this impious sith it tends to harden them in impenitency and unbelief and to justify Preachers or Churches in an unrighteous sentence wherein remission of sins is pronounced to belong to persons impenitent and unbelieving in sensu composito while such The like may be said if the right be meant to visible Church-membership and baptism and administration of them the speech would be non-sense neither Scripture nor any Author at that time expressing these things by that which Peter spake Acts 2.39 and the speech were false they then having no right or administration of either and it had been impious to say so to them for it had tended to move them to assume that to them and to justify the yielding it to them which had been injuriously and profanely both arrogated and yielded to them Yet further what a ridiculous salve had this been to consciences so tortured with the sense of that most horrid act of killing Christ to tell them the promise of remission of sins was to them in respect of external right and administration before men or in the face of the Church though not before God or in their own consciences or that they had outward right and administration of visible Church-membership and baptism I may use his own words mutatis mutandis Sect. 6. They were not troubled for want of externall right and administration and to tell them of such right and administration was both impertinent and unsatisfactory and it could minister but little comfort to sin-sick soules to promise them such things which they might have and yet die in their sins Matth. 7.23 Besides it seems to be a contradiction to say the promise is to you de praesenti in respect of external right and administration and yet you have not jus in re and in like manner to say that the promise is to all afar off de praesenti in respect of external right and administration and yet it belongs not to them actually but intentionaly And whence hath Master Cobbet warrant to say that the promise belongs one way to the Jewes and another way to the Gentiles or that the promise belonged to the Jew and his child in respect of external right and administâ—ation though uncalled Lastly that I not grate any further on this soare where doth Master Cobbet find in Scripture any mention of Gods calling into visible covenant and Church-estate or how can it be true that the Church to which those Jewes who crucifyed Christ joyned containing the unbelieving Scribes and Pharisees and High Priests and the people of the Jewes consenting with them was a Gospel-Church visibly interested in the covenant oâ— grace the Subject of the Gospel and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church and that there was no other visible Church then that of the Jewes Credat Judaeus apella non ego But of these somewhat in the animadversions following Master Cobbet against my exposition writes further thus 2. They knew already to their cost that Christ indeed was sent amongst them and to be that Jesus or Saviour of his people from their sins Acts 2.36 37. compared with Matth 1.21 And this was cold comfort to them to tell them of that which wounded them unless there be withall some promise annexed and supposed in his being come The promise meerly of Christs coming could not comfort them unless also in and by Christ come in the flesh there be some promise made to them touching the removall of those burdens of guilt which lay upon them 3. The blessing principally propounded to them for their reviving healing succour and support it was not Christs sending nor his being sent but emission of sins v. 38. wherefore unless the Apostle argue impertinently this may not be excluded but must be one principall thing intended 4. It is that
externally in covenant and Church-estate also as being yet in the Olive and Kingdom of God and not cast out untill their unbelief or total and final rejection of the covenant as ratified in Jesus as that promised Messiah Rom. 11.20 to which the Jewes had not as yet come Ans. A Church of the Gospel is such a company as avoucheth the Gospel the Gospel was that Jesus was the Christ to the being in the Church of the Gospel it is not sufficient that there hath not been a total or final rejection of the covenant but it is necessary there be an explicit believing and owning of Christ John 8.24 To be a people so cast off as to have the offer of grace taken from them presupposeth such a rejection Acts 13.46 Mat. 21.43 But to be a Gospel-Church or member of a Gospel-Church requires more then a non-rejection to wit an express avouching of the Gospel Non-rejection doth not make a Gospel-Church or Church-member if it did the salvage Americans that never heard of the Gospel and so have not rejected it should be a Gospel-Church and Church-members Yet that Jewish Church of which the Jewes Acts 2.37 were of and those Jewes themselves had rejected Christ with much violence John 9.22 Acts 3.13 14 15. and therefore they could have no covenant or Church-right no not externally quoad homines from their standing in that Church by which they might have claimed admission into the Christian Church by baptism without repentance and faith in Christ no not though they were supposed to have been without any scandalous sin deserving excommunication or suspense from the seal But Master Cobbet is bold to avouch that this Church was a Gospel-Church visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the subject of the Gospel and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church which to me is such a paradox as is by no means to be received For then that Church should be a Gospel-Church which did obstinately adhere to the law and they interessed in the Covenant of grace who sought righteousness by the works of the law and they a Christian Church who denyed persecuted killed Christ and avouched themselves Moses his disciples John 9.27 not Christs And if that Church and the Christian be the same essentially he that was admitted to the Jewish Church was admitted to the Christian then baptism was needless yea irrigular for the entering and admission of a believing Jew into the Christian Church contrary to that 1 Cor. 12.13 for they were in the Christian Church before in that they were in the Jewish Church essentially the same then did Peter ill to exhort them to save themselves from them Acts 2.40 then was Luke mistaken in saying v. 47. The Lord added them daily to the Church after they were converted and baptized for they were in the same Church before all which are in my apprehension palpable absurdities But Master Cobbet thus backs his assertion Unless whilst the Jewish church stood any will say there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world but a legal Church for there was no other visible Church then that of the Jewes Ans. the perpetual visibility of the true Church is a point in which Papists and Protestants differ The Papists assert a perpetual visibility of the Church in Pastors and people as sensible as any other society of men so that at any time one may point with his finger and say this is the Church the Protestants that though it abide always upon the earth holding the whole faith without change and containing a certain number that constantly profess it yet this number may be very small and their profession so secret among themselves that the world and such as love not the truth shall not see them they remaining so hidden as if they were not at all Thus Doctor John White in his Way to the true Church sect 17. digress 17. sets down the difference If Master Cobbet mean as he seems to do a visible political Church in the former sense then it is no absurdity to say at some time while the Jewish Church stood there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world For at the time of Christs passion when the Disciples were scattered the shepherd being smitten Matth. 26.31 there was no such visible Evangelical Church yea some of the Papists themselves quoted by Doctor White in the same place hold that about the time of Christs passion the true faith remained in none but onely the Virgin Mary Alsted suppl panstr cath Chami de eccl l. 2. c. 16. s. 10. Dâ—inâ—e tempore passionis Christi ecclesia non erat visibilis talis scilicet in qua erant praelaâ—i subditi pastores oves Nam ecclesia visibilis non erat apud pharisaeos scribas Illi enim impudenter sceleratè errarunt But in the latter sense which the Protestants follow we can assign an Evangelical visible Church in the world distinct from the Jewish while the Jewish Church stood Alsted ubi supra Ergo ecclesia externa etiam tota deficere potest remanentibus occultis fidelibus quales tum temporis erant Simeon Anna Nicodemus c. At the time of Christs incarnation and before there was in the Protestant sense a true visible Evangelical Church in Simeon Anna and those to whom she spake who looked for redemption in Jerusalem Luke 2.38 In the time of John Baptists and Christs Ministery many baptized by John and Christs Disciples John 4.1 2. In the time of Christs passion besides the Apostles and those women who professed Joseph of Ariâ—â—thâ—a and Nicodemus are expressed John 19.38 39. to have owned Christ. And these were a distinct Church from the Jâ—wish I mean the Priests Scribes Pharisees and people who denyed Christ though not in their political government yet in their profession of faith which is necessary according to Protestants to make a company to be a visible Evangelical Church and essentially the same with the Church Christian Ames medul Th. l. 1. c. 32. Ecalesia est societus fidelium quia idem illud in professione constituit ecclesiam visibilem quod interna reali sua natura constituit ecclesiam mysticaâ—â— id est fides But Master Cobbet from his erroneous dictates would frame an answer to the argument brought from Peters words Acts 2.38 39. to prove that the imagined covenant-right is not sufficient to intitle to baptism without repentance and faith sith even of those Jewes to whom he said the promise is he pre-required repentance to baptism and thus he writes That then something further was required by Peter of the adult Jewes to actual participation of baptism and it was not because their Church of which they were members was no true visible Evangelical Church since it was Gods onely visible Church in the time of Christs incarnation of which he lived and died a member and none will say he was no member of any Evangelical Church but of a legal nor was it because
the seal of baptism was not administrable in or by or to that Church of the Jewes Ans. The true reason why we conceive Peter required repentance of the adult Jewes to baptism is because Christ appointed none to be baptized but his disciples such as did repent believe in him as the Messiah Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 and so Peter here and Philip Acts 8.36 37. understood Christs minde The other reasons that the Jewish Church was no true visible Evangelical Church and that the seal of baptism was not administrable in or by oâ— to that Church of the Jewes I know not who assignes them as the cause why Peter required of adult Jewes repentance to baptism so that if Master Cobbet did make void these reasons and not the genuine reason assigned by us his answer is insufficient to the argument However I shall examine what he saith sith his writing hath been crackt of as unanswerable 1. By removing the first reason he intimates that the objectour conceived it necessary that a person to be baptized be a member of a true visible Evangelical Church and this he denies not yea he seems to conceive that it is needfull he be a member of such a particular Church visible in respect of outward order and government by Elders and People united in covenant But this I conceive not true 1. Because no more is needfull then is required in the institution But in the institution to be a disciple of Christ a penitent believer on him is required and no more Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 not to be a member of a particular visible Evangelical Church Ergo. 2. No more is needfull to baptism then what Philip required of the Eunuch Acts 8.36 37. Peter of Cornelius Acts 10.46 47. Acts 11.17 18. Paul of the Jaylour and others Acts 16.32 But they required no more but to be a Disciple of Christ or a penitent believer Ergo. 3. If it were requisite to be a member of a particular Church Cornelius was not rightly baptized but this is not true Ergo. The consequence of the major is proved because Cornelius afore his baptism was not a member of any particular Church not of the Jewish for he was uncircumcised and counted unclean by them Acts 11.3 not of the Christian For they excepted against Peter for going in to him Acts 11.2 4. Regularly a man is not a member of a particular Church till he is baptized baptism going before joyning to the Church Acts 2.41 47. therefore it is not necessary a person be a member of a particular visible Church afore baptism 2. Master Cobbet takes on him to prove that the Church of which the adult Jewes Acts 2.37 were members was a true Evangelical Church 1. Because so in the time of Christs incornation But this followeth not it might be so at Christs incarnation and yet not be so at the time of Peters speech Acts 2.38 39. they having expresly denyed Christ. 2. Because he lived and dyed a member of that Church and none will say he was no member of any Evangelical Church but of a legal To which I say 1. Christ lived dyed the head of the Evangelical church of Jewes and Gentiles but not as a subordinate member in it though he were subject to the law of Moses and did yield obedience to it while it was his Fathers will it should stand in force 2. But that he died as a member of the Jewish church to wit that party of which the Jewes Acts 2.37 were a part is not true he being an out-cast from them and made a curse for us 3. If it should be granted he were a member of that church he had been a member not of an Evangelical church but legal or rather manifestly Antichristian 2. by removing the second reason of Peters requiring repentance afore baptism of the adult Jewes he intimates that this objectour conceived it necessary that baptism be administred in or by or to a church such as the Jewes was not and he grants the former and denies the latter But how or whence it is deduced that baptism must be administrable in or by or to a church I understand not Baptism hath been and may be lawfully administred without the presence of any church as in the baptism of the Eunuch by Philip Acts 8.38 to a person who is member of no particular church as in Cornelius his baptism and by a Minister without consent of any Church as in the same cases and to a single person though no church were baptized as in the Eunuchs case Then he asserts the seal of baptism administrable in or by or to the church of the Jewes that he may maintain a title to baptism though suspended by reason of their sin in the Jewes from an imagined covenant-right and Church-membership antecedent to their repentance which are wild fancies But let us view what he writes For it 's evident saith Master Cobbet that the commission of baptism was first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein the same God that told him who should baptize with the Holy Ghost he sent him to baptize John 1.33 the Pharisees themselves could not deny Johns baptism to be from heavens authority Mat. 21.25 26. and baptism being a Church-ordinance to be in ordinary dispensation or administred onely in and by a church of Christ that baptism was at that time the Jewish Church-ordinance so far forth there was no other floor wherein all sorts which John baptized whether they proved chaffy hypocrites or solid grain upright ones were in his and Christs time interessed Matth. 3.11 12. this was then the onely floor or visible church of Christ for in the invisible church is no chaffe his floor he shall purge his floor Ans. It is granted John was sent by God to baptize and that the people or church of the Jewes were Christs floor and that in that floor or people were chaffe and wheat bad and good reprobate and elect ones But this proves not the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein For what consequence is there in this God sent John to the Jewes he had his authority to baptize those of the Jewes who repented therefore he sealed their membership in the church of the Jewes and baptism was administrable in or by or to that church of the Jewes It seems to me that the contrary followes John was sent â—o baptize he preacheth repentance tells them that it availed not them to say Abraham was their father gathers them into a distinct School or society from the Pharisees and Lawyers Luke 7.29 30. directs them to Christ who should sever chaffe and wheat therefore he was not given by God in reference to that church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but severed a people from them by repentance and
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
this was the reason why even the Jewes circumcised what ever their interest in the promise should be were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come But this though true and such as shewes a manifâ—st difference between ciâ—cumcision and baptism in their use and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet sith thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance nor is thereby any reason given of râ—pentance being required by Peter afore baptism Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jewes then of their unripe children onely he tels of their practice in New England that when any are received to fellowship with them though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches are admitted upon their former church-ingagement yet desirous to be fixed Members they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed not so of their children not sui juris nor capable of personal satisfaction so it was with them Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way But setting aside the question whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient the defilement being alike in both 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles but openly opposite to Christ and the christian church Nor was that which those Jewes perplexed did propound that they might be of their church as a purer church but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-priviledges but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences which was an act of doctrine not of jurisdiction 2. If it had been so yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jewes to baptism then formerly nor that he did it because they were to be incoâ—porated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism nor is the argument infringed that if covenant-interest intitle to baptism of it self without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child yea in priority to the child who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest then it should much more intitle the Father to baptism without repentance Idem qua idem semper facit idem so that after so many shifts absurdities unproved dictates vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jewes afore baptism against the connexion between covenant-interest and right to baptism Master Cobbet goes on thus nor must that needs follow that because it 's said they were added to the church that therefore they were not of the church before but after Peter spake those words v. 39. the promise is to you c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized as after that mentioned of their receiving the Word gladly and yet will our opposites conclude that therefore they were not of the church nor in the covenant before they were baptized but came into that estate by baptism If baptism were the form of the church or that which they so much urge wholly failed that a person must be first discipled and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized Ans. Either I understand not the force of words or else it is a cleer argument Acts 2.41 And there were added in that day souls about three thousand v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church and these were of the Jewes therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day and that addition For what is addition to a company but a joyning or bringing one more to them then was before even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned And this argument seems so plain to me that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus they are not said to be added till after Peters speech v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly of which there is no cause to doubt sith the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then v. 41. shew it the argument is good after Peters words it is said then and that day were added therefore they were not before of the church Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church it being one means of addition to the church and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church but that there may be a church without baptism nor the onely way of adding to the church for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it yet this I say that neither is a church regular nor the addition as it should be without baptism And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate meaning in covenant by Gods promise to him and in church-estate that is so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it Master Cobbet proceeds thus Nor is that cogent which is urged against the childrens right in the promise and unto baptism that they should be so priviledged when they came to be effectually called and to be turned from their sins as if this were quoad homines their onely rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof or at least the onely way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches courâ— For besides that it was not so of old in applying of circumcision as Gods appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right even with us
also it is not the rule in foro Ecclesia for then none are by the church to be by rule admitted to baptism but such as are effectually called and then John which knew that the most of them which he baptized would be as chaffe in the floor he kept not rule in baptizing of them Or if calling be taken for external inviting in the Word preached and offer of Christ that I suppose will not be pleaded for then every hearer should be forthwith baptized albeit an Indian or Blackâ—more but calling as taken in reference to baptizing unto remission of sins seemeth to be rather calling into visible covenant and church-estate unto which some whose was the promise intentionally yet were afar off from that estate actually at present but when called to it they were then to be baptized Ans. The objection answered here by Master Cobbet if this passage here relate to my Examen as it 's likely it doth was thus formed Exam. pag. 60 61 62. Exercit. sect 4. the promise Acts 2.39 is neither to fathers nor their children nor those afar off without calling therefore nor to infants who are not called by the Lord and this calling I conceive an effectual calling to the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 1.9 Master Cobbet doting on his own frivolous exposition of the being of the promise in respect of external right and administration propounds the objection as if the objectour agreed with him therein and then the absurdities I confess would follow which Master Cobbet drawes from the objection as thus interpreted The promise is in respect of external right and administration to none but the effectually called that the onely rule to judg a persons visible right to baptism and the onely way of having such a right is effectual calling But Master Cobbet might have understood that I still disclaimed this that right to baptism is from interest in Gods promise or covenant and have asserted that is onely from the persons own profession of Christ and covenanting to be his Disciple and for the promise Acts 2.39 I understand it of Christ sent for remission of sins and thus it is most true that the promise is neither to father nor child uncalled what therefore Master Cobbet refutes is not owned by me yet his refutation I count not valid For that which he allegeth it was not so in circumcision therefore it must not be so in baptism proceeds on this mistake that the rule of circumcision is a rule about baptism And for that which he saith that John knew that the most of them which he baptized would be as chaffe in the floor I conceive not true nor doth it appear that John did admit to baptism those he knew were hypocrites and reprobates Pareus Comm. in Matth. 3.7 non ad baptismum indignos admisiâ— and of all others me thinks a New England teacher should not alledge that which if it were true would condemn their strictness in admission of members into their churches excluding them whom they are not satisfied to be truly regenerate so far as they can discern For doubtless whom John baptized they may and ought admit to Church-membership And this plea is made by Master Norton Resp. ad Apollon c. 1. propos 1. for the New England strictness that John Baptist repelled hypocrites from baptism Now to the objection as I conceive it in the answer is insufficient Master Cobbet denies that the words as many as the Lord our God shall call do circumscribe to you and your children as well as all that are afar off Acts 2.39 But then he would have it to be meant of calling into visible covenant and Church-estate in which he would have infants included But the Scripture speaks of no such calling and both that conceit and Master Cobbets exposition conformable to it have been so fully refuted before that I shall add no more Onely whereas he saith that if calling were taken for external inviting in the Word preached and offer of Christ then every hearer should be baptized forthwith albeit an Indian or Blackamore I conceive it will not follow sith they that would have all outwardly called by the offer of Christ baptized it 's likely do mean it of such a calling as is with effect so as that the person called be brought to outward profession at least of the faith of Christ. Master Cobbet addes three considerations to prove that infants not capable of actual repentance were not in defect of that repentance excluded from the promise mentioned Acts 2.38 39. which I might grant understanding it of the promise of remission of sins before God and of elect infants and yet no proof thence for infant-baptism But because Master Cobbet takes the promise to be in respect of external right and administration and that from it there 's a title derived for infant-baptism I shall consider what he saies 1. Such a supposed exclusion of their babes had been to lay an occasion and addition of more cumbers and trouble to the darkened disquieted spirits of his hearers then to clear and ease them supposing as is undeniably evident that their wish against their poor children pressed them sore as well as other guilt It was all along thitherto a received truth that God was a God to their seed externally by vertue of Abrahams covenant they were his adopted children Ezek. 16.21 and the churches children which she baâ—e to the Lord v. 20. see Deut. 29.29 and it was evident by Gods own appointment of circumcision to be the initiatory seal not to a blanck but to his covenant of being a God to them whilest babes and before circumcised in heart so as actually to repent Deut. 30.6 this their babes had external right unto whilest these their parents were convinced or unwrought upon remaining uncut off by censures from the church as of old Ezek. 16.20 21. is mentioned of those Idolaters Now if not so when their Parents are wrought upon by Peters Sermon as the parents were thus far losers by Christ and his Gospel and the efficacy thereof losing that precious parental priviledge which they had before this of their childrens federal inâ—erest and priviledge of Abrahams covenant so also their children are losers too by their Parents coming so far on to Christ coming now thus to be excluded their former Covenant-right and neither Parents nor children to have any Covenant-right and priviledge in lieu hereof How such doctrine might well stumble and trouble such Parents let any sober and judicious mind judg to be sure they have a load of guilt and given a deadly wound unto their poor Babes by that curse of theirs now if they are as Pagans strangers from the covenant then there is no hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and wayes of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12 13. Ans This long tale hath more of childish affection then manly reason setting aside the new language of initiory seal set to a
blanck childrens federal interest precious parental priviledge cavenant right and such like gibberish according to the Paedobaptists supositions about the imagined covenant to father and child right of infants to the first seal thereby and this a great priviledge without which no revealed grounds ordinary of hope and life this is the substance of the tale that if Peter had told them their infants were not to be baptized who before were circumcised he had added more grief to the spirits of the Jewes pressed with the sense of their wish against their children Matth. 27.25 and therefore he is to be conceived Acts 2.39 to have told them of their infants right to baptism Now surely in my apprehension if Peter had told them such a tale as Master Cobbet imagins he did even then when so great perplexity of spirit was upon them by reason of the horrid sin of crucifying Christ and their imprecation on them and their children they being then indisposed to laughter must in all likelyhood have been much moved either with grief or anger against such a Doctor as would mock them with such a receipt as was no more to their disease then the promise of a feather to weare is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the collick For what comfort could this be to them concerning themselves who expected the heaviest wrath due to them for their sin or concerning their children on whom they wished a most heavy curse to be told of a priviledge for them and their children which as it was to them before was painfull in the use so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation to be continued in an other rite which of it self was but washing with cold water and in the fruit of it before God yielded no benefit without faith and repentance and in the church yielded at best but a title of church-membership by which they had no benefit but what they might have without it noâ— would stand them in any stead for church-communion without their actual believing It is clear Acts 2.39 is an encouragement to the duties and expectation of the good mentioned v. 38. Now what encouragement is it to repent to be told that the promise was already to them in external right and administration and to their infants though not as yet penitent or believers such a motive might rather have tended to keep them in impenitency being in so good case already in the estate they were in And for baptism into the Name of Christ such a motive tended rather to disswade them from it as might fill their mindes with high conceits of their and their childrens covenant-right even by vertue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ or joyning to the christian church And for the good of remission of sins before God which they needed what assurance could they have of it by telling them of their and their childrens having the promise already as Jews without personal faith and repentance in external right and administration before men As for the falsity of the speech as expounded by Master Cobbet it is shewed before what he would burden his opposites with as if denyeng infant-baptism they counted them as Pagans strangers from the Covenant without hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12.13 is a meer Calumny For setting aside their talk of initiatory seal and external covenant which they cannot say assure life to the infants of believers without election we assure as much by the covenant of grace justification by Christs bloud and sanctification by his Spirit which is effectual calling and they can in trueth assure no more nor any other way though to uphold their credit and to win the affections of credulous parents they befool them with idle talk of a covenant which the Scripture never mentions and of sealing that covenant by baptism which the Scripture is silent of The texts Ezek. 16.21 20. Deut 30.6 will be examined afterwards Why he bids see Deut. 29.29 I know not unless it be that we may discern his weakness in alledging the Scriptures impertinently sith it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong that they may heare them and do them in infancy The second consideration is in brief this that the Apostles who as yet preached not for the abolishing of Mosaical rites but were indulgent to the Jewes Acts 21.20 22 23 24. would not give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham it self whereof circumcision was a visible seal as the places quoted in Gen. 17.11 13. and Acts 7.8 declare To which I answer By my exposition there is no exclusion of babes from the promise Acts 2.39 though it be restrained to those who are effectually called sith babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election nor doth my exposition exclude the Jewes infants from the Covenant Gen. 17.7 or circumcision or in the least manner meddle with that point Nor do I think the promise Gen. 17.7 to be the same with that Acts 2.39 If it were yet how it may be understood otherwise then Master Cobbet conceives is shewed above The third consideration setting aside his phraseology is this that if Peter should intend to exclude infants from baptism it were to be cross to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15.8 who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his coming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17.7 or Deut. 30.6 or the like or respecting parents or children but to confirm the same Ibid. But how this consequence is made good I cannot conceive but do deny it and expect a proof of it ad Graecas Calendas Master Cobbet concludes the chapter with an answer to the objection that if this were granted of those Jewish children what is this to our childrens federal interest in the daies of the Gospel and he answers 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace is of divine authority and iâ— no humane invention Ans. 1. In the objection the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denyed to be visibly in Abrahams covenant which Master Cobbet alters thus are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abrahams covenant and yet denyed that they are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the covenants being not the same every way and it being certain as in the case of Saul and others a person may be visibly interessed in the covenant of Abraham and yet not in the covenant of grace 2. Infants visible interest in the covenant of Abraham I know no otherwise then by circumcision and this sure the Apostles taught
of no other then the Jewish children 3. The text Acts 2.39 speaks not of visible interest in the covenant of grace by external administration 4. If it did yet it speaks of none other children but Jewish and so not of ours and therefore the tenent may be an humane invention notwithstanding this text and the concession of the objectour 2. Saith Master Cobbet these Jewes are eyed by the Apostles as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians as was baptism and therefore what extent of federal right and priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way Ans. the Jewes were not tyed by the Apostles to partake of baptism without the repentance of each person to be baptized nor is it by the Apostle made a federal right and priviledge but a duty to which the promise did encourage nor is the promise said to be to them or any of their children but the effectually called so that were the conclusion granted Master Cobbet yet his purpose is not gained that the Gentiles infants are to be baptized 3. Saith he to suppose God by Apostolical ratification to allow to children of Jewish parents coming on to Christ c. a larger priviledge then to Gentile parents as came on to Christ c. is to make God a respector of persons Ans. 1. It is not yet proved that the Apostle allowes to children of Jewish parents the priviledge Master Cobbet means 2. the Jewes Acts 2.39 were not considered as coming on to Christ but as guilty of crucifying him and under horrour of conscience for it 3. The priviledge of baptism or the promise in respect of external right and administration as Master Cobbets phrase is could not belong to the Jewes at that present therefore the Apostles speech had been false in Master Cobbets sense For he cannot assert they were then come to Christ but coming on to Christ nor is it certain that many of them ever came to Christ. But the promise is de praesenti in respect of external right and administration which is Master Cobbets sense is false of persons which were not come to Christ except he will have the Apostle assert a right of baptism to them without faith 4. The Jewish parents children had then a larger priviledge then the Gentiles in the first offer of the Gospel as they had larger priviledges before Rom. 9.3 4 5. and they shall have larger priviledges at their calling hereafter if I understand the Apostle Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. And herein God is not such a respector of persons as Peter Acts 10.34 denies him to be so as not to accept a Gentile who feareth him and worketh righteousness as well as a Jew Acts of special grace undue to some persons not to others argue not unjust respect of persons in God but acts of judgment awarding good to one that fears him and works righteousness because of such a Nation and not to another who doeth the same because he is not of that nation contrary to his declarations promises lawes by which he hath bound himself would argue unjust prosopolepsy his declarations promises and lawes being general and so the being of that Nation extirnsecal to the cause Saith he the force of the words seem to carry it that the same promise which was to those Jewes actually in Church and Covenant-estate was intentionally to these afar off which were strangers actually from a like estate whether those of the ten tribes or rather those of the Gentiles and should be actually to them when they came to be called actually into the fellowship of that covenant and Church-estate Now what promise was that verily a promise which carried with it a partial reference unto their children The promise is to you and to your children And the same is unto them afar off whom God shall call Scil. in reference to their children also Ans. There is no colour from the words that Acts 2.39 the promise is meant to be actually to those Jewes and intentionally to those afar off nor doth this conceit agree with Master Cobbets exposition who will have it to be de praesenti to belong to the persons recited and consequently actually to all there named Nor do I know how to make true sense of this his speech For the promise is either said to be in respect of the act of the promiser or of the thing promised In the former sense the meaning of Master Cobbet should be this that God had made the promise to the Jewes already actually but he had not made the promise to those afar off but intended to do it afterwards But this sense agrees not with Master Cobbets and other Paedobaptists conceit who would have the promise to be that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 But that promise was made almost 2000 years before not made to those Jewes then nor to any afar off afterwards that can be shewed In respect of the thing promised whether it be as I say Christ manifested in the flesh for the remission of sins before God it is not true that it was actually then to the Jewes mentioned Acts 2.39 For they were not yet repenting believing persons or it be meant of remission of sins in respect of external right and administration it is not true that the promise was actually then to them in external right they had no right then to claim baptism being not then believers neither had they the promise in external administration de praesenti for they were not actually baptized which I think is the external administration meant I cannot imagine Master Cobbet would be so vain as to conceive Peter told them they were circumcised but Peter exhorts them to be baptized and therefore the promise was no more actually to the Jewes then present then to those afar off Nor is it true that the Jewes present were then actually in Church and Covenant-estate if it be meant of the Christian Church and Covenant of grace in Christ for they were not repenting believers and if it be meant of the Jewish Church and Covenant-estate which they had as descended from Abraham by natural descent and by reason of circumcision so the Gentiles were never ealled or to be called actually into that fellowship of that Covenant and Church-estate but rather out of it Nor if they had been called into it had that Church and Covenant-estate at all conduced to their interest into the Christian Church and Covenant of grace but rather to the contrary And for the promise it is true there is a reference to their children but not because they were believers children or their children but by vertue of Gods call and it is true the promise is to Gentiles childâ—en and Jewes when called of God and no otherwise and consequently no Birth-priviledge to either intitling to baptism And thus is that magnified chapter of Master Cobbet abundantly answered SECT XXIII Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is
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
this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments much less of all Sacraments Nor doth it any whit justifie the determining of doubts of conscience and so binding duties on mens consciences concerning meer positive rites without any institution of Christ or Apostolicall example meerly from this devised term The Seal of the Covenant and malâ—ing it so necessary to be acknowledged that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lords Supper as it were a necessary Article of Faith 2. This term Seal of the Covenant applied to these Sacraments as being of their nature is so farre as my reading and memory reach but a novell term not used till the 16. Century in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans at least not frequently I grant the Ancients say Men are sealed by baptism and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance and the Sacrament of Faith in respect of the profession of Faith as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19 observes when he saith And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others it is called the seal of faith sealing of faith of repentance by Tertul. in his book of Repentance and this sealing was not to assure a promise but to strengthen and keep their faith or vertues Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle pag. 44 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pardoning of sins but a seal of vertues and where Nazianzen calls â—t a Seal he expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal as keeping and noting dominion No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace applied either to Sacraments in generall or to baptism in special 3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture or the writings of the Ancients yet it is against Logick to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus and so to make it of its essence For it is a rule in Logick Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num 126. Ita Aristot Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect 4. Keckerm Syst. Logic lib. 1. sect cap. 8. Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every translated speech is doubtfull till reduced to proper for it may have divers senses Besides metaphors or borrowed speeches may be many as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism or a pawn earnest as well as a seal Chamier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals but nevertheless tending to the same which we also doe most willingly use And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge and from that metaphor infer that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal followes the covenant Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude which cannot shew what a Sacrament is but what it is like and therefore all metaphors are unfit to shew the quidâ—â—tative conceit of a thing nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms of which there is not in this case Now to define a Sacrament by a Seale of the covenant is to define it by a metaphor neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Seals in proper acceptation they make no visible figure or impression on the body therefore to use the term thus is an abuse much more when positions and duties are urged on mens consciences from it I will subjoyn Mr. Baxters words in his Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 64. pag 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their mind yet I think it is a Metaphor and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphoricall notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves Lastly were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients and fit enough to express the generall nature of Sacraments yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied For what is it to seal and not to confer grace but onely to assure And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a morall instrument But that is not done to infants who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning therefore this term Seal of the covenant beyond sign of grace doth not take away the objection of Papists Lutherans or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed and of the sealing there being little agreement among Paedobaptists whether the inward or outward covenant the absolute or conditionall be sealed whether the sealing be absolute or conditionall to the Major Minor or Conclusion I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First whose words are commended by Mr. Pryâ—â—â— in his Suspension suspended pag. 19 c. â—e saith In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it But 1. there 's no Scripture that saith so That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others that were not true he circumcised none but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth he was of the circumcision that is a Jew not a Gentile Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministring the truth of God in his preaching or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptnesse of it self or by institution to seal this position that the covenant of grace and
of me to say That the promise of saving benefits was made to infants that were not â—lest Answer My answer is the same now that it was then and having upon occasion of this charge reviewed the notes of the dispute which though very imperfect I have yet by me I find not but that in the greatest part of the dispute I answered Mr. B. rightly though he have most shamefully and unbrotherlike misrepresented me to the world and made a noyse in the world as if he had driven me to gross absurdities which having acquitted my self from in my Prâ—cursor Sect. 17. he replies nothing to that Section which I take to be a tacite confession of his unworthy abusing of me And I do think it necessary to tell the world that I find so little of brotherly love to me or common ingenuity in his insolent carriages towards me at the Dispute and his relations of me and of the Dispute in print that I think I should have found better dealing from a Jesuite than from him And though I take him to be a godly man and an excellent Preacher and Writer in practicall points yet I find him to be but a superficiall Disputer and a slight interpreter of Scripture But to the point Four things Mr. B. it seems mislikes in my answer 1. That I said That the promise of saving grace is not conditionall To declare my self more fully it is requisite I should shew what promise of saving grace I make not conditionall There is the saving grace of redemption regeneration justification remission of sins adoption glorification The condition imagined as presupposed to the promise of saving grace that is to the fulfilling of it is either the well using naturall abilities as foregoing the promise of conversion and regeneration or faith and repentance as foregoing justification remission of sins adoption glorification The promise of saving grace may be said to be conditionall in respect of these later saving graces and the conditions mentioned yet in respect of the promisers intention and act in the event certain necessary and infallibly to be performed by the person to whom the promise is made and in this sense I grant the promise of saving graces conditionall that is that God hath promised to none the saving graces of justification remission of sins adoption but on condition of true repentance and faith nor glorification but on condition of perseverance therein yet that these conditions are not uncertain in the event or left to the persons to whom the promise is made to do by themselves but by Gods intention and actings certainly to be accomplished or it may be said to be conditionall that is â—o as that the condition of any of these graces is made the well using naturall abilities or that the conditions of these later saving graces are uncertain in the event notwithstanding the promisers intention and acting and thus I deny the promise of saving grace to be conditionall More briefly I deny the promise of regeneration and conversion to presuppose some well using our naturall abilities or that justification remission of sins adoption glorification are promised upon condition of our repentance faith obedience perseverance left by God to be performed by us and not promised as certain in the event which is the Arminian sense yet deny that the promise of justification remission of sins is absolute so as that God promiseth that an elect person shall be justified or have remission of sins without a fore faith which is charged on the Antinomians The second thing which Mr. B. mislikes in my Answer is That though some parts of the Covenant be conditional yet it is all together that is called the Covenant But this speech if it be liable to exception Mr. B. must except against the holy Ghost who doth expresly call all together the covenant Heb. 8.10 saying This is the Covenant which I will make and having recited all together he adds v. 13. in that he saith a new covenant And the like is Heb. 10.16 The third thing misliked in my answer is And the leading promise being noâ— conditionall therefore the covenant is not conditional But there is no just cause of excepting against this sith â—t is usuall and that according to a Logick Rule to determinate from the more famous part or chief part as a visible Church is called Holy or of Saints even in Scripture 1 Cor. 1.2 from the better part a field of corn where is much tare Do not Paedobaptists usually call the covenant Gen. 17. the eovenant of grace though there be other promises than of saving grace and what promise is made of saving grace there is made under the covert of words expressing other things And to shew that there is reason for what I said I urge 1. That the promise of writing the Lawes of God in the heart Heb. 8.10 is not onely the leading promise but also it is the comprehensive promise including or inferring all the rest for therefore God will be a God to them be mercifull to their unrighteousness because he will write his Lawes in their heart to those and those onely he promiseth the later to whom he promised the former Yea it seemeth to be the principall thing God aimed at in the new Covenant to assure that he would not write his lawes in stone as he did before but write them in their heart 2. That where Lukeâ— 72 73. he puts it to be in this which I take to be absolute that he would give to us that being delivered from the hand of our enemies without fear we should serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life v. 73 74 75. The fourth thing misliked in my answer is that I said That it was a gross palpable error of Mr. B. to say that the promise of saving benefits was made to Infants that were not elect If I understand Mr. M. he counted it a gross error when he disclaimed this asserâ—ion That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seed Defence of his Sermon pag. 116. and Mr. G. when in his Vindic. Pâ—â—dob p. 12. he said of this conclusion that infants are taken into covenant with their parents in respect of saving graces You know the conclusion in that sense is so manifestly against Protestants principles and experience that no Protestant can hold it But Mr. B. it 's like will not be convinced by mens sayings let us try what we can do by Arguments 1. The promise of saving benefits is made onely to those to whom saving benefits are bestowed But to elect infants onely they are bestowed Ergo. The Major is manifest to them that acknowledge God to be true and faithfull it being manifest falshood and unfaithfulness to promise and not to perform But it is certain by experience and Scripture that God saves none but the Elect Therefore it is a gross and palpable error as charging God with lying to say that his
My alledging Mr Bs words was right and pertinent For they acknowledged the promise Heb. 8.10 to be absolute and to the elect onely which was enough for my purpose and this the Author of that Episte calls the new Covenant or Testament and however Mr Bs conceit is I have proved before the holy Ghost doth make it to be the Covenant of God and therefore I deem it fitly be called the covenant of grace chusing to speak as the Scripture speaks rather than as Mr B. conceives sittest SECT XXXIX Mr Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or covenant is not it that iâ— sealed in Baptism and the Lords Supper HE adds But that this absolute Promise or Covenant if you will call it so is not it that is sealed in Baptism and the Lords Supper I prove against Mr T. thus clearly Answer He should prove nothing against me though he should prove neither the absolute nor conditional promise to be sealed in baptism and the Lords Supper For though it be true that in some sense I grant Baptism and the Lords Supper to seal the covenant of grace yet in the sense and to the purposes Paedobaptists use to say the covenant is sealed by them I reject it and can freely yeild that the use uf Baptism and the Lords Supper is not to seal Gods Covenant either absolute or conditionall to us except by remote consequence but to signifie our duty of engaging our selves to be Christs Disciples in Baptism and to remember his death in the Lords Supper But Mr Bs dispute in this is against himself in that his arguments will overthrow his own assertion of infant-baptism and against his fellow Paedobaptists who make baptisme to seal the promise of Regeneration from Titus 3.5 and the promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed from Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes absolute and appropriates to the elect I need not cite again Paedobaptists speeches making baptism the seal of Regeneration and of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 having cited before Sect. 30 sundry to wit the Assembly in the Directory Mr M c. In the Assembly at Westminster their confession of faith chap. 28. Baptism is ordained by Jesus Christ to be to the baptized a sign and seal of the covenant of grace of his ingrafting into Christ of Regeneration of remission of sins and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life Artic. 27 of the Church of England Baptism is a sign of Regeneration or Newness whereby as by an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are graffed into the Church the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed In the French Confess Artic 35. By Baptism as by a certain and stable seal this promise is sealed that Chriâ—t will be to us sanctification and justification In Mr Gatakers two books against Dr Davenant there are so many passages out of the chiefest Protestant Writers which do make baptism the sign and seal of Regeneration and of the promise of it that it would be tedious to transcribe them I shall poynt at some pages wherein they may be found Discept de vi bapt infant pag. 23 52 110 117 1â—8 Strict in Daven Ep. pag. 76 77 78. There is one passage which he cites often out of Vorstius That the Gospel Preachers are wont to acknowledge one onely generall effect of Baptism to wit the sealing of a double saving grace promised in the Gospel concerning the remission together and the purging out of sins by the Blood and Spirit of Christ which is by inward renovation which is absolutely promised Yea Mr Gataker a man deservedly much valued by Mr B. Discept de bapt infant saith That Baptism doth equally if not primarily design internall renewing regeneration mortification quickning which in that sign are not onely most clearly shadowed but also painted both the thing it self doth lowdly speak and the holy Scripture doth most expressly Rom. 6.3 6. Col. 2.11 12. T it 3.5 Eph. 5 25. And though all express not the sealing of regeneration alike by baptism some placing it in the assuring to the conscience some in the giving of title some of regeneration already given some of regeneration to be attained in time yet all make iâ— the seal of that covenant wherein God promiseth it and do commonly distinguish it from the Lords Supper which they make the seal of growth as they do baptism of new-birth and entrance into the Church So Mr M. in his Sermon p. 43 51. But let us hear what Mr B. opposeth 1 That which is sealed to by the Sacrament is a proper covenant having a restipulation on our parts as well as a promise on Gods part But an absolute promise is not a proper covenant with such a mutuall engagement but properly a meer promise or prophesie therefore it is not this absolute promise which is sealed by the Sacraments The Major M. T. cannot deny for he pleaded it himself â—n the pulpit as a reason to prove that infants might not be baptized because they could not engage themselves And he brought that passage in my foresaid Appendix pag. 68. as attesting it where I say it is a mutuall engaging sign or seal As it is given it is Gods seal as it is accepted it is ours And indeed the very definition of a proper Covenant of which Grotius de jure belli and other Lawyers will inform you sheweth as much that it must be a mutuall engagement Now in that absolute promise I will take the hard heart out of their bodies c. There is no such matter but onely God telleth what he will do Answer According to my own judgement I use not to teâ—m Sacraments Seals of the Covenant nor did I urge Mr Bs words otherwise than as an Argument ad hominâ—m to prove from his own words that infants have not baptism rightly according to his own grants 1. because there is no restipulation on infants part therefore there is no covenant properly so called between God and them and so baptism of infants is not a seal of a covenant and consequently according to the supposition of Paedobaptists no Sacrament 2 Baptism is saith Mr B. a mutuall engaging sign or seal as it is given it is Gods seal as iâ— is accepted it is our But in infant-baptism there is no mutuall engagement or signing Infants promise nothing nor sign or accept of any thing Ergo infant-baptism is not according to Mr Bs own grants right nor are these objections avoided by saying the parents covenant for them for neither is there any the least ground oâ— hint in Scripture that for baptismall covenanting the parents covenant should go for the childs covenant nor do in the practice of baptizing the parents restipulate though they declare their faith and if they should promise or engage for the child they should sin and so should
initiatory seal in his as as well as their flesh is Gods covenant v. 13. or a sacramentall sign firstly and expresly of Gods covenant v. 11. 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Acts 2.38 39 the seal of baptism is put to the promise as the choice matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it self repent and be baptized for the promise is to you not for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism but the promise rather Answ. The inititory seal is a late devised term not found in Scripture and it is used upon an erroneous conceit as if the nature of Sacraments were to be seals of the Covenant and baptism were the initiatory seal But the term initiatory seal is chosen rather than the word baptism though it be the Scripture term by Mr. C. and others that they may shuffle what they say in and out under the term of ininitiatory seal sometimes understanding by it Circumcision sometimes baptism as if they were the same and what is said of the one were meant of the other which is meer fallacious arguing But setting aside Mr. C's lately devised term the end of Christian baptism is in the first place that thereby the party baptizâ—d may testifie his repentance faith and hope in Christ love to the people of God and resolution to follow Christ to the death And this is proved in my Exercit in the twelfth reason of my doubting about Pedobaptism pag. 33. in the 2 part of this Review Sect. 5. from these Scriptures Rom. 6.3 4.5 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.26 27. Ephe. 4.5 Col. 2 12. 1 Pet. 3.20 where the phrase of the answer of a good conscience as Beza rightly observes in his Annot. on that place alludes to the manner of the primitive baptizing after the answer to the questions propounded concerning the parties repentance faith and obedience which were held so necessary to baptism in the first ages of the Christian Church that none was baptized without it yea and when infant baptism came up even till our dayes and in some places according to the Common prayer Book even to the infants the same questions are propounded yea the Lutherans confesse that without faith in infants it is in vain to baptize them The continuance of which questions as Lud Vives Comment in Augustin de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. rightly saith proves the original use of baptism to be of those only that could answer those questions In respect of which Basil and others call baptism the seal of faith Tertullian of repenâ—ance the sealing of faith Chamier Paustr Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 8. cites the treatise of the spirit under the name of Bazil ch 12. saying Confession goes before bringing to salvation baptism followes sealing our consent whence he infers thus manifestly salvation is ascribed to confession but baptism is the seal of confession No where that ever I could find among the Ancients is baptism termed the seal of the Covenant Bucer on Acts. 2.38 To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is by the sign of baptism to testifie that were the believers in Christ for remission of sins Grot Annot on Mark. 16.16 And is baptized he that believeth and by baptism maketh profession of his faith So that the profession of faith by it is the primary end and use of baptism nor is there any place of Scripture that I know which doth make the end of baptism to be the sealing of Gods Covenant to us And here by the way it is to be noted what shifting is used in this matter by Pedobaptist They say the seal follows the Covenant and the parties interest in it and this Covenant they make the righteousness of faith as Mr. C. here but when they are pressed that then in vain are infants non-elect and non-believers baptized who are not in that Covenant they fly to an imaginary external Covenant and visible interest in that as sealed by it and there by a right to be baptized which yet by their own confession is not the Covenant of grace nor by sealing that interest is the Covenant of grace sealed for that is Gods Covenant of righteousness by faith not the baptized persons Covenant or his right As for Mr. C's observations here they are false and slighty For neither is it true that it is hence because baptism is not primarily the seal of mans faith and repentance but of Gods Covenant rather Abrahams circumcision was called a seal of the righteousness of faith but the contrary rather is true For if it were a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised it sealed rather his own faith and the righteousness by it already obtained than Gods covenant to him of something to come And if circumcision be called Gods Covenant yet it follows not that baptism is rather a seal of Gods covenant than of mans faith and repentance That which he saith of Acts. 2.38.39 is as vain For the promise is not alledged there as sealed in baptism or giving any right to baptism but meerly as a motive to them to repent and to be baptized in the sense I give Antipaedobapt part 1. Sect. 5. In this part of the Review Sect. 5.8.21 22 23 wherein Mr· C's frivolous interpretation is examined And though the Apostle do not bid them be baptized because they had repented yet he bids them first to repent and then be baptized Infants have no visible title to baptism because they make no visible personal profession Parental faith in the Covenant made to them and their children is but a delusion What ever may be said of the texts Deuteronomy 26.17 Deuteronomy 29.10 11 12. c. Concerning taking it of children of which in the examining of Mr. B's remainder there is no visibility of infants Church-membership in the Christian churches mentioned in Scripture I know not how the believing Gods testimony is the assent of charity I still say there is no judgment of charity concerning infants who do nothing which may be interpreted to the better or the worse Mr. C. if he had recited my words fully in my Examen Pag. 41. might have found my words to yeeld him no help for his fourth Conclusion I pass on to the fifth SECT XLI Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members noâ— parents profession of faith unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism SEct. sixthly he sets down this conclusion That Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the â—ead in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects he is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones Concerning which I say that part of the invisible Church which is on
judged impostors 2. It is no marvel that the 3d. Section of the 3d. Part of my Examen is irksome to Mr. Bl. to read sith it doth so fully lay open the fallacy of Paedobapâ—ists in their speeches concerning the â—nfants of beleevers being in Covenant Not did I set down the position I conceived Mr. Ms. 2d concl any otherwise then in fair candid way giving my reasons thereof and not as Mr. Bl. faith per force imposing any thing on him And for Mr. M. it is shewed above § 30. that Mr. M. in his Defence hath rather hiddâ—n then explained the mâ—aning of his 2d Conclusion As for M. Bl. did acknowledge Exam. p. 46. that he spake most warily and therefore was far from obtruding upon him But yet Mr. Bl. for want of other exceptions against me chargeth me with wronging him in a passagâ— in my Apology pag. 156. where I say How doth this stand with thaâ— which he asserts ch 3. sect 2. of his answer to my Letter pag. 13. That infants of beleevers have salvation if they die in their infancy by verâ—ue of the Covenant These words he saith were none of his and that I could not but know it when I published them and that the meaning was not his I knew also seeing he exâ—ressed it in these words That they are in the ordinary way of Gods dispensation saveable â—o wâ—ich I reply The assertioâ— I coâ—ceived his I gathered from those words in the place cited by me That Scrirture therefore 1 Cor. 7.14 in this controversie is still brought in by our Divines as evidently holding out a Covenant holiness and consequently salvation of infants And truly I must confess I thought his words so plain that I never dream't he would have denied it to be his meaning conceiving he alledged the Protestant Divines as conâ—onant to his own opinion and that if salvation of Infants be inferred consequently from covenant holiness which Mr. Bl. asserts from 1 Cor. 7.14 then it is Mr. Bls. meaning that infants of beleevers have salvation in their infancy if they die in their infancy by vertue of the Covenant and that he asserts a certainty of salvation from the Covenant That which he saith I knew that the meaning I impute to him was not his because of the words he sets down and therefore a calumny tending to make a brother odious is I am sure false and a calumny which I never expect to have fairly answered by him nor almost any thing else he is charged with by me to have dealt fouly in his opposing â—e about this point The words he mentions were in the period before thâ—s This Papists deny as not knowing how to avoid the salvation of infants but that they are in the ordinary way of Gods dispensation saveable when they are thus admitted within the verge of Gods promise Which being spoken of the Papists I did not conceive so likely to explain the speech of the period following as that other a little before Protestants affirm that infants without actual admission to Baptism are saved The main argument wherewith Protestants assert it is the Covenant in which with the parents infants are included and I conceived are saved is as much as are actually saved Nor am I yet so well indoctrinated by Mr. Bl. as not to think it had been non-sense which I would not impute to Mr. Bl. to expound salvation of infants by saveabâ—eness in the ordinary way of Gods dispensation Nor did I Imagine that by Mâ— Bl. mucâ— less by Protestant Divines a saveableness onely in Gods ordinary way of dispensation should be made the consequent of Covenant holiness but a certainty of salvation For the Covenant or prumise doâ—h not assure onely â— possibility but a certainty yea possibilities are not the things which men ever assure they are antecedent to Covenants and promises but certain events anâ— to imagine Gods Covenant to assure onely a possibility a saveableness and not a certainty of salvation is to make God to promisâ— nothing bâ—t what is without such a Covenant which is to make it a blank And if the Covenant holiness infer onely a conditional salvation it infers no more salvation then damnation yea if infants have no more by their Covenant holiness then a saveableness in Gods ordinary way of dispensation then they have onely a saveableness if they be baptized hear thâ— Gospel preached beleeve it profess it which is the ordinary way whereby God dispenseth salvation But if this were Mr. Bls. meaning he haâ— made Baptism c. a necessary condition of their salvation and so he had tied their salvation with the Papists to Baptism or rather been more rigid then they durior pater infantum Augustino requiring the hearing the word actual faith and profession of them to salvation So that I hope by this time Mr. Bl. will forgive me this wrong in setting down his opinion better then he meant it and that he will let faâ—l hiâ— suit against me for this thing And if so I will forgive him for his next insinuation of my setting up a man of straw and then beating it down though it be indeed the common saying of Paedobapâ—ists who usually say the Covenant of grace sealed by Baptism which is that of justification is made to beleevers and their seed the promise is to them and their children Aâ—â—s 2.39 which is meant by them of remission of sins and for his frivolous charge of my using the arguments of Jesuits and making use of Protestants names when I do bring not onely the names but the very words and arguments of the most approved Protestant writers in great number and produce one Papist Estius alone no Jesuite but though a Papist of the better sort and do and may safely protest that some of those Mr. Bl. chargeth me with I did not read and for one what I read in him came not into my mind when I wrote that Examen of Mr. Ms. sermon So that what Mr. Bl. doth so often insinuate as tending to make me suspected as if my arguments against Infant Baptism were borrowed from Papists even then when I avouch Protestants is a most unworthy calumny though I still say I am glad when I find truth that I meet with iâ— in any Authors whether Protestants or Papists and think it not the worse for their owning it Mr. Bl aâ—ter his false accusations of me and limitations of his own tenet speaks thus To draw all up towards a conclusion All that is necessarilâ— included in Gods entrance of Covenant with a people engaging to be their God and taking them for his people is here by this grand Charter of Heaven made over to Abraham and his natural issue by â—saac and Jacob. All their posteriâ—y are branches of this root by nature simply considered and they are holy branches by vertue of this Covenant which necessarily implies priviledges of Ordinances the fruition of Gods Oracles which are his Covenant draughts without which no people are in
the Covenant upon the account of which God did vouchsafe mercy is that of giving them Canaan which Mr. Bl. will not have the Covenant it self but an Appendix to it and yet Exod 32.13 that is it which is pleaded and Levit. 26.42 the Covenant it is plain is that he made concerning their seating in Canaan for it expresly saith and I will remember the Land and v. 44. I will not utterly destroy them The Church it is true saith Isa. 64.9 We are all thy people but if this Church be meant of all and every Israelite by natural descent then all and every of them were a praying people which is not to be said and therefore is to be understood of the believing remnant onely or else that they were Gods people in the sense before given of Exod. 32.12 14. Deut. 9.29 Exod. 3.6 It is true God saith to Moses to stay up his faith in confidence of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt that he was the God of his Father the God of Abraham of Isaac and Jacob and it is â—rue our Lord Christ hence proves the resurrection of the dead Luke 20 37 38. and therefore it proves eternal life included in the promise Gen. 17.7 but this is so far from proving God to be a God in respect of Evangelical blessings meant Gen. 17.7 to every Israelitte or to be a God to believers and their natural seed that it is a good argument to the contrary for this absurdity would follow That every one of them are certainly saved if he were a God to every of them in the sense Luke 20.37 38. Mr. Bl. next excepts against me for censuring of Chamiers calling the promise of the Land of Canaan an Apenpendant to the Covenant Gen. 17.7 And saith The thing is so clear in the narrative of it Gen. 17 that nothing can be more evident The Covenant is full v. 7. To be a God to Abraham and his seed and this he might have been had he pleased in the Land of Ur of the Caldees or in any Lâ—nd whatsoever that his seed had been plantedâ— But when the Covenant is thus made there is added v. 8. And I will give unto thee c. Answ. My censure of Chamier was no more then this I like not and I say the same still that the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 is not a meer appendant but as truly a part of the Covenant God made with Abraham Gen. 17. as v. 7. And to Mr. Bls. strong conceit I oppose my strong conceit of the evidence to the contrary being backed by the Scripture as sufficient of countervail his saying And for his reasons 1. God might have been a God to them in Vr Ergo the promise of Canaan is but an appendix not a part of the Covenant I answer 1. by the like reason it might be said thou shalt be a Father of many Nations is but an appendant to the Covenant contrary to Gen. 17.4 because God might be a God to him though father of one Nation onely 2. By denying the consequence which is in my slender conceit a baculo ad angulum The other if it be a reason and not a dictate is the Covenant is full v. 7. but when the Covenant is made there is added v. 8. I answer 1. By like reason it might be said The Covenant is full v. 4 5 6. but when the Covenant is made v. 4 5 6 there is addâ—d v. 7. ergo v. 7. is nâ— part of the Covenant but an appendant to it 2. It is not proved that at v. 7. the Covenant is full yea v. 8. being as Mr. Bl. himself stiles it an additional promise it is proved that the Covenant is not full without it being added as a promise and so a part of â—he Conant I said the Holy Ghost me thinks speaks otherwise Postscript § 12. Mr. Bl opposeth The force of this argument must needs be this That which is any where called a Covenant that is not an appendant to a Covenant But the giving of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham is there called by the name of a Covenant Mr. T. sure will not say that Circumcision is the Covenant between God and his people he will not deny but it is a signe and seal annext to the Covenant and yet Gen. 17.10 it is called a Covenant Mr. T. well enough knowes a Metonymy of the adjunct and the common use of it in Scripture but that it is his wisedome for his advantage to conceal it Answ. Mr. T. well knows that Mr. Bl. useth artifices to elude when he should answer The words of the Psalmist were alledged as a plain testimony which need not be formed into an argumenâ— but if it need forming I should not form it as Mr. Bl. forms it that he may the easâ—er slight what he cannot answer but thus That promise which is called Gods Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which he made was his oath confirmed for a Law and everlasting Covenant declâ—red by saying in words what God would do that is a Covenant at least in part and not a meer appendant But such is the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 and elsewhere ergo The major might be proved from the definition of a Covenant which is either a promise or an aggregate of promises single or mutual The minor is the very text And to Mr. Bls. shift I reply I knew well enough a metonymy of the adjunct or signe to beuied Gen 17.10 But I withal knew it would have been my folly to have expounded the term Covenant Psal. 105.8 9. by a metonymy like that Gen. 17.10 For I should have made the Psalmist speak non-sense and perverted his plain meaning if I had thus expounded he hath remembred his Covenant that is not his promise it self but the signe and seal of it which he made sware said And I think it had been Mr. Bls. wisedome to have concealed this shift and rather have let it pass without saying any thing to the objection Mr. Bl. adds his fifth and last argument from Texts in the N. T. which interpret this Covenant thus enâ—ered with Abraham in that latitude as extending to his natural issue and not with limit to his spiritual seed and that not barely in domestick civil but in spiritual promises so that this one hath many in the bowels of it Answ. Abrahams spiritual seed are true believers as he was and elect persons spiritual promises are so called from thâ— things promised called Ephes. 1.3 spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ such are regeneration or circumcision of the heart remission of sins justification adoption eternal life If Mr. Bl. holds the Covenant with Abraham extending to his natural issue and not with limit to his spiritual seed in spiritual promises he holds râ—generation remission of sins justification adoption eternal life to them who are neither true believers nor elect persons Let 's
And if we must needs take up a fashion of disputing by challenges I challenge Mr. B. to shew me one infant who was a visible Churchmember out of the Nation of the Hebrews â— I conceive from Acts. 16.1 2 Tim. 1.5 that Timothy was born of a Churchmember yet no Churchmember visible in infancy Anabaptists refuse not the mercy of visible Churchmembership if God had offered it to their infants nor would they refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism if God had commanded it But they dare not challenge what God hath not granted nor profane the Ordinance of Christ by their altering it into that which he hath not appointed Mr. B. goes on thus SECT LVIII Infants visible Churchmembership is not proved by the Law of Nature BEfore I proceed to any more Texts of Scripture I will a little enquire into the light or Law of Nature it self and see what that â—aith to the point in hand And first we shall consider of the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and next of Gods acceptance of them and entertaining them into that estate And the first is most evidently contained in the Law of Nature it self at least upon supposition that there be any hopes of Gods entertaining them which I prove thus 1. The law of Nature bindeth us to give to every one his own due But infants are Gods own due Ergo the law of Nature bindeth parents to give them up to God By giving here I mean not an alienation of propriety to make that to be Gods that was not so before but an acknowledgement of his right with a free resâ—gnation and dedication of the infant to God as his own for his use and service when he is capable thereâ—f If you say infants being not capable of doing service should not be devoted to it till they can do it I answer they are capable at present of a legal obligation to future duty and also of the relation which followeth that obligation together with the honour of a Churchmember as the child of a Noble man is of his honours and title to his inheritance and many other mercies of the Covenant And though Christ according to his humanity was not capable of doing the works of a Mediatour or head of the Church in his infancy yet for all that he must be head of the Church then and not according to this arguing stay till he were capable of doing those works And so is it with his members Answ. It is a bold attempt to undertake to prove a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed from the law of Nature when Churches are onely instituted not by any law of Nature and consequently there can be no direction in the law of Nature who shall be visible Churchmembers who not Nor could both those things Mr. B. considers be proved to wit the duty of dedicating infants to God in Christ and Gods acceptance of them and entertaining of them into that estate i. e. of dedicated persons prove them visible Churchmembers there 's more required thereto to wit something discernable by sense by which they may be said to be part of Gods people Yet I shall examine his proofs The conclusion may be understood of giving up devoting dedicating to God by prayer or vow or else by an outward sign such as Circumcision or Baptism This latter is not of the law of nature being meer instituted worship the former may be granted without any hurt to my cause Nevertheless I shall say something to the argument Which hath at least four terms and so is faulty in the form and for the matter of it the major is not true without limitation For the law of nature doth not bind every man to give to every one his own due except it be that due which is due from the giver or it belongs to him to give A private man is bound to pay his own debt not to pay every other mans debt to him to whom it is due Now infants may be said to be Gods due either in respect of their persons or their service Infants in infancy can do no service nor doth God require any service of them and therefore there is none due and therefore no parents do or are bound by any act of theirs for their infants service to give God his due of their infants service And for their persons they are Gods due in that he may of right dispose of them as he wil in life and death health or sickness and in this respect parents have no way of giving God his due but by acknowledging his Soveraignty and submitting to his will Dedication to God for the future iâ—â—o giving of God his due from infants it is neither the giving of God the due of their persons or their service they are bound themselves when they come to understanding to do it by themselves and if they do it not the parents dedication cannot do it I object not that infants should not be devoted to to God till they can do service but that what ever it be it is not the giving God his own due from infants nor doth make them visible Churchmakers Mr. B. adds 2. The law of nature bindeth all parents to do their best to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery But to engage them betimes to God by such a dedication doth tend to secure Gods right and their childrens good and to prevent their sin and misery For they are under a double obligation which they may be minded of betimes and which may hold them the more strongly to their duty and disadvantage the tempter that would draw them off from God Answ. To dedicate them by prayer and thanksgiving and vows to God may tend to these endâ— But to do it by Baptism not required of God secures not Gods right but abuseth his name nor doth it tend to the childrens good or prevent their sin and misery For neither is there promise of God that the parents dedicating the child by Baptism shall have these effects nor do these effects follow ex opere operato nor is there any obligation real put by infant-baptism on the person though there may be a putative obligation thereby But really infant-baptism is a disadvantage 1. In that it is the occasion whereby they take themselves to be Christians afore they know what Christianity is by which means they are kept in vain presumption of their safe condition and this constant experience and the acknowledgement of observing men doth witness 2. They are kept back thereby from the true Baptism of Christ which hath had and would have a strong tie on mens consciences if it were solemnly and in a right manner performed as it should be Surely a mans own engagement by himself in all probability must have a stronger operation then an engagement by another for him notwithstanding the fond conceits of Mr. Simon Ford and Mr. John Goodwin of edification by infant
they are not to be blamed having the plain word of God as interpreted even by Paedobaptists themselves yea almost all Commentaries for their warrant And truly though I delight not in recriminations yet I may justly retort Mr. Bs. words Is it not a great disgrace to all Mr. Bs. followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism as Mr. B. leads them into who would have none to have pastoral charge with publick pay that will not admit to the Lords Supper the baby sprinkled that inveighs against Baptism of believers now used as if it were murther and adultery that represents them that deny infant Baptism in the most odious way he can to the world and is so confident that he is wiser and righter then others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these a law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed no where extant a discipleship by the parents faith mediately without any learning of their own which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what visible Churchmembership or Discipleship is And doth he not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by his meer interest or confident wordâ— the people of Kederminster Bewdley and elsewhere are changed from the truth of the Scripture made known to them and held to his opinion Do they know whâ—t an ordinance or law of infants visible Churchmembership and mediate Discipleship is which I find not any man vented afore Mr. B. And doth he not proclaim them men of distempered consciences that dare go on iâ— such a Schism as Mr. B. and with him many persons are brought into by him from me and the baptized in Bewdley and elsewhere on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so lately and never waking man I think did before Mr. B. so solemnly maintain Qu. 3. Is it not a desperate undertaking and dare you adventure on it to justifie all the world before Christs incarnation except the Jews from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God to take him to be their God and themselves to be his people Yea to justifie all Jews against this charge that should neglect or refuse to engage their children to God in Covenant as members of his Church And doth not he that saith there is no law say there is no transgression Answ. He doth But Mr. B. should remember there is a law against beaâ—ing false witness against his neighbour which he much urgeth against Mr. Eyre and others but himself is deeply guilty of it in his high charges and particularly in this that I justifie all Jews neglecting to engage their children to God in covenant as members of his Church and all the world not dedicating their children to God Let him prove either if he can if not let him tremble at his desperate undertaking to uphold his lie of infant Churchmembership and Baptism by such lies as these and fear the fate of liars What I hold may be seen in that which goes before Qu. 4 Dare you yet justifie also at the Bar of God all the world since Christs incarnâ—tion from the guilt of sin in not dedicating their children to Christ and entering them into his Covenant as members of his Church Dare you maintain that all the world is sinlesse in this respect Answ. I dare justifie the non-baptizing them and am assured Mr. B. cannot justifie the baptizing of infant children Qu. 5. Have you well considered of the fruit of your wayâ— apparent in England and Ireland at this day Or have you not seen enough to make you suspect and fear whether indeed God own your way or not And is it any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times when you can venture even in these times when the persons are living in our company to tell me that you think I am mis-informed that they are Anabaptists and you think that there are very few of them that were ever baptized when of many that we know and multitudes that we hear of there are so few that were not before against infant Baptism and the Seâ—kers first such and when the Quakers themselves commonly cry down infant Baptism and it is one of the questions that they send to â—e and others to answer how we can prove it by express Scripture without consequences or else confess ouâ— selves false Prophets Answ. My ways in opposing infant Baptism and endeavouring to restore believers Baptism are such setting aside my infirmities as upon consideâ—ation I find cause not to be ashamed of but to rejoyce in and conceive by many evidencâ—s that God ownâ— them What fruit of them in England and Ireland they have had I do not very well know if they that are termed Anabaptists do hold unjustifiable positions or practises they are not the fruit of my ways any more then the Nicolaâ—â—ans Gnosticks and others ways were the fruits of the Apostles preaching My conscience beareth me witness and so will the people where I have taught the brethren with whom I have walked yea I think some of my Antagonists with whom I have acted in the publick imployment of approving Preachers and perhaps the most eminent persons in England that I have opposed the errours risen and have sought reformation without separation have joyned upon all occasions in the common cause with dissenters insomuch that I had hoped impudence it self would never have dared so to belie me as to make Schism Quakerism and such like evils the fruit of my ways If many rents and errours have sprung up by accident after my writings they are no more to be charged on me then Antinomianism Swenekfieldianism c. were to be charged on Luther or Brownism Familism c. on the Antiprelatists What I wrote to Mr. B. I think still yea Mr. Bs. own relations confirm me they are not Anabaptists though they be against infant baptism Those very persons or some of that society which sent to Mr. B. if my intelligence do not deceive though they they were against infant baptism yet neglected baptism when convinced of it as their duty and they might have been baptized and as it was foretold them they were likely to be without the opportunity so it came to pass for they were after carried away with the delusion of the quakers It is not my observation alone but it is the Authors conceit who wrote the book against them termed The quakers blazing star who was carried away once by them that the living above ordinances and as Seekers hath been one of the chief ways which hath brought it in God justly leaving them to be deluded by Satan who would not submit to the way of Gods ordinances and he adviseth persons as to labour to be well grounded in faith and repentance so to joyn in Church communion of which he takes the Churches of the baptized to be most right and accordingly hath himself been joyned
91 92. out of the Text the words of Beza Aretius whose sayings are by Mr. M. in his Defence p 175. owned as true and Mr. Ms. own words that the Apostle asserts our compleatness in Christ without any outward Ordinance either of Law or Gospel And this I think Mr. C. himself dare not deny For sith â—he compleatness is in spiritual benefits mortification renovation remission of sins as Mr. C. acknowledgeth if we have our compleatness in Christ by Baptism we have these spiritual benefits by it and we have them not without it What Mr. M. saith p. â—75 of my abuse of Aretius is answered in my Apology sect 1â— p. 60. Aretius his testimonies out of the Fathers cited p. 176. prove nothing concerning the meaning of Col. 2.11 12. though they shew that some of the Ancients conceived of Baptisms succession to Circumcision as he did To what I argued in my Examen p. 92. that by this doctrine that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision the Apostles argument for the disanulling the Jewish ceremonies both here and Heb. 9. 10.1 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians ch 3. 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the law because they have their complement in Christ not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them for if there be need of other Ordinances besides Christ in stead of the old then Christ hath not in himself fulness enough to supply the waâ—t of them and this abolition is not because of Christs fulness but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished and though our Ordinances may be said to imitate theirs yet Christs onely succeeds them Mr. M thus saith I answer it is very true that whoever should plead as Mr. C. doth that we have any of our compleatness in any outward Ordinance would evacuate the Apostles argument but yet they by his own appointment help us to apply this compleatness they argue not that all our compleatness is not in Christ Christ onely succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances as the body doth the shadow We plead not as the Papists do that the Jewish Sacraments were types of ouâ—s they were types onely of Christ but yet ours succeed them to be like signs of the covenant of grace and so the Apostle doth in this place To which I reply 1. If it be contrary to the Apostle to plead that we have any of our compleatness in any ouâ—ward Ordinance then it is contrary to â—he Apostle to make Baptism and the Lords Supper to succeed Circumcision and the Passeover sith â—hat onely Col. 2.10 c. is made to succeed them wherein we are compleat without them 2. What Mr. M. means by applying the compleatness of Christ and how Baptism and the Lords Supper help us to apply this compleatness I do not readily understand I conceive it applied no otherwise then by faith nor they to help any otherwise then by exciting it which I am sure they do not to infants and so Baptism of infants is no help to them to apply the compleatness of Christ. 3. Though Baptism and the Lords Supper argue not that all our compleatness is not in Christ yet the doctrine of Mr. M. that Baptism is in the same state and of the same use to us as circumcision was to the Jews that it succeeds into its place doth so aâ—gue as I have shewed 4. If Christ onely succeeds all the Jewish Ordinances as the body succeeds the shadow then Christ onely is made Col. 2.11 12. the successour to Circumcision for there is no other succession there spoken of as appears by the phrases of compleatness in him as the head v. 10. circumcised by the circumcision of Christ v. 11. buried with him risen with him v. 12. quickned together with him v. 13. dead with him from the rudiments of the world v. 20. so as that by holding him as the head being knit together the whole body increaseth with the increase of God v. 19. and chiefly that which is said v. 17. which are a shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. 5. If the Jewish Sacraments were not types of ours then the reason of their ceasing from the succession of ours is taken away for that rests onely on this that they were types and ours the truth 6. If ours succeed onely in that they are like signs of the Covenant of grace then they succeed all the sacrifices washings annointings of the law as well as these we may conclude succession of Baptism to Noahs Ark c. But in the administration of an Ordinance we are not to be ruled by bare analogy framed by our selves or delivered by the spirit of God but by the institution of God To this Mr. M. saith Defence p. 177. I answer but when those analogies framed by the spirit of God are agreeable to the use and end of Gods institution we are to be ruled by them and the Apostle shews that 's our case here Answ. 1. If this were true then to tie Baptism to the eighth day to be of all in the family c. should according to Mr. Ms. sâ—ppositions be right 2. There 's not a word in the Apostle Col 2. to shew that ours succeed the Jewish Sacraments to be like signs of the covenant of grace Yea I urged that the Apostle rather resembles burial to Circumcision then Baptism and makes the analogy between Circumcision and Christs burial and cited the words of Chrysostome and Theophilact on the place to that purpose Exam p. 93. To this Mr. M. Where iâ— Circumcision compared to burial and wherein I pray you lies the analogy between them I reply 1. I said not Circumcision is compared to burial but that Col. 2.11 12. burial rather resembles Circumcision then Bapâ—ism and the analogy is between them Which is true sith buried with him v. 12. answers to circumcised by his circumcision v. 11. and the analogy is that as the one so the other is the effectual pattern of our mortification and not between our burial and baptism as Mr. M. And to this are the words cited by me apposite Nor are the words of Chrysostome that we put off sins in Baptism for Mr. Ms. purpose to prove analogy conceived by the Apostle between the Jewish common Circumcision or our burial and our baptism 2. I said Baptism is named with faith Col. 2.12 as the 2 means whereby we have communion with Christ and are compleat in him Exam. p. 94. To this Mr M. But is not this the same sense with mine But your syllogism or mighty consequence I deny Baptism is named because it is one of the means of Christians being exempted from the Schoolmaster and come to be ingraffed into Christ and to be compleat in him therefore it doth not succeed in the room and place of Circumcision nay rather therefore it doth To this is replied in my Apology sect 5. p. 28.
the practise of the Gospel worship but onely baptized And so Mr. Cs. answer is a strengthening of the argument Enough in answer to Mr. C. being unwilling to make more exceptions on passages which need correction why I have said so much the reason is given sect 77. SECT LXXXIII Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. M. in his 4th conclusion would have it IN the Defence of his 4th and 5th concl against my Examen Mr. M. saith he will contract and accordingly I shall be brief in my reply He grants the order of circumcising infants is repealed as I answered in examining his 4th concl but would have it added that by Gods order Baptism succeeds in the room of it which I have refuted Then upon my saying that Circumcision was not a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant he censures this as pure Anabaptism leaving out injuriously my limitation to all that were circumcised which if fairly added had cleared me and perhaps if the so called Anabaptists had been rightly understood they had been found as innocent as my self in this thing I see enough in Paedobaptists dealing with me to shew how great likelihood there is that the words of the Anabaptists in Germany were perverted Mr. M. p. 180 181. excepts against me for saying that Ishmael and Esau had no part in the Covenant denies that Ishmael had no part in it when he himself grants that they did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant which is all one with that which I say that the Covenant of grace was not made to them they had no part in it For sure they to whom the Covenant of grace is made and have part in it are all partakers of the spiritual graces of the Covenant or else God keeps not his promise and for this I bring Gen. 17.19 20 21. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. though I needed not having Mr. Ms. own confession and therefore it is most false he saith I bring not one shadow of a proof for what I say But Mr. M. thinks to maintain his speech that Ishmael had part in the Covenant in that he was reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant and obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it to have his heart circumcised and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed Answ. 1. It is contrary to Gen. 7.19 20 21. to say that Ishmael by Circumcision did belong to the Covenant it runs upon this palpable mistake that every one that was circumcised had thereby the Covenant sealed to him 2. Those that were uncircumcised all the people of the world were obliged to seek after the spiritual graces of the Covenant to be holy to believe yet this doth not prove they had a part in the Covenant and therefore this answer of Mr. M. is frivolous And so likewise is that which he saith in answer to my words not rightly set down my words were not right to Evangelical promises or any other benefit that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason I added and adequate why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together In which 1. he shews not whose motive it was Gods or mans If he mean it was Gods to command it it is nothing to the purpose to shew right to the Covenant of grace to have been the proper adequate reason of the persons to be circumcised if mans motive it is false whether we understand it of â—he circumcised who were infants and therefore had no motive to it but were passive onely or the circumciser for in â—brahams circumcising Ishmael Mr. M. saith I have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant and a vâ—sible â—â—anding in the Church though he who administers the seal might by revelation know the inward grace is wanting Were his answer granâ—ed yet it proves not the contrary to my speech but confirms it though this point be one of the hinges on which his first main argument turns For iâ— it be true that the adequate reason oâ— peâ—sons circumcising was not right to the Evangelical promises or other benefit in the Covenant but Gods precâ—pt onely then the pillar of Mr. Ms argument fâ—lls to the ground All that are in the covenant are to be sealed it being onely true thus All in the Covenant whom God haâ—h commanded 〈◊〉 sealed are to be sealed What he saith after that I grant what is in controversie because I grant men may have a visible membership in the Church though they be not elected or sanctified it is alike frivolous it being never in controversie but whether any may be said to be in or under the Covenant of grace or to have the Covenant of grace made to them who are non elect and never sanctified That which Mr. M. p. 182. calls a piece of odd Divinity that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised being understood as I express it of Abrahams personal Circumcision is the Apostles express Divinity Rom. 4.11 12. whose scope say New England Elders in answer to the 3d. and 4th position p. 65. rightly in that place is not to define a Sacrament nor to shew what is the proper adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith c. Nor is this any more odd Divinity then Mr. Ms. who asserts women virtually circumcised in the males That which he saith that visible professours have a visible right to the spiritual part of Circumcision I conceive false For though they had a right to Circumcision or Baptism which they might receive of men yet they had no right at all to forgiveness of sins justification adoption salvation which are onely from God and onely true believers had right to That which he saith p. 182. that Circumcision was given the Jews in reference to their Church state not in reference to their civil state is not true but said upon a mistake as if the Church state and Civil were different in the Jewish Commonwealth That which he confesseth that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God is enough to shew that interest in the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision but the command of God and therefore without shewing a command for infant Baptism this is no good argument they are in the Covenant therefore to be baptized which enervates all Mr. Ms. dispute But he adds The Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to and this fully answers the objection for it was
not be vanquished till almost a hundred thousand of them were slain by the united forces of the Empire But the Emperour objected to the Protestants that their Preachers were a great occasion of the Rustical war wherein an hundred thousand were slain But whether it were so or not so what ever Mr. Crs. protestations be the writing this Epistle with some other passages at the time and to the persons to whom it was directed shew what we are to expect from him and such as he is if ever they have power over us But of these things onely by the way SECT LXXXVIII Austins saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon nor his testimony about the antiquity of Infant Baptism AFter his own Epistle and the Epistle of I. T. P. and the reprinting of the conference between me and Mr. Vaughan and the dispute between me and himself Mr. Cr. leaving out the former Epistle of I. T. P. begins with a descant on the title of my reply which he vainly makes to imply a suit against the universal Church though it be onely an action against innovators who have left the plain way of Christ and his Apostles and as they have done in many other things brought in infant Baptism to the great corruption of the Church of God And for Mr. Halls inditement it is such as is fit for boys onely to make sport with and were Mr. Hall or Mr. Cr. of such serious and grave spirits as they should be they would have buried it in silence or been humbled for handling things of God so lightly such writings being fitter for light wits in the University then for Preachers and Pastors over Churches of Christ. My calling Mr. Baxters book a cheat and mock titled book is proved here to be right and that Mr. Ms. is no impregnable Defence is here shewed The rest of Mr. Crs. light Poetry in sect 1. c. par 1. I let pass as the scum of his wit and onely take notice that he terms from Stow Sir John Oldcastle a traitor who was hanged on a gibbet and burned in St. Gyles field whom Mr. Fox in his book of Martyrs in the time of Henry the 5th hath against Alan Cope vindicated and by sundry arguments particularly by the manner of his death mentioned by Mr. Cr. made it probable that he died a Martyr oppressed by popish Prelates Whose case is a good document how little credence is to be given to the censures of men when the relations of them are made by their prevailing adversaries What I think of laying on hands may be seen part 2 of this Review sect 23. Dr. Featly was a man with whom I had sundry times conference when he was in his greatest esteem but never found him such as I durst not look in the face when living and sure his book of Baptism is besideâ— what Denn hath done shewed here and elsewhere not to be unanswerable With what spirit Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists and my self have written on this subject must be left to the cognizance of our Judge If Austins saying l. 4. de Bapt. contra Donat. c. 23. That what the universal Church holds nor was instituted in Councels but always retained is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority were meant as Mr. Cr. sect 5. p. 67. expounds it including the Apostles I should yeeld it But 1. I do not conceive that to be Austins meaning for 1. then the speech would be an inept tautology to say that what the whole Church including the Apostles holds is most rightly believed to have been delivered by no other then Apostolical authority it were as if he had said what the Apostles held the Apostles held 2. The very speech shews that Austin meant it of the universal Church of his time the word tenet being in the present tense and the Councels meant being such as were since the Apostles and that he counted that to be instituted in no Councels but to have been always held of which he could not shew any beginning or any interruption 3. Elsewhere his speeches shew this was his mind as Epist. 118. ad Joann Illa quae non scripta sed tradita custodimus quae quidem toto terrarum orbe observantur dantur intelligi vel ab iâ—sis Apostolis vel plenariis Conciliis quorum est in Ecclesiâ— saluberrima autoritas commendata atque statuta retineri and he instanceth in the anniversary solemnities of Good Friday Easter day Holy Thursday and Whitsunday and adds and if any other thing hath occurred which is kept by the whole Church where ever it spreads it self And accordingly he makes the necessity of the Communion to eternal life as of Baptism to the Kingdome to be from Apostolical tradition tom 7. de pecc mer. remis l. 1. c. 24. Mr. Crs. conceit is not right as if the words And if any man seek for Divine authority in this thing did intimate that his following rule was meant of what was held in the Apostles time for in them he means that which he after fetcheth from Circumcision out of Scripture besides that which the whole Church holds not instituted in Councels yet still held In this sense it is urged by Canus l. 3. loc Theol. c. 4. as a rule to know genuine unwritten traditions Apostolical from spurious and rejected by Chamier paustr. cath tom 1. l. 8. c. 14. § 13. as impossible sith what hath been in all ages and Churches from the Apostles cannot be known and it is urged by Bellarm. de bonis oper in part l. 2. c. â—4 for Lent fast and refuted by Chamier paustr. cath tom â— l. 19 c. 7. § 36. 2. This rule cannot stand the Epistler in any stead for proving infant Baptism without the Apostles writings 1. because there is no way without them to know what was universally held there being no man able to know what the Church holds in all places in his own time much less what in former ages was held and many things have been taken even by Austin as universally observed which were not and many Councels held which are unknown and many corruptions crept very early into the Church whose original cannot be sâ—t down determinately of which Ushers general answer to the Jesuites challenge gives reasons 2. Infant Baptism cannot bee proved to have been universally observed but as now it is taught and used hath been opposed by some of the Ancients and is now rejected by Protestant Divines as it was by the Ancients taught and used Nor is Austins testiâ—ony Seâ—m 10. de verb. Apostoli not Serm. 15. that the Church always had and held Infant Baptism valid for Mr. Crs. purpose 1. because the term hoc this may bee rather referred to tâ—e doctrine of infants being born with original sin rather then the practise of their baptism and to this senâ—e both tâ—e scope words precedent consequenâ— and the terms had held perceives from the
faith of Elders keep to the end which are most fitlâ— appliâ—d to doctrine make more probâ—ble as I noted in my Apology § 16. pag. 83. 2. Were the meaning of Austin about infant baptism yet there were no cause to rest on this testimony as credible 1. because it is but a speech in a popular Sermon in which men speak not exactly as in other writings 2. The words hoc Ecclesia usque in finem perseveranter custodit could be known onely by guess and conjectural presage it being of a contingent matter not by Divine revelation fore-told and therefore the other speeches as likewise other speeches as that tom 7. de pecc mer. remiss l. 1. c. 24. shew was his wont are to bee conceived as spoken not out of any good records but from that which he found observed in his time where he had been 3 Because serm 14. de verbis Apost he saith that Cyprian Epist. 59. ad Fidum quid semper Ecclesia sensit monstraverit though he onely set down what waâ— determined in that Council of Carthage which was in the third Century 4. There are so many speeches of the ancients false uncertain contradicting each other concerning Apostolical traditions universal observations that many Protestants have discredited them of which some testimonies are set down by me in my Pâ—aecursor sect 3. Salmasius appar ad libr. de primatu pâ—pae menâ—ions some other as pag. 134. All the Fathers with one accord make Paul and Peter founders of the Roman Church and yet were deceived Hierome saith it was in all the world decreed that one should be a Bishop over others and yet the Preface of Selden before Twisdens Collection of ancient British Histories shews it waâ— otherwiâ—e in Scotland of old And for Austin Epist. 118. ad Janu. c. 1 6. hee makes the anniversary solemnities of Easter c. of eating the Lords Supper fasting as always universally observed in which he was mistaken Mr. Cr. doth abuse me in making my argument as if I had said Easter was always held my words were If Austins rule were true then Easter should be from the Apostles not because I thought it true but because Austin thought so and so by his rule Easter must bee counted to come from the Apostles and his testimony is as good for it as for the universal observation of inâ—ant Baptism 5. Not onely Protestants but Papists also do now reject things observed by the Ancients as amply as infant Baptism Jewel Sermon at Pauls Cross p. 48. Usher answer to the Jesuits challenge p. 23. It was the use of the ancient Church to minister the Communion to infants which is yet also practised by the Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia The Church of Rome upon better consideration hath thought fit to do otherwise The putting milk and honey into the mouth of thâ—â—aptized the standing at prayer on Lords days between Easter and Whitsontide the baptizing at Easter persons catechised in Lent with many more are now left though Bellarmin l 2. de bonis operibus in particulari c. 17. tels us Abolitam esse consuetudinem baptizandi catechumenos absolvendi pâ—nitentes in paschaâ—e verum est apud Lutheranos caeterùm apud Catholicos ac praesertim in urbe Romana nullus est annus quo non multi Catichumeni in paschate baptizentur which I mention to shew that there arâ— some foot-steps yet remaining of the old baptizing â—p Jewel Deâ—ense of the Apology of the Church of England part 2. ch 16. div 1. saith there have been errours and great errours from the beginning hee mentions there and in the Sermon at Pauls cross baptizing for and of the dead giving the Communion to the dead body and therefore there and in his reply to Dr. Cole he rejects customs of the ancient Church and condemnes carrying home to the absent the Communion mixing water with the wine and many more things and still requires the Lords Supper and Baptism to bee administred according to the institution of Christ which if Mr. Cr. or any other can ever shew to have been of infant Baptism I will say as Bp. Jewel did concerning the 27. Articles propounded at Pauls Cross I am content to yeild and â—o subscribe otherwise Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptistâ— by accusing mee as opposing the universal Church in Austins sense though I deny it to be true do but conâ—emn themselves who with Papists dâ— reject things counted by the writers of the 〈◊〉 aâ—es Apostolical and of universal observation near the Apostles timâ—s Nor is the 〈◊〉 prâ—pâ—sition of Mr. Cr. p. 67. true That the whole Church 〈◊〉 the â—postles in all ages collectively considered cannot err either in doâ—â—rine or disciplâ—ne For if the whâ—le Church might err so in one age it may also in all â—ges câ—llectively considered the promises being no more 〈◊〉 the Church in all ages colleâ—â—ively considered then in each age distriâ—utively considered nor anâ— means given to them after the Apostles colleâ—â—ively considered to keep from errour then to each distributively yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more meanes to keep them from errour then other ages yet they erred in doctrine and discipâ—ine as many writers shew about Easter the Millenary opinion anâ— many other As for the promise Matth. 16 18. it is not true of the whole Church visible the gates of hell have and do prevail against them but of the invisible and yet the promise is not to the invisible that they shall not err but that they shall not erre finally to damnation which if they did then indeed the gates of hell or of death should prevail against them that is as Cameron rightly in his prâ—lection they should not rise to life eternal Nor is there a promise Joh 16.13 to the whâ—le Church but to the Apostles the promise being as well to shew them things to come as to lead them into all truth And yet the promise iâ— not so maâ—e to the Apostles but that they might err as Peter did Gal. 2. though when they taught the Church by writing or preaching they were so guided as that they should noâ— err But of this point of the militant Churches erring I need say no more but refer Mr. Cr. to his own Author Dr. Rainold thesi 3. 6. Were it granted that antiquity did universally pâ—actise infant Baptism yet neiâ—her were the present doctrine or practise justified by it but condemned and Mr. Cr. as truly may be said to pâ—eaâ— against the universal Church as my self For it is manifest from the places whâ—re there iâ— mention of it in the Ancients that they â—aught it and praâ—â—iâ—ed it onely upon the opinion of the necessity of iâ— to save an infant from perishing and because the very baptism did give grace remission of original sin made believers heirs of the â—ingdome of heaven and accordingly they practiseâ— it onely in case of danger of death very seldome and this they did to unbelievers children as well as believers 〈◊〉 a
Scripture to prove it Austin affirms lib. 10. c. 23. de Genes that the custome of our mother the Church in baptising of little ones iâ— in no wise to be despised nor to be thought superfluous nor at all to be believed unless it were an Apostolick tradition and yet proves the necessity of it from Joh. 3.5 unless one be born again of water and the spirit c. Answ. It was granted in my Examen that the greatest points of faith though written were by the Ancients called Apostolical traditions but in this point that the words ascribed to Origen meant an unwritten tradition I alledged 1. that the phraieâ— pro hoc ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit and secundum Ecclesiae observantiam are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times To this is nothing replied by Mr. Ms. friend Dr. Homes or M. Cr. to shew that these phrases are applied to any other then unwritten traditions when they are used of riâ—es for the use or institution of which they alledge no text of Scripture 2. That there is no text of Scripture cited for the use or instiâ—â—â—ion of infant Baptism To this it is replied that Origen layes the ground on the Scriptures But those Scriptures are brought for the proof of origiâ—al sin and the necessitâ— of infant Baptism which were reasons of the Churches observance not proofs of the use and institution of it And that the Scriptures do not give any proof of the use or â—nstitution of infant Baptism but onely grounds of the reasonableness and why the Church took it up is shewed to have been the judgement of many learned Papistâ— and Protestants of later and elder time in my Praecursor sect 20 which may bee easily observed because they alledge nothing out of Scripture about â—nstiâ—uâ—ion or practise of it but of neceâ—â—â—ty to save thâ— infant which being a mistake it appears â—he tradition waâ— not from the Apostles Besides as Augustin alledged Joh. 3.5 for infâ—nt Baptism so he also alledged Joh 6 53 for infant Communioâ— which hee and the Ancients observed aâ— an Apostolick tradition 〈◊〉 many Churches observe even to this day yet we conclude it is but an unwritten tradition and so judged by the Ancients All the places of the Fathers which cite Scripture for infant Baptism infant Communion Easter Lentâ—â—ast and many other things which the Ancients observed shewing rather the reason of their observation then the institution as Mr. Cawdrey speaks in another case Sabb. rediv. part 4. chap. 1. § 24. To the 20th section of my Praecursor Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator saith The Ancients took infant Baptism as you say for an Apostolical tradition but not unwritten The warrant they supposed written but not the history de facto Answ. The ancients must needs take infant Baptism for an unwritten tradition when they supposed the History neither de facto noâ— of the institution to be written though they â—ook the custome of the Church as Austin tom 3. l. 10. de Genes ad litteram c 23 terms iâ— having suâ—h reason from the necessity of it to save them perishing upon the mistake of Joh. 3.5 for their warrant But how poor a matâ—â—r was taken by the Church for a reason to coâ—tinue a custome may â—ppear even by those words of Austin in that place which shew also it was taken onely for a custome of the Church taken up by them and not appâ—inted by thâ— Apostles For having spoken as doubtfull and uncertain what to say about the question before agitated by him concerning the creation of the souls of the children from the parents becâ—usâ— of thâ— objection fro◠〈◊〉 Baptism of little ones he â—hen adds Yet the custome of ouâ— mother the Church in Baptising little oneâ— is not to be dâ—spâ—sed nor by any meanâ— to be accounted superfluous nor aâ— all to be believed unless it were an Apostolical tradition For that little age hath great weight of testimony which first meâ—ited to shed bloud for Christ. Whereby it may appear 1. That Austinâ—ook â—ook iâ— for a custome of the Church without example or institution written 2. That he took such a frivolouâ— pâ—â—â—ence as the death of the children of Bethlehem slain bâ— Herod Matth. 2. to have great weight of testimony for the believing of infant bapâ—ism to have been an Apostolical tradition It would be counted arrogance in me to censure the Fathers yet when I find such silly reasons as Austin here and elsewhere and Cyprian Epist. 59 ad Fidâ—m gâ—ve aâ— warrant for infant Bapâ—ism so slightly passed over by Mr. B. and otâ—ers aâ—d theiâ— testimonies still urged for the credit of infant Bapâ—ism which do wiâ—h any that is willing to see the weâ—kness of them discredit it I cannot but for the truths sake say that as in many other things so in this of infaâ—t Baptism the Fathers speeches are so vain as thâ—t there is more need to bewail the errour they have led peâ—ple into then to the continuance of thâ— deceiving of people by them to alledge them for proofs or to magnifie justifie or excuse them Mr. B. adds You might have spared all the 86. page where you prove that Papists take it for an unwritten tradition We know they are desirous of any pretence to set tradition above Scripture Yet you know Bellarmin and others commonly prove it by Scripture The words of Becanâ—s not § 24. as you say but § 12. yeeld the 〈◊〉 rightly interpreâ—ed to prove infant Baptism and that 's all that I desire I had thought that Chamiers answer to this might have satisfied you If you have forgot it peruse it again tom 7. lib. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l. 5. c. 9. § 32. Answ. I could not well have spared any part of that page Not onely later Papists engaged in the modern controversies but also elder and disingaged Papists and others were alledged by me of whom it is not meet to suspect that they did acknowledge that infant Baptism is an unwritten tradition out of a deâ—re to set tradition above Scripâ—uâ—e but out of cleer evidence of the tâ—uâ—h of what they say Nor do I think Mr. B. can shew one Author until Luthers day who made infant Baptism any other then an unwritten tradition although they produce many of them Scriptures for the necessity reasonableness and lawfulness of the Church to use it to whose authority they ascribed too much in the appointing such rites and interpreting â—criptures to that end I do not finde that the engaged Papists cited by me did set tradition above Scripture bâ—t that they make it equall I grant I know Bellarmin tom 3. l. 1. de sacram bapt c. 8. brings three arguments from Scripâ—ure for infant Baptism and c. 9. saith deducitur evidenter ex Scripturis uâ— diâ—imus but how he means it hee 〈◊〉 us thus in the same chapter that though the argument of the Anabaptists from defect
of Command or example have gâ—eat force against Lutherans for as much as they use that principle every where that the â—ite which is not in Scripture having no command nor example there is to be rejected yet it is of no force against Catholicks For altâ—ough we find no command expresly that we should baptize infants yet that also is openly enough gathered out of Scriptures as we have shewed above and besides the tradition of the Apostles is of no less authority with us then Scripture for the Apostles spake with the same spirit with which they did write But that this is an Apostolick tradition wee thence know whence we know the Apostolick Scripture to be the Apostolick Scripture to wit from the testimonies of the ancient Church The words of Becanus were cited rightly by me out of his manual of Controversies l. 1. c. 2. § 24. not § 12. as Mr. B. corrects me without cause and they plainly shew the meaning of those men to be that the Scripture onely proves infant Baptism by that sense of it which is not manifest but by the tradition and practise of the Church I have perused Chamier paustr. Cath. not tom 7. as Mr. B. directs I know none such but tom 1. l. 9. c. 10. § 40 c. and tom 4. l 5. c. 9. § 32. But I am not thereby satisfied that either the Ancients took infant Baptism for any other then an unwritten tradition or that it ought to be taken Mr. B. proceds Mr. Rogers hath made you know he is of another judgement Mr Bedford tels me he hath corrected his wordâ— in a later edition How could you allege Dr. Field without considering how you wrong'd your self Is nothing written in Scripture but expresly yea is not that Scripture proof and plain proof which shews plainly from Scripture the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of the practise Dr Prideaux thought Episcopacy provable from Scripture and therefore if hee thought that infant Baptism must bee proved the same way he is sure against you For Dr. Taylour if you have read all his books I hope you will no more reckon him amongst Protestants having so much of the body of Popery in them Mr. Youngs words if they be his are against you in the thing you cite them for There are testimonia minùs aperta and there are testimonia aperta pro fundamto praemissis quae sunt minùs aperta directâ— pro conclusione My audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof must bee bâ—tter repressed then thus if you will satisfie men of reason and conscience Answ. I have made known in my Apology sect 13. how Mr. Rogers shifts but answers not the allegation I made of his words And if M. Bedford have corrected his words I wish it have not been fâ—r the cause sake against his conscience If he and Mr. Rogers can so easily say and unsay who can give credit to men that can thus blow hot and cold wiâ—h the same breath I know no wrong to my self done by alleging Dr. Field Though things be written in Scripture which are not so expresly yet is not that Scripture proof nor plain proof for infant Baptism any more then infant Communion which shews plainly from Scripture Pauls conclusion of original sin Rom 5.12 and Christs Joh. 3.5 which Ancients took falsly for grouâ—ds reasons and causes of the necessity oâ— infant Baptism as they did Joh. 6.53 of infant Communion yet took the use to bee a custome â—f the Church countenanced from Scripture without institution of Christ or practise of the Apostles And that this was Dr. Fields meaning is plain from his words and this seems to have been the common opinion of the Prelates of the Church of England by thâ— words by way of Preface used at the solemnity of Baâ—tism and in sundry places of the Common Prayer book Catechism art 27. of the Church of England And after this manner thought Dr. Prideaux infant Baptism and Episcopacy proveable by Scripture I have not read all Dr. Taylors works nor do I know but that hee is to bee reckoned among Protestants Dr. Youngs words are much for me 1. In that he produceth no precept but that of Circumcision for infant Baptism 2. Thâ—t hee confesseth the practise Apostolical to be somewhat obscurer and therefore addes the cust me of the Church from the times of the first ages which is in effect all one as to resolve the proof of infant Baptism finally into the custome of the whole Church especially when he saith we cannot smite the Anabaptists with plain testimonies Nor can Mr. Bs. distinction of more or less open testimonies help him sith Dr. Young denies that Paedobaptists can smite with open or plain â—estimonies the Anabaptists barking against infant Baptism If Mr. Bs. audaciousness in asserting plain Scripture proof for infant Baptism be not yet repressed nor men of reason and conscience satisfied I must leave them to the Lord. Enough I think is said about Origens words I go on Dr. Hammond in his Defence of infants Baptism pag. 98. saith thus About the same time the 3d. Century or without question soon after wrote the Author under the name of Dionysius Areopagita de Eccl. Hierarch For as by Photius it appears Theodorus Presbyter about the year 420. debated the question whether that writer were Dionysius mentioned in the acts or no. And of this no doubt hath been made but that he was a very ancient and learned Authour He therefore in his 7th ch of Eccles. Hierarch Edit Morel p. 233. proposeth the question as that which may seem to prophane persons i. e. heathens ridiculous why children which cannot yet understand divine things are made partakers of the sacred birth from God i. e. evidently of Baptism concerning the baptizing of infants saith Maximuâ— his scholiast adding to the same head also that others in their stead pâ—onounce the abrenunciations and divine confessions And his answer is 1. That many things which are unknown by us why they are done have yet causes worthy of God 2. That we affirm of this the same things which our divine Officers of the Church being instructed by divine tradition have brought down unto us and again our Divine guides i. e. the Apostles saith Maximus considering this appointed that infants should thus be admitted according to the sacred manner nothing can bee more clear then that the Apostolical tradition is by this ancient and elegant writer avouched for the baptizing of infants as a sufficient account of that matter against the reproaches and scoffâ— of prophane or heathen men who deemed it unreasonable And so there is a most convincing testimony for that time wherein that Author wrote which must needs be in the 4th Century before Theodorus Presbyters debating the question concerning him but most probably more ancient and so to be placed in this 3d. age Answ. 1. It is to be noted by the Reader that Dr. Hammond doth not so much as pretend the antiquiâ—y of
wâ—ich is indeed sinful And so for confirmation by laying on of hand anointing wiâ—h oyl use of the signe of the cross setting up lights and many more it is frâ—quentâ—y shewed that they countenance no the Pâ—â—ish confirmation extream unction use of the signe of the cross lighting candles at noon day in their â—â—mples c. because they were in different mâ—nner and for different reasons and purposes then they are now used by them And indeed the discovery of the different reasons manner and end of rites used bâ— the Ancients from that they are now used is of greatest moment to shew the novelty of the Popish Prelatical Paedobaptists usages who have not onely quite departed from the Scripture but also from antiquity even in those things which the Ancients practised indeed but not as they do Secondly saith Dr. Homes he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better that they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy as well as at riper years 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is Circumcision that was wont to be done on the 8th day c. Answ. 1 The first of these is no other then the partaking of common grace for to partake of the common grace is all one as to be sanctified onely with a little enlargement 2. The 2d is indeed rather a preventing of an objection that they could not be parâ—akers of the common grace without perceiving it rather then a further reason of baptizing them And the answer is from two examples one of curcumcision which was given to infants without the use of reason the other of the anoining or sprinkling the door posts whiâ—h were things insensitive bringing salvation to the first born which is such a woodden reason as Dr. Homes thought fit to let pass in this place Thirdly saith Dr. Homes Wee answer that all three reasons stand in force as well for all believers infants God putting them under the promise Gen. â—7 a for the infants that are in danger of death Answ. Whâ—tever force there is in the reasons which in my apprehension are frivolous to prove Dr Homes his opinion or practise yet sure in Nazianzens intent they are onely for the colouring over of the practise of infant baptism of any whether believers or unbelievers children onely in case of apparent danger of imminent death and not at all for countenancing baptizing of believers infants onely at all times as federally holy Fourthly saith Dr. Homes that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine reasons to him evincing for the baptism of infants in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of deaâ—h he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion â—he calls it his opinion And what is it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or four years old more or less And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from infants toward baptism For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may hear and answer some spiritual things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Answ. 1. T is true Nazianzen gives one reason for baptizing infants in case of danger of death which is the sanctifying them by it not divers reasons the examples of Circumcision and anointing the door pâ—sts being answers to an objection as I said before Now that reason is so far from being Divine that it is from a meer superstitious conceit as if the meer outward Baptism did sanctifie Nor is it the same reason in effect for differing baptism three or four years with that which hee gives for infant baptism in case of danger of death For though he supposeth in both Baptism sanctifies yet he takes infant Baptism to sanctifie onely the body the other to sanctifie body and mind He supposeth they may learn some spiritual thing though imperfectly and so the baptism may be a sign to them though obscure and there may be some memory of what is done though confused which though it be not as it should be yet it is better and more agreeable to Scripture then the infant Baptism where there is no signification to the baptized nor remembrance of it 2. Be it granted that Nazianzen expresseth but his opinion and that it betters not the thing much and his reasons not so right as they should have been there is in this passage this evident that infant Baptism was no tthen common as now nor upon such reasons as now nor approved of as now it is but out of the case of danger of death imminent apparently disswaded and consequently the present common infant baptism an innovation from what was in that age Dr. Hammond adds That Chrysostome in his Homily to the Neophyti hath these words For this cause i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism there recited ten in number we baptise children though they have not sins and that he flourished in the beginning of the fift Age. Answ. Though finde in two Homilies one in the fifth the other in the sixth tome of Chrysostomes works of Eton print some speeches unto the newly inlightned or planted yet I finde not these words there nor any where else in any of his homilies Yet I deny not them to bee Chrysostomes finding them in Augustin tom 7. l. 1. against Julian the Pelegian ch 2. But perhaps if the words before were viewed it might be discerned whether the Baptism of little ones then used were onely in case of danger of death apparently imminent or without that case It is likely hee meant that infants or little children were baptized onely in case of danger of death imminent sith many of his Homilies express even that where these words cited were exhortations to the newly baptized and the relation of his life testifies that when hee was persecuted by the Empress and was about to baptize on the solemn festival in which Baptism was used the persons men and women that were to be baptized by him fled away naked being ready to be baptized upon his apprehension which shews they then baptized persons naked And the occasion of the speech as sâ—t down by Austin shews it was done upon the conceit of giving them grace which is manifest by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause And the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in the Greek shews there was mention of baptizing others then little children And in the same place Austin saith â—ohn Chrysostome held believed and taught this not onely that little children were not onely to be baptized but also to have the Eucharist or Lords Supper for without
when they were young therefore it was not their custome to Baptise infants For the making good hereof you bring forth instances of Constantinâ— the Great Greg Nazianzen and Chrysostom Afore he speaks of these instances hee sets down some known reasons some imagined why some deferred among the Ancients their own Baptism and he thinks they might upon the like reasons defer their childrens Answ. 1. That they did defer their childrens Baptism confirms my opinion that it was not ordinary in the Greek Church to baptize infants 2. That if they did defer it upon the reasons imagined by him then they thought it not necessary to be done in infancy as Paedobaptists do now chiefly Mr. Baxter plain Script proof part 2. ch 8 who will have infants baptised immediately as soon as ever they are disciples which by his grounds is at the first instant of their birth or afore 3. That very reason why some deferred Baptism to old age to wit the doing away sin was indeed the very reason of their baptizing infants And Nazianzens confutation telling some that all times were fit for Baptism seeing no time was free from death shews how ill Mr M. chose that passage to put in the Title page of his Book unlesâ— he would have Readers to baptize upon that opinion as if thereby they could work out their salvation 4. All this discourse about the various reason of mens deferring their own Baptism is quite besides the point about parents deferring their infants Baptism which not to have been upon any of those imagined reasons but because they thought it not necessary nor did practise it but in case of apparent danger of imminent death to the infant will appear by weighing his answer to my instances â—o that of Constantines being not baptized in infancy though Helena his mother were a Christian it is said 1. That it appears not that Constantines parents were in his infancy become Christians 2. Himself was also an unbeliever many years To which I reply though it be not apparent that Constantius or Helena were Christians in the infancy of Christians yet those Historians that do conceive they were and yet it being agreed he was not then baptized oâ—acitely yeeld that it was not unusual for the children of Believers to be unbaptized till they came to age Dr. Homes tels me That I have ill urged Constantin a Latin for an instance that Baptism of infants was not ordinary in the Greek church But I think otherwise since Constantin lived and died in the Greek Church and therefore fitly mentioneâ— among them The next mentioned by me is Gregory Nazianzen the son of a Christian Bishop and brought up long by him was not baptized till hee came to be a youth To this saith Mr. M or his friend How do you prove he was the son of a Christian Bishop His father was once in the Hypâ—istarian errour whether he were converted before Gregory was boâ—niâ— is not exprest When hee was young he was bâ—ed at Aâ—â—ens under heathens to which it 's not likely his father would send him if a Christian and why he was not baptised as soon as he was converted to Christianity I conjecture the reason was that he might the better prepare himself to receive baptism Answ. I did little imagin that this Author would have so far gratified the Papists as to joyn with Baronius and other Romanists by shifts to avoid the evidence of this instance which Protestants urge to prove Bishops to have then married and begot children after marriage To his question I prove him to have been a Bishop by the same words of Gregory Nazianzen himself in the verse of his life by which Chamier paustrat Cath. tom 3. l. 16. c. 13. § 41. Dr. Hall honour of the married Clergy 2d Book Sect. 8. and others prove Gregory Nazianzen to have been begotten of his Father being a Bishop where he brings in his Father speaking to perswade him to help him in his charge in these words as Dr. Hall turns them into English out of Greek The years of thy age are not so many as of my Priesthood Which how to free from Baronius his devices of an byperbole and the inconsistency with the other passages of his fathers Baptism and his study at Athens and seeing Julian there the Reader may see in Chamier ubi suprà at large Where and in Dr. Hall he may find that his mother was also a pious Christian when hee was born and that she begged him of God And the Century Writers of Magd. say cent 4 c. 10. She was born of pious and holy progenitours And though he travailed abroad suppose at 12. years of age yet was he long brought up by his parents especially in that time in which he was to have been baptized if the Baptism of infants had been then ordinary yet was hee not baptized as this Author confesseth till he was of age after he returned to his Father who it is not likely did send him to be trained up under infidels however hee might light on their acquaintance and hear them As for the reason of deferring his baptism it is in vain to enquire into another cause then that which Gregory Nazianzen himself in his 40th Oration of holy Baptism gives when hee adviseth to baptize infants in case of apparent danger of imminent death but out of that case to defer it And this appears to have been the genuine reason and the practise accordingly in that as Gregorius Presbyter relates in his life when sailing to Athens a storm arose so that his life was in apparent danger he was afraid of dying unbaptised and resolved to be baptised The other reason assigned by Mr M or his friend is frivolous for though the better to prepare himself to receive baptism might be the reason of his deferring it so long as he did when he came to age yet it could not be a reason of his parents deferring it or of his in infancy So that notwithstanding these vain shifts of this Author wherein he joyns with the Papists who use the like devices to avoin this testimony urged by Protestants to prove the marriage of Bishops then and is refuted by them yet this one instance is an evident proof that in the Greek Church baptism of infants was not ordinary in the fourth Century but used perhaps extraordinarily in case of apparent danger of imminent death There is the less need of insisting on the instance of Chrysostome his birth of Christian parents and educated and baptised at age by Miletius sith that of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 pregnant 'T is true I did allege it as Grotius 〈◊〉 saying whom I found counted for a learned man by Spanheimius and many others and I might well make use of him as Protestants sometimes do of Papists that are corrupt in point of antiquity If Dr. Young were the Author of the first part of Mr. Ms. Defence and of the Latin Book of the Lords day published in the year 1639. under
the name of Theophilus Pâ—ylokyriaces Loncardiensis hee himself cites Baronius for the Lords day in the very title page of his Book What Grotius was in his life and studies I leave for those who knew him to judge his books though in many things corrupt I might be allowed to make use of as of other learned men with judgement In this thing I did think I might the more securely take his word because in the same place Annot. in Matth. c. â—9 14 hee declared hee was for infant Baptism nor do I think it was without some reason which he affirmed though my time and Library yeeld mee not the advantage of making search into this thing It is enough that it is supposed by learned men probable which would not bee if it were not then ordinary that the children of Christian parents were baptized after they had themselves been believers Which iâ— plain by the resolution of the Synod of Neocaesarâ—a elder then the first Nicene which determined That a woman with child might be baptized because the Baptism reached not to the fruit of her womb because in the confession made in Baptism each ones free choise is shewed For if in the confession in Baptism each ones free choise is shewed then infants were not ordinarily baptized who could shew no free choise in confession How this is vindicated from the shifts of Mr. M or his friend may be seen in my Apology sect 16. p. 87 88. which I think needless to repeat And for Grotius his saying thaâ— in every age many of the Greeks unto this day keep the custome of deferring the Baptism of little ones till they could themselves make a confession of their saith may be true if either those in Italy mentioned by Ludov. Vives Comment in Aug. l. 1. de civit Dei c. 27. were Greeks as it is likely in Calabria where are Greek Churches as I remember Brerewood shews in his Enquiries of Religion or the Georgians children or the Christians children of Cholcos weâ—e Greeks oâ— whom Heylin in his Geography in the description of Armenia out of Brerewood Alexand. Rosse in his Censure of Religio Medici c say they are not baptized till they be 8. years old Nor need the Anabaptists yet to blush for all Mr. Ms. or his friends or Dr Homes or Dr. Hammonds or Mr. Craggs allegations in saying that the Anâ—ients especially the Greek Church rejected the baptism of infants for many hundred years For there is no evidence produced for infant Baptism in the Greek Church till Nazianzens time who flourished saith Dr. Hammond about the year of Christ 370. and died in the year 389. which is above 300. years and hee disswades it except in case of apparent danger of imminent death and saith some are kepâ— from Baptism by reason of infancy and as Mr. M p. 24. of his Defence saith all times were fit for Baptism seeing no time was free from death intimates Baptism not fit for some time except in that case which may be gathered to have been the onely reason of infant Baptism from what is sâ—id before of the story of hiâ— own baptism and therefore I doubt not to conclude that infant Baptism was not so ancient in the Greek Church as iâ— by Mr. M. and others pretended and as now it is taught by him and others is a late innovation SECT LXXXXI The testimonies of Tertullian for Infant Baptism and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of chap. 39. de Anima are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14 I Proceed to review the proofs from the Latin Fathers for infant Baptism Mr. Cr. brings up Tertullian in the fronâ— whom he reckons at the end of the second Century others at the beginning of the third about 70. or less years after John the Apostle in which short tract of time the Apostolical practise of infant Baptism could neither bee clouded nor forgotten Neither would he have commended his private opinion as more profitable that the Baptism of some infants for some respects should â—e deferred but have called it down as an innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams That infant Baptism was in practise in Tertullians days it appears by this question lib. de bapt c. â—8 Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum Why does innocent age meaning children in their infancy make hast for remission of sins meaning Baptism which is a clear case whatsoever Semi-Socinian Grotius say to the contrary That Tertullian was for infant Baptism himself appears that in his Book de Animà cap. 39. he presses it when the child is in danger of death and gives his reason lib. de bapt cap. 12. Praescribitur nemini fine Baptismo competere salutem it is prescribed that salvation is to none without Baptism Answ. 1. That Tertullian might not be mistaken or that the practise of infant Baptism could not be clouded or forgotten is said by Mr. Cragge inconsiderately 〈◊〉 afore Tertullians time the great differences about keeping Easter between Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus where it 's said John lived much and died and Victor of Rome who pretended tradition from Peter the mistake of â—renaus about Christs age with sundry others 2. That Tertullian would have called it down as an innovation if the practise of it had not been as transparent to every mans apprehension as if it had been writ with the Sun beams is a confident speech but of no credit with those who know Tertullian hath not called down the anointing the baptized giving milk and honey using the sign of the cross c. which yet are undoubted innovations 3. It is granted that infant Baptism was used in his time but it is withal true that hee disswaded it or did call it down as an innovation except in case of danger of death and that by sundry reasons which if hee had taken ken infant Baptism to bee from the Apostles hee would not have done 4. The allowing of it in that case arose as Mr. Craggs quotations shew from the errour of the necessity of it to salvation But Dr. Hammond saith further Tertullian a man of great learning and a diligent observer and recorder of the customs and practises of the most ancient Church lib. de animâ c. 39. affirms it from the Apostle ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either parent is sanctified or believer i. e. baptized the children that are born from them are holy and this tam ex seminis praerogativâ quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ both by praerogative of their seed and by the discipline of the institution i. e. as hath been shewed by Baptism adding from the same Apostle that delivered those words 1 Cor. 7.14 that his meaning was that the children of Believers should be understood to be designati sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis and evidencing what he means thereby by the following words of Christs
phrase tingi disciplina religionis to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion meaning evidently being baptised Where the Dr. by the way doth ill render tingi by sprinkled no Grammarian doth so render it nor doth Tertullian so mean it as in the place may be observed But to the thing This cannot be the meaning of Tertullian in that place 1. The words are these ut opinor autem aliud est aspergâ— vel interciâ—i violentià maris aliud tingi disciplina religionis As I think it is one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted with the violence of the sea as Peter was when against his will he was in the sea anoâ—her thing to be baptised with the discipline of religion that is out of a willing yeilding to baptism by the learning of religion that is knowledge and profession of faith which religion prompts to meaning plainly not the doctrine or command of Christ but the learning or discipline of his own heart in the sense that Tertullian useth after disciplina verecundiae modestiae And that sense which I give the Scope leads to which is to shew neither the Apostles being dashed with the waves when the ship was almost covered nor Peters being almost drowned was Christian baptism because it was not out of a voluntary disposition from that discipline of religion which doth dispose to it but the violence of the sea 2. Tertullian could not mean as the Dr. would sith there is no such institution of Christ either expressed by the Evangelists or by Tertullian The Evangelists express no title to baptism but by the persons own faith or discipleship who is to be baptised as is proved Review part 2 sect 5. And Tertullian in his Book of Baptism a little after the words cited by the Dr. c. 12. expresseth the institution of Baptism thus Lex enim tingendi imposita est forma praescriptae iâ—e inquit docete nationes tingentos eas in nomen patriâ— filii spiritus sancti Huic legi collata definitio illa nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua spiritu non intrabit in regnum coelorum obstrinxiâ— fidem ad baptismi necessitatem Itaqae omnes exinde credentes tingebantur And after Nam prius est prâ—dicare posterius tingere and in the 18th chapter gives his reasons against the hastening the baâ—tism of infants as being not necessary which if he had acknowleâ—ged such an institution as the Dr. imagins he could not have said and directs according to the institution Let them come when they grow up when they learn when they are taught wherefore they come let them hee made Christians when they can know Christ and afâ—er prescribes How they should go to baptism with prayer fasting kneeling confessing of sins and in his Book of Repentance cals Baptism the sealing of repentance no where is any such institution of infants Baptism from the faith of one parent and therefore I conclude ex institutionis disciplina is not meant as Dr. Hammond conceives On the other side I conceive that he means by sanctos procreari real holiness future and by ex institutionis disciplina learning of the doctrine or institution of Christ. That the holiness is real saving holiness is gathered first from the joyning together designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis which plainly shews that the holiness meant is that by which is salvation 2. This is confirmed in that it is made the effect of being born by water and the spirit 3. Shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven is expounded by sanctus holy 4. It is opposed to that uncleanness which they had in Adam and it is expressed to bee in Christ which must needs bee a real saving holiness 5. If it bee that which is by baptism then it is not baptism it self as the Dr. expounds it but a consequent on it which is no other then saving holiness 6. This is proved from the expression of designatos sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis this is confessed by the Dr. to express the same with procreari sanctos ex institutionis disciplina but designatos sanctitatis hath the sense of designed to be holy that is a believer by education and so saved I will set down the words of a Letter of my learned and much honoured friend and quondam scholler Dr. Wilkins Warden of Wadham Colledge in Oxford who at my request imployed a friend to enquire into the sense of this passage of Tertullian and thus wrote to me As for that phrase Designatos sanctitatis salutis though this reading be approved by Pamelius and de la Cerda in their editions yet 't is corrected by Johannes a Wouwer by that famous Manuscript Copy of Fulvius Ursinus now in the Vatican which hath it Designatos sanctitati Which reading is now generally received as the most genuine as may appear by Rigaltius and Georgius Ambianus in his last and best edition of Tertullian at Paris 1648. And the most proper sense of this phrase must be such as are designed by their parents to a religious education which is likewise signified by that other expression ex instituionis disciplina So that designatos sanctitati ac per hec etiam saluti plainly expresseth that whereas the Pagan idolaters did dedicate and consecrate their children to Devils and thereby made them unclean the children of the believer were brought into the world holy both in that they were free from such pollution and also by prayer vow or resolution designed or intended to be made holy by the disciplin of Christian institution and so to be saved or to enter into the Kingdome of heaven by faith in Christ. 7. This sense is confirmed by the words hujus spei pignora the pledges of this hope which shew that the holiness and salvation meant in the words before was a thing not then existent at the childrens birth but intended and hoped for at age upon endeavours used by the believing parent 8. This interpretation of designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati is confirmed by the expressions of Hierome Epist. 153. to Paulinus where he saith Of thy second Problem Tertullian hath discoursed in his books of Monogamy affirming the children of believers to be called holy because they were as it were candidati fidei candidates of faith and not polluted with any of the filth of Idolatry Which phrase expresseth the same with designatos sanctitati and alludes to those who in Rome stood for Offices in white and notes that the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptized quod veluti ambiunt expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Epist. 153. to Paulinus or designed that is intended to be holy by the parents that is to be bred up to profess the faith and so to be baptized To this saith Dr. Hammond 1. This of Tertullian is not the place that S. Hierom refers to but some other in his Books de Monogamia that one
with infant communion which had alike consent and in so ridiculous a manner as to propound questions of its faith and devotiâ—n to an infant who could not understand or speak and put in others to undertake and answer for an infant who could neither promise for them wiâ—hâ—ut arrogant presumption what was not in their power noâ— profess their faith without apparent untruth argue it to have been a corruption 2. That the uniform consent of the Apostles and Apostolical men with Christ and John Baptiâ—â— in Scripture should not more prevail with a man who makes the Scripture his Canon then Fathers of those ages wherein maâ—y errours and corruptions were received and either hatched or fostered by them but that hee should not onely dare to practise the corrupt innovation of infant Baptism of which there is no instance in Scripture but also omit the baptism of believers and oppose it and harden men in their conceits as if they were baptized in infancy sufficiently and for that reason to bâ—e reckoned among Christians though meer strangers from the knowledge or practise of Christianity He adds If he be not why doth he mention this as usefull in this matter Answ. To shew how little credit is to be given to the Drs. dictates without proof The Dr. adds But then 2dly it must be adverted that this one containing two questions in it 1. Whether this of initiating into the Covenant by baptism were a Jewish custome 2. Whether from thence Christ derived this right of baptizing Christians The former of these was that which alone required proving the latter being of it self evident without faâ—ther pâ—obation supposing onely that the Fathers testified that to bâ— Christs institutioâ— of Baptism which we find to have been thus agreeable to the pâ—actise customary among the Jewes And this â—e illustrates by the like examples of excommunication and the post câ—nium from whence he concâ— vs Christ derived the Lords Supper and excommunication by the Apostles Answ. For pâ—esent omitting the instances of the Lords Supper as dâ—ive froâ— the Jewish post câ—nium and excommunication Apostolical râ—spâ—ct Jewiâ—â— it hath been yeeldâ—d by me that Christian baptism was in 〈◊〉 of the rite like Jewish baptism of Proselytes acknowledged to havâ— been a custome among them for initiating them not of native Jews 〈◊〉 the giving of the Law into the Covenant and it is probable that Jâ—hn Baptist follâ—wed in the external act that rite though to another end he bâ—ptizing with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins they into he observance of the Law for righteousness and other subjects John Baptist â—ews by nature not so Pharises And as John â—aptist practised so Christ appointed and his Apostles practised Baptism with express mention of the Trinity or the name of Christ somewhat differently fâ—om John and if the one be said to be derived from the other by way of accommodation I shall not contend about it nor do I deâ—y thaâ— Christ alluded to this baptism of Proselytes Joh. 3.3 5. in the manner I have expressed before and the 2d part of this Review sect 16. Nor do I â—eny that the Jewish Christian and Gentile baptisms may have their first riâ—e from Noahs deluge but that which I insist on â—s that the Jewish use was was not so conformable to the Christian as that it can be true that the Jewish was thâ— pattern of the Christian. As for the Fathers Nazianzen Maâ—arius Athanasius their words seem not to mâ— to make a comparison between the Bapâ—ism Jewiâ—h and Christian for initiation but the Christian and Jewish which was occasionally renewed upon any legal defilement or often iteâ—ated by the Priests for purification or sanctifying and so the words of Athanasius cited by the Dr. inâ—imate which say the 3d. is the Legal baptism which the Hebrews had whereby every unclean person not â—very one who was so by natuâ—e as the Dr. aâ—ds but by accident was baptised in water as oft as he was defiled had his garmentâ— washed and so enâ—red into the Camp whicâ— was anoâ—her baptism then that tâ—e Dr. makes the pattern of Christian baptism to wit that which was once onely used for initiation and of this I think the Dr. findes no mention in the Fathers nor of the derivation of Christian baptism from it That which the Dr. saith sect 4. p. 18. from the Talmud That when a Proselyte is received he must be circumcised and then when hee is cured they shall baptise him in the presence of two wise men saying Behold he is as an Israelite in all things addiâ—g A plain testimony to the sense of those which we formerly produced of baptising both Jews and Proselyte for else how could the Proselyte upon receiving this be said to be a Israelite in all things Answ. Two wayes 1. In respect of the rite he was circumcised and baptised as the Israelites at the giving of the Law Exod. 19.10 not after that time were baptised anâ— the Proselytes pâ—sterity were then not after this time of the first initiation into the Jewish people 2. In respect of priviledges and profession as it is said Ester 8.17 Many of the people of the Land became Jews Neither this then nor the other are plain or obscure testimonies of baptising native Jews for iniâ—iating into the Covenant afâ—er the giving of the Law That which I said that I alleged that Mr. Selden de Syned Ehra l. 1. cap. 3. p. 40 41. mentionâ— some who have conceived that tâ—e Jewish baptism in initiating Proselytes was in imitation of Christs example though he do not believe it and that Schickardus conceives they added a certain Baptism to Câ—rcumcision to difference them from Samaritans to shew that notwithstanding Dr. Hs. supposition that the whole fabrick he frames of Baptism is discernable to be built on that basis the customary baptism among the â—ews yet many will conceive it needs more proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers is a conclusion drawn out of the premises in the first figure thus That is not so discernable but that many will conceive it needs mâ—re proof then the bare recital of passages out of Jewish writers which was not so conceived by Schickard and some others mentioned by Mr. Sâ—lden But the Drs. supposition was not so conceived by those Ergo. The maâ—or rests on two things 1. That experience shews what some others who had understanding to conceive did not conceive to be so many its likely will not discern 2. That the later Jewish writers are not such certain proof of the ancient Jews customes but that more proof may bee justly required then the bare recital of passages in them It is not unknown that some have excepted against Ainsworths allegation of Rabbins and that in his apology for it he himself saith Some things I note from them not as approving them my self absolutely but leaving them to the further consideration of the prudent Preface to his annot on Gen. Nor
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is
to the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world and that he might be known was to be baptized of him We can therefore easily imagine that the Jews that believed â—ohn and came to his Baptism did not bring infant children with them to save them from predicted evils because wee reade that they tâ—at were baptized of him confessed their sins Matth. 3.5.6 justified God Luk 7.29 Nor was Baptism appointed to them as to Proselytes infants nor do wee reade that John Baptist gave any inkling of his minde to have infants brought And it iâ— a signe to me that the Dr. is confident that hee can leade men in a string who adventures to â—uggest such things as he confesseth the Scripture affirms nothing of it and tradition as little as far as he knows and neither affirms nor beleives any thing in it and onely upon a supposition that infanâ— câ—ildren would have been brought 〈◊〉 Noahs Ark if men had beleived Noah and Johns Baptism was as Noahs Ark stiled the Kingdome of heaven whereas Johns and Christs Baptism are not made answerable to Noahs Ark in respect of the bare outward baptism nor is it stiled the Kingdome of heaven but the answer or interrogation of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and the preaching beleiving of the Gospel throughout the world Mar. 1.14 15. which they who were baptized were to entertain and not infants and therefore not to be baptized till they did And wee may with better reason then the Dr. gives of his fancy conceive Gods providence rather ordered there should be no infants in Noahs Ark that we might not fancy infants baptism thence then that we should as this Dr. or doatard supposeth Yet again saith he Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Maâ— 10. Fâ—rst 't is there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely and sure that phrase comprehends the lambs also the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men by the addition of their actual to original sin And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also Answ. Because we reade of no such thing done or appointed to be done nor do we know that baptism was appointed to bee a remedy of original sin though some of the Ancients talk so besides the Scripture The Dr. adds And 2. for their preaching it is just as as Johns was to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction that vindicative act of God kingdome v. 7. that all that shâ—uld give ear and heed them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life and the ruine being impendent to the young as well as old even the whole nation why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their Parents care in bringing them to baptism and timely ingaging them to flye from the wrath to come as soon as they should come to understanding injoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity Answ. It was fit they should enjoy the benefit of others charity in their Prayers and supply of â—uch things as were meet for them of which sort the Apostâ—es Baptism was not nor did they understand it was Christs minde that they were senâ— to baptize them for then they had baptized them and not rebuked those that brought them to Christ Matth. 19.13 Nor by bringing them to Baptism were children rescued from the wrath to come but by reformation and new life Thirdly saith he after their preaching though there be no mention of baâ—tizing and so it was not fit to be produced to our present bâ—siness yet other things are appointed to be done wherein infants were concerned as well as others as healing of diseases c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized why should it not to their receiving cures Answ. Because that they might be baptized it was necessary they should be made disciples by preaching not so that they might be cured of diseases Nay I may add saith the Dr. How should the dead in that place who sure were as uncapable of understanding as the tenderest infants be capable of being raised by those Apostles which yet is there affirmed of them v. 8. Answ. And I may add that after this rate of reason if mere capacity of outward Baptism and the charge of Christ to the Apostles to do acts of power on any thing without making it a disciple by preaching to it as the Dr. here fancieth of infants fit it for Baptism then the dead are to be baptized which was practised of old and the giving them the Eucharist as appears by the prohibition of it in the third Synod of Carthage Canon 6. and Balsamous note thereon But the Dr. it seems thought it â—t in this reply to me to write what came next to hand whether it were fit to be produced to the present business oâ— not of which sort also is that which he talks in answer to my third reason of preaching to the nations and receiving all that come in to the discipleship whether on their own legs or in others arms whole families at once the parents and upon their undertaking their infant children also which perhaps the Dr. might write early in the morning or late at night between sleeping and waking it is so like a dream The Dr. goes on thus His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so saith he is used Matth 13.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last translators and can no otherwise be rendred then made a disciple by teaching so Acts 14.21 it is said Haviâ—g preached the Gospel to that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having taught or made many disciples For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient that iâ— signifies to receive ad discipulatum as into a School of spiritual inâ—truction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple and such he is made 〈◊〉 by any motive or means either comes or iâ— brought into the school this indeed in order to teaching in the Master and to learning in the Scholler and the one so to teach as that the other learn but this subâ—equâ—nt to his being made a disciple the youth wee know enters into the School is admitted into the Colledge and University before â—e learns a word there the instruction or learning is still lookt upon as futurâ— at his entring into discipleship Answ. How vainly doth the Dr. talk of his former sufficient saying when he neither formerly nor now giveâ— one instance in the New Testament or any other Author wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much to receive ad discipulatum nor any Translator or Lexicographer that so renders it Matth. 28.19 or elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disciple Matth. 28.19 is confest
powers were to preach and baptize those that received their doctrine SECT XCVIII The testimonies of Cyprian Augustin and other Latin Fathers for Infant Baptism are shewed to have come from their mistakes and the evidences why the antiquity of Infant Baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended are vindicated I Now return to the examination of the Testimonies brought out of the rest of the Latin Fathers besides Tertullian for infant Baptism whereof Cyprian was the chief and his testimony is thus urged by Dr. Hammond Defence of infant Baptism chap. 4. sect 2. p. 99. In the midst of this third Age An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bp. of Carthage and ten years after he suffered martyrdome i. e. 158 years after the Age of the Apostles In the year 257 he sate in Councel with 66 Bishops see Justellus in his preface to the African Canons p. 21. and their Decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem which is now among his works â—amel edit p. 80. The Councel was in answer to some questions about Baptism and accordingly he there sets down his own opinion together with the Decrees of that Councel of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him And so this as it is an ancient so it is more then a single testimony that of a whole Councel added to it and yet farther to encrease the authority of it 〈◊〉 cites this Epistle more then once and sets it down almost entire 〈◊〉 a testimony of great weight against hereticks and so 't is â—â—ed by S. Hierom also l. 3. dial cont Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus whether infants might be baptized the second or third day or whether as in Circumcision the eighth day were not to be expected he answers in the name of the Councel universi judicavimus 't was the resolution or sentence of all nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denigandam that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denied to any human birth to any child though never so young by that phrase mercy and grace of God evidently meaning Baptism the right of conveying them to the baptized adding that 't is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized is given to them in a greater or less degree in respect of the age of the receivers and that God as he accepts not the person so nor the age of any confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean and that if any were to be kepâ— from Baptism it should rather be those of full age who have committed the greater sins and that seeing men when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptism how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden who being new born hath no sin upon him but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born who therefore should more easily bee admitted to pardon because they are not his own but others sins which are then remitted to him concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptism so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new-born children Thus much and more was the sentence of that ancient Father and that Councel and as the occasion of that determination was not any Antipaedobaptist doctrine there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church that we can hear of but a conceit of one that it should be deferr'd to the eigth day which was as much infancy as the first and so both parties were eâ—ually contrary to the Antiâ—aedobaptists interests the condemned as well as the Judges so that it is no new doctrine that was then decreed or peculiar to S. Cyprian who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptism appears also by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him and by the express words of St. August Ep. 28. ad Hieronym Blessed Cyprian not making any new decree but keeping the faith of the Church most firm decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops that a child new born might fitly be baptized Which shews it the resolution of that Father also that baptizing of infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time not onely the opinion but the â—aith which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles Answ. I have been willing to set down these words at large sith none urgeth this authority more fully though Mr. M. Dr. H. Mr. B c. do all alledge it and it is the chiefest of all the testimonies Augustin produced for infant Baptism and therefore was translated by me into English and printed at the end of my praecursor Concerning which act Mr. B. praefest mor. p. 401. saith thus It seems to me God ordered Mr. T. to translate Cyprians Epistle to the disgrace of his cause with the vulgar themselves For none can be so blinde as not to see in it the antiquity of infant Baptism which is all that we urge it for But if the cause I maintain be disgraced by translating that Epistle I shall take it as a sign that a spirit of dotage is faln on men so as to be enamouted on the blemishes of the ancient Sure me thinks none of the vulgar much less the learned should be so blinde as not to discern that infant Baptism was an errour which was maintained by the prime assertors upon such vain reasons as are in that Epistle which are not excused by what Mr. B. saith That the arguments are onely for confutation of the objection concerning infants uncleanness before the eighth day and not to give the grounds that warranted infant Baptism For the truth is both are done together and the best grounds they had for it are set down by them which will appear to be so frivolous by examination of them that notwithstanding all the credit Dr. Hammond endeavours to gain to it yet men of mean understandings I doubt not will by reading of it discern how ill that Councel did in that determination Nor doth it any whit beâ—ter the matter to say that it was not Cyprian alone but also a whole Councel of 66 Bishops which did thus agree with him For in like manner did the same Cyprian with a more famous Councel See Epist. to Jubaia ponep Quir. Janu. Steph. at the same place determine the rebaptizing of the baptized by Hereticks with better shew of Scripture and reason then in his Epistle to Fidus and alledged Apostolical authority as much as in this and yet he is deserted therein not onely by the Bishops of Rome that were then but also by Augustin and the African and other Churches Besides his maintaining the perfusion of the Clinici in his Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Epist. 7. his maintaining the necessity of water with the wine in the Lords Supper as
relying on this Councel shewed their darkness Answ. Mr. M. p. 38. of his Defence Though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement yet he relied not uâ—on his reasons to make good infant Baptism this to him is no new doctrine he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church which in that point be followed faithfully Ref. It appears by the words of Augustine ep 28. ad Hieronâ—m where he alledgeth this very thing for infant Baptism that Cyprian said not that the flesh but the soul unbaptized should be lost that he relied on his reaâ—ons and the like is apparent where he and Hierome set down his words and argue from them tom 7. l. 3. de pecc mer. remis c 6 contra Julian l. 1. c. where Augustine hath these words Sed Cyprianus dicit periâ—e parvulum nisi fuerit baptizaâ—us quam vis ei non propria demittantur sed â—liena pecâ—ata But Cyprian saith a little one perisheth unless he be baptized although not his own but anothers sins are forgiven him My 3d. Excepâ—ion was That Fidus started the question out of a Judaizing conceit that the law of Circumcision which was not to be till the â—th day was to be considered and that the footstep of an infant being in the first days of his birth is not clean which shew a relique of Judaism in him To this it is said 1. That Cyprian did not concur with him nor the Councel Refut 1. However it appears that the Baptism of infants was then practised upon the superstitious conceit as if we were to do in Baptism as the Jews did in Circumcision 2. Nor doth Cyprian appear by hiâ— Ep. 7. l. 4. and elsewhere to be free from thinking the ceremonial Law to direct us about Baptism 2. That other learned men as Athanasius Nazianz. August Chrysostome reasoned from Circumcision to Baptism Refut No doubt of it for as in the controversie about Easter so in other things they appeared too much to imitate the Jewish ceremonies by which the simplicity of the Christian service was altered My 4th Exception was That the resolution of this Councâ—l was the spring-head of infant Baptism Answ. Before that time Baptism of infants was in use Refut Yet it was not determined before but disswaded nor was any authority of any Councel which was as a spring head to it whence it continued a stream afore that nor doth Augustine in his allegatiâ—ns for it find any higher spring of it then Cyprian and his Councel My 5th and chief Exception was Tâ—at the Councel determined the baptizing of infants upon these errours which are now rejected by Protestants as Popish 1. That they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it denying Gods grace 2. They thought the souls to be lost which were not baptized 3. That therefore not onely infants of believers but all infants were to be baptized Mr. M. acknowledgeth the two first to be rightly gathered from the words of the Epistle but that he also urged that Baptism comes in stead of Circumcision and if some arguments were used by the Ancients which were not good the truth is not to be rejected when some oâ—her are Ref. 1. The Council determined infant Baptism on no other argument 2. If infant Baptism could be proved by other arguments I should yeeld to it however the credit and authority of this Councel is taken away by reason of the falshood of the grounds of their determination 2 ly For the 3 d. inference though he lays it down in general terms that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ Yet what he saith ought to be understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common Ref. 1. The words are as express as may be We all judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied by not baptizing them nulli hominum nato to none born of men as much as in us lies if it may be nulla anima peâ—denda est no soul is to be lost for want of Baptism 2. The very words Mr. M alledgeth for a restriction to the Church are against it they are thus Sed putamus omnem omnino hominem admittendum ad gratiam Christi cum Petrus in Actibus Apostolorum loquatur dicat Dominus mihi dixit neminem communem dicendum immundum But we think every man altogether should be admitted to the grace of Christ when Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and saith The Lord hath said to me that no man should be termed common and unclean Which is meant of all men not onely of the Church And this enough to answer Dr. Homes who in his animadversions p. 138. finds not that passage in Cyprian which I alledge and p. 139. saith Cyprian doth not say infants perish if they be not baptized though Augustine expresly saith the contrary and p. 13â— takes on him to defend the sayings of that Councel as having no errour or hurt to say that Baptism gives grace instrumentally and that without warrant wittingly to deny Baptism is to deny Gods grace But Protestant writeâ—s generally as Austin before judge the words to have a further sense and the words of the Epistle plainly shew that they held by the very Baptism infants had remission of sin and were saved and without it were lost and to deny them Baptism was to deny them Gods grace That which he saith of me â— 139. That I would not have it that Cyprian doth at all put in original sin among his arguments for baptizing of infants is not true I onely denyed that he put it in in the manner Mr. M. conceived What I said of the absurdity and nakedness of that Epistle hath no more immodesty then is common to Writers Protestant and Papists who charge Fathers and ancient Councels with errours blemishes and ofâ— times with harder censures if I had given that Epistle a â—arter censuâ—e I had done right that I spake was soft enough considering the great hurt which hath come to the Church of God by that Epistle which determined childrens baptism by childish reasons Next to Cyprian of the Latine Fathers are recited Ambrose and Hierome and Paulinus by Dr. Hammond whose words with Augustines and such Councels as were in their times in the 4th and 5th Century I shall forbear to reciâ—e it being acknowledged that in those ages it was practised and by reason of Augustines esteem Baptism of infants was practised in following Ages almost without controul and in process of time that which was before Augustines dayes a rarity became so frequent as that it almost swallowed up the right Bapâ—ism which appears from the words of Walafridus Strabo placed by Usher at the year 840. in his Book de rebus Ecclesiasticis c. 26. who is termed by Mr. George Gillespie in his Aarons rod blossoming p. 567. a diligent searcher of the ancients which were before him and of the old Ecclesiastical rites
from these words that in the Churches of Cyprus the rite of Confession was usual afore Baptism where he also saith that Basil. exhort ad bapt writes that no other then catechized persons were baptized who were called together at Easter Although I deny not that there was sometimes infant Baptism yet by all the instances of the rite of Baptism gathered by those Historians in that place it appears to have been very rare and onely in the case of apparent peril of immanent death And this is very probable to have been the reason why Socrates hist. l. 5.22 relating diversities of several Churches about persons that had power to baptize and the time in which Baptism was commonly administred and Sozom. 7 19. several customes of several Churches neither exclude nor mention infant â—aptism because it was so rare a thing to baptize an infant and done so obscurely that no instance is apparent of it in any history in that or the foreâ—going â—ges And Dr. Homes p. 171. wrongs me in saying Mr. T. himself chargeth Augustin and Cyprian that they thought too many infants were to be baptized namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers for these latter words are not mine though I yeeld the former to be true To my instance of Augustins latâ— Baptism it is said by Mr. M. defence p. 46. One swallow makes not a spring peradventure some though born of Christian parents were not in that age baptized in infancy yet that is no way prejudicial to the universal practise of the Church in which Paedobaptism was received But by his leave it is a great evidence and seemed so to Strabo nearer to those times then we are that infant Baptism was not so univerâ—al as Mr. M. makes it when so â—minent a person of so eminently goâ—ly a mother did not take care to have him baptized in infancy But besides wee have the words of Optatus Mâ—lâ—vitanus about the same tiâ—e in his 4th bâ—ok against â—armenian the Donatist thuâ— No man is ignorant that every man who is born though he be born of Christian parents can be without the spirit of the world which it is necessary should be excluded and separated from the man before the saving Baptism This Exorsim does by which the unclean â—â—irit is driven out and made to flye into desert â—laces The â—ouse is made empty in the breast of the believer the house is made clean God enters and dwels as the â—postle saith ye are the Temple of God and God dwelâ— in you Whence it is apparent that even those who were born of Christian parents were believers afore they were baptized though I deny not that it was not the common doctrine that infants should be baptized nor do I make that inference which Mr M. intimaâ—es I do from that example of Augustin that children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptized in their infancy but that they were seldome so nor except in case of appaâ—ent danger of imminent deaâ—h Which is manifest by the instance of Augustin Mr. M. and Dr. Homes impute the delay of Augustins Baâ—â—ism either to his Fathers hindering who was not then a Christian or to friends permission of him to have his own will or to persecution But all these are but mere shifts his own words conâ—es l 1. c. 11. declaring the true state of the thing whicâ— are thus I had heard being a boy of eternal life promised us by the humility of our Lord God descending to our pâ—ide and I was already signed with the signe of his cross and was sâ—asoned with his salt already even from the womb of my mother who much hoped in thee Whence it is apparent that she was then a Christian when she bare him in her womb and dedicated him to Christianity but did not baptize him After he goes on and saith Thou sawest Lord when I was yet a boy and on a certain day pressed with a pain of the stomack I was suddenly sick almost about to dye thou sawest my God because thou wast my keeper already with what motion of minde and with what faith I asked from the piety of my mother and thy Church the moâ—her of us all the Baptism of thy Christ my God and Lord. And the mâ—ther of my flesh was troubled because also she did bring forth my everlasting salvation with a chast heart in thy faith now being very hasty did take care that I might be initiated and washed with saving Sacraments confessing thee O Lord Jesus unless I had been presently recreated Therefore my cleansing was delayed as if it should bee necessary that I should be defiled if I did live because to wit after that washing greater and more dangerous guilt of sins in filthiness would be So I did already believe and she and all the house except my Father alone who yet did not overcome in me the right of my mothers piety that I should not believe in Christ as he had not yet believed Whence it may be easily perceived 1. That the childe of a godly affectionate Christian who devoted him to Christ and educated him for Christ yet was not baptized then in infancy nor by the Church reâ—uired to be bapâ—ized 2. That when he was sick and like to die when hee was but a boy he earnestly required from his mother and the Church baptism 3. That it was not to have been done without his confession of Christ. 4. That his recovery afore it could be done put it off and no other reason was thereof but that living he was likely to be more guilty of sin if baptized so young 5. That baptism was counted cleansing and a greater and more dangerous guilt apprehended if he did sin after baptism 6. That even then he did believe and his mother and all the house excepâ— his Father and yet it hindred not his Christianity not is it lâ—kely could or would hinder his bapâ—ism in infancy if his mother and the Church had thought it meet or it had been the use out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death As for Adeodâ—tus it is apparent his Father believed before he begate him and he was brâ—d up by him in Gods discipline as he saith l. 9. confes c. 6. and though the Father was not baptized yet the Grandmother was and yet Adeodatus was not baptized till 15 years old and for Alipius it is somewhat pâ—obable hee was born of Christian parentage and bred up so but not baptized till of age However that were the case of Augustin is full to prove what I concâ—ived For a further declaration of the practise of infant Baptism I alledged Grotius his words who conceived the baptism of infants more frequent in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world and he gave his reason of it because of the mention of it in the African Council at Carthage not in like manner in other Councils to which Mr. M. saith the Councils might not mention it because none did
scruple it But it is more likely none did scruple iâ— because there was no occasion to do so there being little or no practise of it which is made very probable from the 6th Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea anno 315. and the words of Nazianzen before mentioned As for the constitutions of Clement in one whereof they are bid baptize their little ones Mr. M. doth well to confess they are not Clements and if the compiler of them did relate the ancient customes of the Greek Church hee did relate later customes also among which that of baptizing infants is to bee conceived one for the reasons given Grotius annot in Matth. 19.14 saith And many of the Greeks from every age unto this day keep the use of deferring the baptism of little ones till they could make confession of their own faith But of this before sect 89.90 I said that I did not find in Affrica infants baptized but in case of danger of death or for health of body Dr. Homes saith he hath shewed the contrary out of several antiquities and particularly out of Cyprian But neither in Cyprian nor any where else do I find it but the the contrary in Tertullian And as for Augustine it was not as he â—aith that Augustines sickness whiles young was some occasion of deferring his baptism for that time but his sickness occasioned the hastning and his recovery ere it was done put it off for that time Nor doth mâ— saying that they baptized infants for health of body which is manifest from Augustines 23d Epist. to Bonifacius clash with that which I said of Augustines asserting the necessity of infant baptism to take away original sin and ascribing salvation to it for he both might and did conceive it to be done for both ends My mention of the continued use of catechizing in Augustines time and long after and the mention of baptizing whole Countries upon the baptizing of their Kings was very pertinent though not to shew no infants were baptized then yet to shew how and by what means the ancient custome of baptizing ordinary believers upon profession of faith after catechizing was so strangely changed that whereas the preface in the common prayer book before the administration of baptism saith it appeareth by ancient writers that the sacrament of baptism in the old time was not commonly administered but at two times in the year at Easter and Whitsontide At which times it was openly ministered in the preâ—ence of all the congregation the persons to be baptized having been before catechized now it is quite otherwise so that in most Protestant and popish Countries baptism is ordinary even of infâ—nts at all times in obscure manner and except of late in these nations in which God hath begun to restore the right use of baptism and what Bellarmin in his 2d book de bonis operibus in particularâ— C. 17. saith that in the City of Rome there is no year in which there are not many baptized at Easter who were catechised the baptizing of believers is almost unheard of and counted a hainous thing and punished in some parts as a crime deserving death or banishment So great is the enormity of Paedobaptism and so great the wickedness of Paedobaptists The 2d and main exception I took against Augustines judgement which might move us to examine his reasons was the ground upon which Augustine Ambrose and generally the Popish paedobaptists held and urged infant baptism to wit the damning of the infant if dying unbaptized which made Augustine to be termed the hard Father of infants and affrighted so people in after ages and doth to this day that they will have their children by all means as they count it baptized it 's no matter by whom it be done nor how so somewhat be done else they count them lost To this which is of so great moment to shew the abuse of Paedobaptism it is said that Augustine pressed it upon other grounds but that doth not appear he urged it it is true from circumcision but upon the same ground that the uncircumcised male should be cut off from Gods people nor did â—e so retract his errour but that he still held infants should be damned although with the mildest damnation of all How the schoolmen and others do follow Augustine Mr. Perkins shews in his probleme and many elsewhere and the Common Prayer both in allowing at first Baptism by Midwives and in their Preface in the administration of Publique Baptism do plainly shew it was the mind of the composers of that book at first noâ— is there any thing therein or any of the Ancients oâ— Baptism as belonging to infantâ— of believers as federally holy Which is a strong evidence that Augustines judgement was very corrupt in this point and that the Baptism of infants was introduced and grew to such an excess upon that errour and for that reason both Augustines judgement and it are to be suspected as evil and to be rejected A 3d. Exception against Augustines judgement to shew that he and Cyprian were in these points of Sacraments not to be restâ—d on was That Augustine Epist. 23. relates the story in Cyprian de lapsis about the giving the Wine to a girl with credit to it and some use of it without dislike of the custome yea l. 1. de pâ—cc mer remis c 20 he makes giving infants the Eucharist necessary to salvation alledging Joâ— 6.53 for it and ch 2. he makes it an ancient and Apostolick tradition to give the Communion to infants besides what he saith Epis. 106. â—07 to the like pâ—rpose and he ascribes to John Chrysostome l. 1. adv Juâ— c. 2 the like and Eâ—is 93. Innocentius Bishop of Rome held the like and this not onely Maldonat on Joh. 6. acknowledged to continue 600. years in the Church from Cyprians time to Charls the Greats time as â— remember the account is but also Erasmus Resp ad Archâ—ep Hisp. Chamier paus cath tom 4. l. 1. c. 13. § 5. Gataker de Bapt. infant vi p. 269. say the use of infant Communion was ancient and to the objection that this was not defined Dr. John Rainold Apolog thes § 10. answers nor doth Mr. M. or Dr. Homes deny it but Mr. M. asks What is your argument hence I answer There is no reason to rely on Auguâ—tines judgement concerning the antiquity and necessity of infant Baptism or to press it on others who did so fouly mistake about the antiquiâ—y and necessity of giving the Communion to infants nor to adhere to the Ancients determinations and use about infant Baptism who did erre so much about infant Communion For as Mr. Gataker de Bapt. in s vi p. 200. saith about Augustins authority conceâ—ning infant Baptism it will not seem equal to press the adverse party concerning the other authority of those whose judgement in the other thy self declinest But how Augustine doted about infant Communion is manifest therefore it is not reason to urge
his testimony about infant Baptism as to be rested on but we may say as Vorstius adv Bellarm. tom 3. contr 2. thes 2. rat 3. The doting of Augustine and some other is ill brought for the consent of the whole Church and we may make that use of this instance of Augustines Innocentius and others errour about infant Communion which Cameron doth c. â—7 of his Examin of Rom. prejudices to take away the unjust fore-judging of the refusal of infant Baptism aâ— unreasonable by shewing how little the Fathers particularly Augustine are to be trusted and what just reason there is to forsake him in the one as they have done in the other My 4th Exception was That Augustine 1. ascribes a certainty of regeneration to children baptizâ—d though they were not brought for spiritual grace but temporal health 2. That he justifies this fact Epist. 23. ad Bonif. Mr. M confesseth He ascribed too much sometimes to Baptism yet sometimes he saith of some that they have the thing of Baptism without the sacrament and so Ambrose of Valentinian yet Ambrose as well aâ— Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptism To which I reply It is true and so did generally the Fathers as may be seen abundantly in Mr. Gatakers strictures against Bishop Davenants Epist p 52 c. And this caused great abuses 1. the allowing of infant Baptism yea and much advancing it 2. the allowing of the Baptism of men that kept their beds by reason of sickness on their beds 3. the Baptism by womâ—n 4. the Baptism by Athanasius on his playâ—fellows which he did in plâ—y with them when but a boy as sufficicently done for Baptism 5. the bringing of infants to be baptized for cure of their bodies But saith Dr. Homes By all the words Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. I should think Augustine doth no way justifie or excuse their bad intention To which I reply yet he justifies their bad action saying by them the necessary service or ministery is celebrated My 5th Exception was â—hat Augustin Ep. 23. ad Bonif. was so tenacious of customes then in use that he doth defend or excuse from lying the answer of sureties as if the child to be baptized did believe In this Mr. M. saith I scorn Augustines judgement And I reply I do not so much as Chamier paustr. cath tom 4. l 5. c. 15. § 22. where he terâ—s it mimical as if it were a play on a stage rather then the celebrating a Sacrament in the Church which Augustine defended But saith Dâ— Homes This is impertinent to the question I reply it is very pertinent 1. to shew how vain Augustines judgement was in these things about Baptism and the Lords Supper 2. To shew what was the primiâ—ive use of propounding the question of his faith to every baptized person which Vives com in August de Civit. Dei l. 1. câ—7 â—7 thought a good evidence that of old none were baptized but persons grown up and able to answer the questions â—o this saith Dr. Homes 1. â—e wonder Mr. T. will assert confession of faith in all Ages before all Baptism from witnesses or sureties when as we know that the first intimation of touching them was not till about 95 years after Christ. And how novel the invention of their confessions is who can justly tell I reply 1. I wonder Dr. Homes will so untruly say I do so assert 2. If sureties were so late an invention surely infant Baptism was at new it being never without such sureties 2. Saith he I propound it to grave consideration whether sureties did not confess in relation to themselveâ— that they might be reputed fit to stand as a kind of parents to a child of an unbelieving parent to be baptized even as Abrahams profession of his belief in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him stand as a parent to all his houshold I reply Upon my consideration it was not so because Tertull. de 〈◊〉 c. 18. mentions them as undertakers for the child and Bonifacius and Augustine that they professed in the childs stead My last Exception against Augustines judgement was That they baptized any infants even of unbelievers who ever brought them and what ever were their intention they counted it a work of charity and the defect of the faith of the baptized they counted supplied by the faith of the whole Church To this saith Mr. M. Neither I in that justifie him You may take notice that here again you confess the question that infants were baptized I reply this was not the question But saith Dr. Homes 1. â—oo much doth not overthrow enough I reply it overthrows the imitableness of their practise 2. This argues against me that infant Baptism hath been anciently more universally practised then adulâ— Bapâ—ism I reply if so more infidels children should be baptized then Christian converts which is a monstrous fiction refuted by all the remaining monuments of antiquity Mr. M. They baptized upon Covenant holiness believers children infidels children upon the engagement of undertakers to train them up I reply the former appears not the later was of others as well as believers children as is shewed before This is enough to shew the invalidity of Augustine and the Latine Fathers testimonies â—or infant Baptism as Protestants assert it To the recollection of the passages about the Ancients testimonies Mr. M. answers 1. To what I said that that they practised infant Baptism on erroneous grounds the necessity of it to salvation the certainty of the remission of original sin by it denying Gods grace to none and therefore more likely to be an errour Mr. M. saith p. 54. Do not Tertullian Cyprian c. argue from Circumcision unto Baptism 〈◊〉 we now do and others of them from Covenant holiness I answer No not one that I know of 2. To what I said that it is not proved to have been practised but in case of supposed necessity he saith It is otherwise and an Arminian book termed Censura censuâ—ae of which I have made great use in this controversy which is not true saith Augustine first grounded infant Baptism upon necessity But I answer this is not true that which is said before out of Tertullian Nazianzen Cyprian proves it otherwiâ—e Yea long after Augustine Concilium Geâ—undense in the 6th Century appointed in the 4th and 5th Canon That ordinarily persons catechized not infirm should be baptized at Easter and Whitsontide the infirm at other times and infants if infirm and desire not the mothers milk if they be offered the day of their birth which expresseth it to be a permission in that case and shews it to be an exception from the ordinary course Yea Magdeb. cent 1â— c. 6. of the rites of Baptism shew infants then to have been baptised onely out of fear of death 3. To what I said that there was a constant course of baptizing believers children at age he saith I have been been mistaken and this practise was disavowed
where terms Baptism the Sacrament of regeneration nor if the expression be allowed will it follow Baptism is to be but once Foâ— 1. it doth not follow natural birth is but once therefore supernatural new birth which is onely so metaphorically is but once as it follows not we die naturally but once therefore we die to sin or through sin but once Natural birth hath not degrees therefore neither regeneration 2. Baptism is not regeneration though it were yeelded to be the sacrament of regeneration and therefore though regeneration could be but once yet Baptism might be often 3. â—hose that hold intercision of regeneration and faith which I do not will say that regeneration may be often and faith begin ofâ—en 4. Baptism may be termed the sacrament of regeneration either as the cause or sign of it If as the cause of it so it should rather follow it should be often administred as the word is often pâ—eached to beget us again If as the sign so it may often be used to signifie it though it be but once done as the breaking of bread is oft used to signifie Christs death though he died but once The 3d. argument from once Circumcision is of less force For neither is it true that our Baptism succeeds Jewish Circumcision nor is it proved that in no case a person might be twice circumcised nor if both these were granted will it follow that the rule of circumcising but once must be a rule to us of baptizing but once any more then the Jews Circumcision was tied to the 8th day therefore so must our Baptism Yet this reason of Mr. Cr. may be thus urged against infant Baptism Circumcision was tied to the 8â—h day therefore to circumcise on another day were sacriledge Baptism is tied to Disciples or believers Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.15 16. therefore to baptize infants who are not Disciples or believers cannot be justified without sacriledge at the rate of Mr. Crs. reasoning The rest of that Section and the next Section need no other answer then what is already made there being no argument needfull to be answered nor any thing almost but scostiâ—g Rhetorick cavils misâ—representations of my words and the passages aâ— Disputes which were rightly represented in the 2d Section of my Plea SECT C. The arguments of Mr. Cragg for infant Baptism are re-examined MR. Cr. in the dispute at Abergavenny began thus Some infants may not be baptised therefore some infants may be baptised and this the Relator who was likely to be himself or one whose relation he viewed and approved terms an Enthymema To which in my Pleaâ— answered 1. the consequence could not be made good according to Logick rules but by adding this Proposition All that may not be baptized may be baptized 2. That it is like these arguings Some infants may not have the Lords Supper therefore some may some boys are not to be ordained Bishops therefore some are To this he replies Part 2. sect 1. 1. That the Relator and I were both mistaken Which if true it was ill done that he did not rectifie the thing ere iâ— was printed 2. That my censure of this arguing as frivolous arose from ignorance or inadvertency that betrayed me to a double mistake 1. That there was no way of arguing consecutive by two Propisitions buâ— Enthyâ—ematically so that they were immediately reducible to a syllogism compleat in mood and figure 2. If an Enthymema and reducible that it must necessarily be resolved into his syllogism as he calls it All that may not be baptized may be baptized some infants may not be baptized ergo some infants may be be baptized Truly this is so frivolous and deserves so much contempt that a fresh man would laugh at it And then he goes on I would gladly know to what mood of the first figure for it hath sub prae his monstrous syllogism belongs consisting in the premises of two negatives in the conclusion of an affirmative whereby as eveâ—y Puny knows two Maximes are violated 1. That of pure negatives nothing is concluded 2. That the conclusion should follow the unworthier part whereas he extracts an affirmative conclusion from negative premises Answ. I am content that an ingenious fresh man judge whether there were any ignorance inadvertency or mistake in my answer to this arment and whether there be not gross ignorance and Sophistry in his argument and in the reply impudent boldness to avow such a shamefull act and that any wise conscientious Christian judge whether the argument at first or this reply could come out of any other then a wrangling spirit bent to baffle a respondent and make sport for a company of vain auditors and readers without any care befitting a Christian teacher to clear truth At first when I denied the consequence he proved it not but brought a syllogism concluding another thing then the consequence and whereas then his syllogism appeared to have four terms he brings another syllogism in which he would infer that because subcontraries may be both true therefore that proposition Some infants may be baptized must be true as if because both may be true it follows that proposition must be true whereas every fresh man knows that though both may be true yet it is true also one may be false and that may be the proposition he infers notwithstanding the â—oâ—ce of that rule Now in the reply he discovers the same spirit Though his relator with whom he must concur or else they juggle with Readers term his dispute an Enthymema yet he would not have it so conceived buâ— tels us there is a kind of argumentation in Keâ—kerm syst Log. l. 3. tr 1. c. 1. defined one sentence or proposition following another without disposition of the medium as in conversions But doth he shew there is any such câ—nversion or any other way of consecution of sentences allowed by Keckerman or any Logician in his argumentation Then when I had reduced it to that syllogism to which the Enthymeme was to be reduced according to Logick rules he hath the impudence to term this my syllogism and â—o suggest as if I were not able to make a syllogism or reduce that to a syllogism which was reducible whereas the syllogism was his own virtualâ—y as all Logicians know that understand the rule about Enthymemes though it were formed by me rightly and the monstrosity of it must â—ie at his door not mine who value little his judgement of my abilities better known to others of better esteem then to him And for the way he new forms it it is quite another argument then what he made at the dispute and of which the minor is to be denied which is thus There are some infants besides them that are excluded Baptism but this is contrary to the antecedent in the Enthymeme Some infants may not be baptised which should be the minor He adds that the force of the argument lies in the immediatoness of the propositions that what