Anti-Paedobaptism OR THE THIRD PART BEING A full REVIEW of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism IN WHICH The Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the Covenant and Initial Seal Infants Visible Church-membership Antiquity of Infant-Baptism are refelled AND The Writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal Mr. Richard Baxter Mr. John Geree Mr. Thomas Blake Mr. Thomas Cobbet Dr. Nathaniel Homes Mr. John Drew Mr. Josiah Church Mr. William Lyford Dr. Daniel Featley Mr. John Brinsley Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham Mr. William Carter Mr. Samuel Rutherford Mr. John Crag Dr. Henry Hammond Mr. John Cotton Mr. Thomas Fuller Mr. John Stalham Mr. Thomas Hall and others are examined And many points about the Covenants and Seals and other Truths of weight are handled By JOHN TOMBES B D. ISA. 5.20 Wo unto them that call evill good and good evill that put darkness for light and light for darkness that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter LONDON Printed by E. AISOP over against the Upper Pump in Grubstreet 1657. TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland HAving presented the two former Parts of this Review to His Highness and His Council I take boldness to tender this to your Honours as those who are intrusted with the affairs of these Nations in which are many Churches of Christ whose safety and welfare doth much depend under Christ on your wisedome and uprightness that it may serve to justifie your Honours in allowing those who agree with me in the â—oint herein discussed liberty employment and maintainance alike with dissenters Wherein your equity and wisedome is very conspicuous and laudable notwithstanding the clamours and practises of those our opposites who would have the ship of this Commonwealth so ordered that the power of it should all incline to one side to the endangering of the whole 'T is true the asserting of this truth hath heretofore been unhappily managed partly by reason of the conjunction of some errours very dangerous in the Assertors of this truth and partly by reason of the violence of spirit in them and their opposites which have occasioned hard Lawes against them and great hatred towards them Nor do I know any likelihood but that still not onely about this but also about any other point in difference when one party seeks to oppress the other there will be much unquietness unless Governours become moderatours between them In the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Ordered to be printed 4. Martii 1647. I read these words The name of Anabaptism hath indeed contracted much odium by reason of the extravagant opinions and practises of some of that name in Germany tending to the disturbance of the Government and peace of all States which opinions and practices we abhor and detest But for their opinion against the Baptism of Infants it is onely a difference about a circumstance of time in the administration of an Ordinance wherein in former ages as well as this learned men have differed both in opinion and practice And though wee could wish that all men could satisfie themselves and joyn with us in our judgment and practise in this point yet herein wee held it fit that men should bee convinced by the Word of God with gentleness and reason and not beaten out of it by force and violence And yet May 2. 1648. there was an Ordinance which made it punishable with imprisonment to affirm that the Baptism of Infants is unlawfull or that Infants Baptism is void and that such persons are to be baptized again Notwithstanding which it is to be acknowledged with all thankfulness to His Higness and your Honours that we enjoy our Peace and Liberty as Dissenters do which they who value not forget the goodness of God and make forfeiture of their own good For those who so do I plead not but for that Truth and Practise which is delivered and appointed by Christ which should be encouraged not suppressed by Governours For this I am moved to appear out of Conscience of my duty to Christ commiseration of them who have been condemned and injured for avouching my position and my engagement by solemn Covenant enjoyned by Parliament to endeavour Reformation in Doctrine and Worship according to Gods Word And do humbly present it to your Honours craving that if any Lawes do remain in force against it they may be repealed And that while we walk according to the rule of Christ Liberty Peace Encouragement may be granted to us as to others who have joyned in the Common Cause which will be a motive to us the more affectionately to pray for your Honours prosperous and happy proceedings in repairing the Breaches and building up this Commonwealth whereto you are advanced and for which I am Your Honours Humble and Devoted Servant JOHN TOMBES TO The christian Reader THough all personal Pleas and Narrations are suspected to be partial and are usually judged to have something of ostentation or dissembling oâ— some such inordinate affection which may abate their credit and esteem yet the practises of opponents in Controversies and the great prejudice to the Truth and person opposed they create thereby and the difficulty for persons who are not actors in such contentions to understand the truth without them make them necessary Doubtless if such pleas were not necessary the Apostle Paul would not have thought his course justifiable who hath written one Epistle to wit the second to the Corinthians almost wholly Apologetical for himself that the misunderstanding of himself and wayes might not be advantage to Seducers for hindering the success of his preaching It is true my credit and esteem is nothing comparable to the Apostles the Church and Truth of God may stand though I be buried in perpetual silence yet sith I am a Preacher of the Gospel as Paul was absit verbo invidia and my labours therein as I hope not altogether without fruit and sith the Lord seems to me to have set me though in a lower Sphere for defence of that One Baptism which Paul mentions Ephes. 4.5 as one of the chief points of Christianity and Heb. 6.2 is counted as a foundation point I assure my self Paul's practise doth justifie mine and that I should be wanting not onely to mine own credit but also to that truth which is dearer then my credit if I should pass by with silence those misrepresentations whereby both are abused and the mindes of men alienated from them Which is the more necessary because of the great repute which my Antagonists have in this generation and their confident speeches and their incessant endeavours upon all occasions in Pulpits Presses Disputes Conferences to represent the way I avouch as dangerous my self as instrumental to an evil designe of perverting and dividing the Churches of God unto which the proneness of men to uphold an Errour inveterate and speciously pretended to be approved and blessed by God and the contrary opinion accursed besides the advantages it hath for their carnal ease and
of â—he consistency of these two things the truth of Gods promise Gen. 17.7 and the Apostles intimation that the Jewes should be cast away was his scope not that which Mr. B. imagines the Apostle mainly drives at to shew why the Jewes are saved for the Apostle supposeth that they should not be saved and to maintain it answers the objection Whence also it may be perceived that Mr. B. quite perverts the Apostles answer For he makes it to be this 1. That the Apostle doth not say or mean Abrahams seed should not be saved whereas it 's the very occasion of the objection that he determined that a great part or the body or people of the Jewes who were Abrahams seed were then rejected as his words shew Rom. 9.1 2 3 4 5 31 10 1 2 3 21. 11.7.15.17.20 c. and the Gentiles taken for Gods people in their stead the searching of which was the great quarrell the Jewes had against Paul so that Mr B. makes Paul not to say that which he did teach and plainly intimated in that very place 2. That he onely sayes that Abrahams carnall seed were saved not because they are his seed but because they are children of the promise which is both contrary to the Apostles suppositions which is that they are not saved and that because they are not children of God nor children of the promise though children of the flesh and impertinent to the removing of the objection concerning the rejection of the Jewes how it could stand with Gods promise For the answer as Mr. B. makes it had no way justified Gods truth but strengthened the objection if it were supposed they were children of the promise whom yet Paul counted for castawayes Nor do the Apostles words say the children of the flesh are saved though not because they are Abrahams seed but that they are not the children of God who were onely children of the flesh not children of the promise nor counted for the seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 was made at all as it was Evangelicall As for what Mr. B. alledgeth That the Jewes shall be again called and so all Israel be saved Rom. 11. and therefore the Apostle doth not say or mean that Abrahams seed should not be saved it is inconsequent siâ—h the Apostle might and did suppose the present should not be saved though hereafter the Jewes shall it followes on the contrary he supposed the present Jewes should be rejected because he speaks of the calling and salvation of the Jewes was a thing future yet not till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in in the mean time he saith blindness happened to them in part And what he saith that God hath been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed he neither sheweth where that promise is nor do I know where to find it nor where he promiseth to take them to be a people to him and that he will be to them a God and for what he alledgeth that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed and that God will be mercifull to them how little they make for the visible Church-membership of Gâ—ntile believers infants will be shewed in answering Chap. 21 22 of the first part of his Book And for Gods pronouncing them holy he is fully answered Antipoedob part 1. Sect. 23â— c. It followes in Mr. B. 4 And observe further That Paul here speaks not a word against the priviledge of the infants whose parents deny not God nor violate his Covenant and fall not away If any man should affirm that all the infants of the faithfull so dying are certainly saved there is not a syllable in this text against him For Paul onely pleads that if men fall away and prove unbelievers God will not save them because Ahraham or any other remote progenitor was faithful The covenant never intended this But yet children of those that fall not away or be not broken off for unbelief do lose none of their priviledges but may belong to the visible or invisible Church If any man should deny Christ and yet think to be saved because they are Englishmen or because their progenitors long since were faithfull I should use to them Pauls words here But what is this to those who do not deny Christ and therefore are both Children of the flesh and of the-promise Besides those the Apostle here excludeth were aged unbelievers so that this text hath not any colour either against baptism or their Church membership Answer There is little truth in this passage Paul speaks Rom. 9 6. 7 8 c. against the being in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 of Abrahams and Isaacs naturall seed and therefore by consequence against the Church membership and Baptism of believers children by vertue of that covenant being made to them and he excludes Esau before he was born and therefore other than aged believers and if Esau the son of Isaac no Apostate were out of the covenant and declared so afore he was born then had he died in infancy he had not bin saved and so there is more than a Syllable in this Text against him who should affirm That all the infants of the faithfull so dying are certainly saved for this Text affirms some infants of the most holy believers are not in covenant and if not in covenant not certainly saved but certainly reprobate The children of those who fall not away have no such priviledge that they do certainly belong either to the invisible or visible Church If there may be infant-children of believers who may be children of the flesh and not children of the promise then the promise of saving benefits is not made to any other than the elect for sure it is made to none other of other believers if it be made onely to the elect ones of Abraham and Isaac I go on 4. The promise which is in Christ Yea and Amen is made onely to the Elect for it is not Yea and Amen to any other sith it is not ratified accomplished to any other But the promise of saving benefits is in Christ Yea and Amen for so are as many promises as are in Christ 2 Cor. 1.20 and such is the promise of saving benefits Ergo. 5. Those promises which were made to Christ were made onely to the Elect for whether Christ personall be meant the promises were made to him onely for those whom he represents and they are onely the elect or Christs mysticall body that is his Church they are the elect onely But the promise of saving benefits made to Christ Gal. 3.16 Ergo. 6. The promise which is of the Covenant confirmed unto Christ is onely to the elect But such is the promise of saving benefits Gal 3.17 Ergo. 7. The promise which is of eternall life is made onely to the elect But such is the promise of saving benefits Tit. 1.2 Ergo. 8. To whom the promise of saving benefits is made are Heirs of the Promise But they
what regard is the new frame betterâ—d by casting out infants which were in the old Answ. By leaving out infants and taking in onely believers the Church is more spiritual Qu. 8. Whether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith in the Articles necessary to salvation repentance and obedience And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old save onely that a more full and express revelation of Christ requireth a more full exâ—ress faith Answ. The former question is somewhat difficult it being hard to determine what Articlâ—s were necessary to salvation which is a question so hard that I should not be unwilling to learn of Mr. B. This I can onely say that I know not what profession each Jew did make or was to make I find a confession injoyned Deut. 26. and imprecation ch 27. I finde idolaters blasphemers and some others adjudged to death yet I finde not in the times of mal-administration of Moses Laws that idolaters and such great sinners were cast out of the Church but were members of it The later is answered before often enough Mr. B. tels me You may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the 7. last questions and towards the middle that occasioneth the first As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Churchmembers I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it Answ. I knew Mr. B. so well that I expected I should have questions enow though I desired onely a few Texts it s his vain to multiply questions which might be omitted and serve to weary the reader and respondent and for advantage to himself to insult on his antagonist though without cause But how ill he deals with me in writing so many sheets about questions taken from my words when I desired onely a line or two about his texts and how ill he deals with me and the reader who will not distinctly shew me the priviledges of his visible Church-membership the denial of which he makes so hainous and from which he argues so much I leave to the considerable Reader to judge But Mr. B. is yet more severe to me after all my work in answering him I must be corrected ere I be dismissed SECT LXIII Mr. Bs. ten Calumniatory questions and Conclusion of his Letter are answered ANd now saith he I have gone thus far with you in an enquiry into the truth I entreat you be not too much offended with me if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self Q. 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of to maintain that infants were visible Churchmembers not by any promise or precept but by a transeunt fact and that there was no law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely a fact of God which is a transeunt thing not repealable Answ. I am resolved not to be angry with Mr. Bs. interrogatories he ministers to me imagining he doth it like an Ordinary in salutem animae though I pitty him that takes so much on him as thus magisterially to censure what he does not or will not understand presuming perhaps he may take on him to determine as an irrefragable Doctor after so much magnifying of his writings by learned and unlearned ones But to his question I answer negatively and return it back to him is it not an undertaking palpably absurd to make visible Churchmembership to be a right to a benefit by Gods promise as the sole efficient and anothers faith as the condition But saith he either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant making or not if you do what a saying is it that infants were made Churchmembers not by Covenant but by a Covenant making not by a Law but by a Law making If not either you must say that God makes duty without any law and gives right to the benefit without any promise or Covenant-grant as the cause or else that it is no benefit to have right to Churchmembership and no duty to enter into that relation and to accept of that benefit and to bee devoted to God Which ever of these wayes you chuse and one you must chuse or change your opinion hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous or else more unbeseeming a Divine from a learned sober man of that profession Pardon the high charge Let the indifferent juâ—ge Answ. That I need chuse none of the wayes hee mentions nor change my opinion is amply shewed Sect. 55. this high charge would have been leâ—t out had he more sobriety and humility I look upon it and overlook it as ridiculous and contemptible and go on Qu. 2. Is it not a great disgrace to all your followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism and be so confident that they are righter and wiser then others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a law promise or Covenant is And do you not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by your meer interest or confident words these people are changed and held to your opinion Do they know what a transâ—unt fact is that without law or Covenant makes Churchmembers I say do they know this which no man that ever breathed till now ner ever man will know again And do you not proclaim them men of dâ—stempered consciences that dare go on in such a Schism on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain Answ Ne saevi magne sacerdos The followers of me in the point of Baptism are not led by shifts but the plain word of God Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.37 from which Mr. Bs. dream of a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed his conceit of infants discipleship mediate by the faith of the parent is too silly a conceit to draw an intelligent man that will examine it specially when they have so plain Scripture proof for their warrant as the institution of Christ and practise of the Apostles which they follow without Schism endeavouring a reformation of that great corruption of infant Baptism which hath been very pernicious to the Church of God If any Schism have been a great cause hath been in Mr. Bs. virulent charges of the truth as if it were a damnable errour accursed of God and his followers violent opposition of which Bewdley hath had sad experience of men for doing their duty in being baptized after profession of faith and breaking bread together though convinced by Mt. Bs. own arguing in his Book of Baptism pag. 342. that it should be so And if in this point they conceive themselves righter and wiser then others
by Baptism to them as the best preservative against it For my part I think Mr. Bs. and other Ministers maintaining infant Baptism do give most advantage and encouragement to them both to inveigh against them as men that will not yeeld to truth but teach a manifest errour and therefore not to be heard and then Mr. Saltmarsh and others delusions about water baptism as now ceased living in the spirit expectation of it no true Ministry now without the spirit as the Apostles had and such like conceits driving them off from the Churches of the baptized they are caught by those emissaries from Rome and other agents of Satan with that Divelish delusion God justly suffering Satan to delude them with lies because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved 2 Thes. 2.10 So that I have as much cause to think quakerism the fruit of Mr. Bs. ways as of mine own Nor will it be any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times when such a one as Mr. B. shall continue to load me with false accusations with which I have many wayes shewed my self not chargeable and not onely he but also Mr. Robert Baillee in his Dissuasives Mr. Edwards in his Gangrena's and others shall in English and Latine heap so many untruths on godly persons because dissenters while they lived to shew the falsity of them Qu 6. Have you felt the guilt which we too strongly fear you have incurred of the perverting of so many souls opening them such a gap to schism contempt of the Ministry and Apostacy destroying a hopefull reformation that cost so dear or weakening our hands in the work and filling the adversaries mouths with scorn enticing the Jesuites and Friars to seem your proselytes and list themselves among you as the hopefull party to befriend their cause hardning thousands both of the Papists and profane and setling them again on their drâ—gs when many once began to shake O what a Church might we have had and were likely to have had had it not been for the Separatists and you And what a lamentable confusion are we now brought into by these Have these things toucht your heart Answ. How far these things have toucht my heart I must give an account to God my Judge and not to Mr. B. who with his fraternity I perceive would pass a heavy doom on mee and scarce award me a place in earth or heaven And no marvel if I were so pernicious an instrument as he describes me But may I not require Mr. B. to shew me by what actions I have done any of these things Is Mr. B. allowed to accuse in generals and not to instance in particulars may he without control accuse and not prove May he have liberty as in a Chancery bill hath been wont to put in all he can imagine whether true or false Is not this the manner of quakers and scolds Are my answers often made of no avail to clear my self but that Mr B. will still be imputing that to me which my writings and courses do absolve me from No marvel Dr. Owen said of him Appendix to his Vindic Evang. pag. 5. A man that doth not know him as I do would by his writings take him to be immitis immisericors a very Achilles that will not pardon a man in his grave but will take him up and cut him in a thousand pieces I tell Mr. B. plainly it is not my doctrine but Mr. Bs. which perverts souls I mean his doctrine of Baptism and Churchmembership besides his other errours that neither my doctrine nor practise open a gap to Schism but tend to the contrary unity of Baptism being one of the bonds of Christians Ephes. 4.4 the restoring of which is the regular way to union Mr. B. by his violent opposing it and the assertors of it doth really open a gap to Schism I open no gap to contempt of the Ministry but they themselves do it by opposing truth and other wayes Apostacy from Christ or godliness is no fruit of my doing but is rather caused by those that urge persons to renounce the right Baptism and Communion of the baptised of which I fear Mr. B. is guilty A right reformation according to Gods word cannot be while infant Baptism continues in seeking to destroy it I promote reformation Mr. B. by maintaining it destroyes reformation and by proposals shews his inclination to persecution which if I hinder I rejoyce I weaken not Mr. Bs. hands in preaching the Gospel but strengthen them if I enervate his errour I am glad he hath most unbrotherlike endeavoured to weaken my hands and to stop my mouth I fill not adversaries mouths with scorn of him but he hath thrown as much dirt as hee could on me in his writings I entice not Jesuites and Friers and if they creep in among those of our judgement is it any more then Jude v. 4. speaks of in his time Can Mr. B. say they are not among his party I harden no Papists but shew their bottome errour nor prophane persons but take the right way to undeceive them they that maintain their infant Baptism settle them on their dregs I mean their carnal presumption by which they take themselves to bee Christians without knowledge of Christ. The Church that was likely to have been Mr. Bs. way may be discerned by the Elders by the Scottish Church Mr. Bs. Church at Kederminster the associated Ministers in Wocestershire and their Churches Confusion is too great for want of restoring Christs order more would be if Mr. Bs. way were imposed and no small oppression on tender consciences and dissenting brethren I may say oh what a Church might wee have had if it had not been for Mr. B. and other such violent Paedobaptists as he is opposing Christs way Qu. 7. Is a transeunt fact making infants Churchmembers without Law promise or Covenant a sufficient medium to encourage you to venture on all these horrid things and run such hazards as you have done or is it possible that an humble sober man and a tender conscience durst make all this havock and stand out in it so many years considerately as you have done and this upon such a palpably unreasonable pretence When you should prove to us the revocation of infants Churchmembership to tell us that they â—ad it onely by a transeunt fact Is this a safe ground to build so great a weight on Sir my conscience witnesseth that it is not your reproach that is the end of speaking these unpleasing words to you but some compassion on you do not scorn it and more on your poor followers and most on the Church of God which you have so much injured and troubled Answ. I venture on no such horrid things nor run such hazards as Mr. B. imagines nor is the transeunt fact that I build on but Christs institution Matth. 28.19 though that transeunt fact I assigne is sufficient
and assurâ—d for conâ—inuance while the law standeth Now you muâ—t understand first that God may bestow on some particular person or family on the ground of some special service which they or their fathers have done or of meer mercy some special corporal blessing especially limited to some short or certain time And that his common preserviâ—g sustaining mercies are over all his works and and yet none of this will prove men Churchmembers 2. But when God doth not name any particular person or family for his mercies but estates them on a species or sort of persons and when it is not a mâ—er corporal mercy that is so stated but either a spiritual mercy common oâ— special or else mercy in the general without specification and when this is not on any ground of any particâ—lar action or service done by any particular man but upon a ground or condition common to others not named and all this not liâ—ited to any short or certain time but stated to continuance and that by a legal promise assuring it and not onely a meer offer of it in this case it will certainely proove thâ—m members of the Church Answ. 1 Mr. B. leavâ— out in the minor the term all which was in the major of the first syllogism which if it had been put in the minor as it was necessary hee should do to prove the conclusion hee should prove it would not have been proved out of the text which doth not assure mercy to all the children of all that love him but to thousanâ—s that is multitudes of theâ— and to those mercy is not assured absolutely without condition of their love of God nor is mercy in the text promised perpetually but as Andr. Rivet on Exod. 20.6 God doth not so extend the bounds of his mercy that hee may not also deny it to the posterity of some godly men For these things are said of those things which for the most part happen Gods liberty beeing alwayes reserved in his judgements and the distribution of good things So wee reade the sonnes of Godly parents to have been forsaken of God and grievously punished 2. The consequence of his major is denied and to his dictates for proof hee brings none but his own sayings I answer first by denying that all those must bee taken for visible Churchmembers on whom God hath stated or assured his mercy by promise Exod. 20.6 no not though it were stated as Mr. B. would have it no promise no not of sanctifying grace making of it self a person a visible Churchmember as I have shewed often before 2. I deny that the mercy Exod. 20 6. is stated as Mr. B. imagines but say 1. That the mercy there meant is stated on the Israelites specially 2. That it is not meant of spiritual but outward mercies not now promised to the most holy Saint on earth 3. That it was declared on a particular ground of Gods peculiar respect to Israel whom hee brought out of Egppt. 4. That it is limited to a certain time while they continued to be his people which was not to be perpetually 3. I deny that the words Exod. 20.6 Deut. 5.10 do expresly contain a promise but onely a declaration of Gods frequent dealing which I confess doth imply a promise as his declaration Exod. â— 5 Deut. 5.9 doth imply a threatening yet I think it not fit to call it a promise sith the Apostle Ephes. 6.2 termes the fifth commandment the first commandment with promise But Mr. B. adds Now that it is the priviledge of the Church onely to have God thus engaged to be mercifull to them and that in a way of distinction from others as it is in this commandment promise is to me a truth beyond dispute And if any do doubt of it I argue with them thus 1. If no such promise of such mercy to any sort of men out of the Church can be shewn in the Scripture then we must take it as proved that there is none But no such promise can be shewn estating such mercy on any others therefore c. They that can shew any such promise let them produce it Answ. The assertion is not a truth beyond dispute but may be questioned nor is the consequence good there being no such declaration of God that he hath made no such promise of such mercy to any sort of men but what can be shewn in the Scripture and if it were yet till Mr. B. hath shewed that the mercy Exod 20.6 is greater then God vouchsafes to persons out of the Church visible it may be held notwithstanding any thing Mr. B produceth that such mercy is promised to persons out of the Church However it is most false that God hath assured his mercy on no other society then the Church If the promise Gen. 3.15 be understood of all mankind as meant by the womans seed as he before in his third Letter to me and after here ch 23. expounds it then there is a promise of mercy stated on otheâ—s then the Church and the same may be said of Gen. 9.12 15 16. besides what is implied in the speeches Psal. 36.6 Psal 145.9 1 Tim. 4.10 Till Mr. B. shew a greater mercy is stated on the children of all that love God then is on Cyrus Isa. 45.1 c. there is a promise shewn in Scripture of such mercy to one out of the Church The like to Nebuchadnezzar Jer. 27.6 And the promises of calling the Gentiles of re-ingraffing the Jews Rom. 11.26 27. are promises to persons out of the Church and yet of mercy yea the chiefest mercy and therefore Mr. Bs. dictates are but vain Yet he goes on thus 2. Briefly consider to the contrary 1. Those without the Church are said to be without hope without God strangers to the Covenant of promises Ephes. 2.12 Answ. It is said of the Ephesians that they were once without hope c. and it is said also that they were Gentiles uncircumcised but it doth noth not follow therefore that all Gentiles uncircumcised were without Christ not having hope without God in the world Nor doth it follow that all Gentiles were out of any visible Church who were uncircumcised nor doth it follow they had no promises of mercy who were strangers from the Covenants of promise there meant It is true this Text proves that the estate of the Gentiles afore the Gospel was preached to them was as Paul describes it Yet this neither proves that there were none who were out of the Commonwealth of Israel and were strangers from the Covenants of promises made to Israel had no mercy assured to them equal to that Exod. â—0 6 2. Saith Mr. B. The promises are all Yea and Amen in Christ 1 Cor. 1.20 And Christ is the head over all indeed but onely to the Church Ephes. 1.22 To his called he giveth the precious promises 2 Pet. 1.4 Answ. The promises 2 Cor. 1.20 are such as were in Christ and must be understood of saving promises
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
Apostle determines and proves and no where gainsays But saith Mr. Blake In the words immediatly before this objection he speaks of the Jewes as his kinsmen according to the flesh which were the naturall seed of Abraham and saith to them pertain the adoption the glory and the Covenants c. How then can his distinction be interpreted to throw them out of Covenant when in express terms he had affirmed that they were in covenant How can he deny that these are children v. 7 when he had affirmed that to them pertaineth the adoption v. 4. Answer If the Apostle had affirmed those Jewes his kinsmen after the flesh that they were in covenant Gen. 17.7 and adopted for whom he sorrowed so much v. 2. he had plaid the hypocrite expressing his sorrow for them as not included in the covenant who he knew were in it he had trifled in raising an objection from thence and answering it yea he had contradicted himself who v. 6. saith All are not Israel that are of Israel and v 7. that because they were the seed of Abraham they were not all children v. 8. that the children of the flesh are not the children of God opposing the children of the promise to the children of the flesh And it will concern Mr. Blake to reconcile the Apostle to himselfe if he should mean as Mr Blake expounds him Nor do I know how he could with any shew of truth affirm these men to be in covenant with God to be his children who did obstinately oppose Christ being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness were not subject to the righteousness of God Rom. 10.3 but were broken off for unbelief Rom. 11.20 It is true it is said Whose or of whom are the adoption and the covenants But doth he say this of the Israelites then living whose case he bewailed I conceive not but of their ancestors For the speeches were not true of them that of them was Christ according to the flesh or theirs the giving of the Law yet I deny not it was their honour and priviledge in some sort that God vouchsafed these things to their ancestors and nation and it did affect Paul much that the people which were so much dignified by God should now be rejected But were it that of those persons it were said that to them pertained the covenants and the adoption yet were it not true which Mr. Bl. saith that Paul in express terms affirmed that they were in covenant or were children of God For if it be true that by the Covenants were meant the Tables of the Covenant as Beza conceives or the Covenants of Adoption in respect of outward legall priviledges which are onely there mentioned as proper to the Jewes the adoption and covenants might be said to pertain to them and they neither in covenant nor children of God Evangelically But of this Text I have before spoken Sect. 27 c. Mt Bl adds whâ—ch may be confirmed by abundant other texts of Scripture Ye are the children of the Lord your God Deut. 14.1 Out of Egypt have I called my Son Hos. 11.1 It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto Doggs Mat. 15.26 where all that were noâ— Gentiles all to whom Christ was sent are called Children Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with your Fathers Acts 3.20 Doth the covenant appertain to them and they stiled the children of the covenant and yet are they out of covenant Are they children to whom the adoption pertains and yet no children When Mr. T. hath given any fair answer to these Quaere's especially the two last we shall conceive some probability of truth in his gloss on the Apostles words in the mean time we cannot but look upon it in full opposition and contradiction to that which the Apostle expressly delivers Answâ— 1. Nonâ— of all the passages call those brethren of Paul whose case he bewaileth verse 3. Children of God his Son Children Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant 2. The speeches being of a people mixt of good and bad and the speeches being indefinite may be true if meant of some onely of those people yea in the Apostles sense they cannot be true of all that were not Genâ—iles all to whom Christ was sent that they were the children of God For many are termed by the Prophet Isai. 57 3. the sons of the Sorceresse the seed of the adultresse and the whore by John Baptist Matth. 3.7 Generation of vipers by our Lord Christ Matth. â—3 15. Children of hell 3. Sometimes the term of Children is meant as the term righteous is Luke 15.7 of one that is so in reputation though not in truth as the children of the Kingdom Mat. 8.12 must be meant of them that were so in reputation though not in truth For had hâ—y been so in truth they should not be cast out into utter darkness 4. By the children of the covenant Acts 3.25 is not meant that they were then in the Evangelicall Covenant as made to thâ—m For at that time they had not repented but were exhorted thereto v. 19 But they are called the children of the Covenant because they were the posteriâ—y of those Fathers with whom first the covenant was made as they are called children of the Prophets because thâ—y were the posteriâ—y of that people to whom the Prophets were first raised and sent as is shewed before Sect. â—7 out of which there is a fair answer to Mr. Blakes Riddles without an Oedipus that first the Covenants and Adoption Rom. 9.4 are not said to pertain to those Israelites for whom Paul mourned v. 3. but to their ancestors 2. If they did yet not in Mr. Blakes sense but in the sense fore-given 3. That those Israelites for whom Paul mourned Rom. 9.3 are not stiled children of the covenant Acts 3.25 4 Nor though iâ— be true of those for whom Paul mourned is it any thing to Mr. Blakes purpose but hath another meaning foregiven And thus there is a sweet harmony beâ—ween my gloss and the Apostles expressions Mr. Bl. next gives his Analysis of the Apostles words in which he grants v. 7. a numerous company by Ishmael to be excluded who were Abrahams seed after the flesh which evinceth what I contend for that Gods promise Gen. â—7 7 was not made in any sort to Ishmael though he were the child of a beleiver and circumcised therefore that covenant is not made to every believers naturall child nor was the reason of circumcising this or that person taken from the persons interest in the covenant for Ishmael was circumcised though not in covenant Then Mr. Bl. adds As then there was a distinction of seed so also now one member he had laid down before viz. Israelites according to the flesh rested in all those priviledges there reckoned up v. 4 5 these they pleaded the Apostle yelds them and Mr. T according to the
Evangelical grace then â—od promised to be his God in respect of regeneration justification adoption sanctification and raising up to eternal liâ—e and he was in that estaâ—e and if hâ— were shut out again â—hen a man may be in the covenant of Evangelical grace and shut out again which is contrary to the very end of the new Câ—venant as it is expressed Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10. and infers falling away from Gospel grace Mr. Bl. proceeds thus Neither are all these included for as God cast off Ishmael and his seed so also Esau and his posterity therefore the Apostle having brought the former distinction of seeds rests not there but adds v. 10 11 12 13. And therâ—fore the denomination of the seed is in Jacob sirnamed Israel Therefore when the head or if you will root of the Covenant is mentioned usually in Scripture it is not barely Abraham but Abraham and Isaac to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line not barely Abraham and Isaac but Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The natural seed of Jacob then not according to ours but Gods own limits is included in that Covenant in the full latitude and extent of it Answ. 1. The terms head or root of the Covenant are not Scripture expressions I finde Gal. 3.16 that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made and Rom. 11.16 If the root be holy so are the branches v. 18. thou bearest not the root â—ut the root thee but this root is I conceive no other then Abraham who is â—ot termed either head or root of the Covenant singly or jointly but of the olive or branches in respect of their propagation from him partly as a natural father and a spiritual father in respect of Isâ—aelite believers anâ— partly as a spiritual father onely in respect of Gentile believers But if any be to be termed the head and root of the Covenant I think it is most fit to give that title to Christ the surety and mediatour Heb. 7.22 8.6 to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.16 17. 2. When God is stiled the God of Abraham Iâ—saac and Jacob that it is to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line and to say that God cast off Esau and his posterity from the Covenant is more then the Apostle saith or is according to truth For the Apostle doth onely say that therefore the Oracle was delivered concerning Esau and Jacob and the words of the Prophet concerning Jacob and Esau are alledged that he might shew that God confined not his Covenant to Abrahams natural posterity nor included them all not to shew that he cast off or excluded all Abrahams seed of any other line then â—saac and Jacob from the Covenant For then Joâ— Jethro and all other Proselytes of Abrahams seed by Keturah of Esauâ—s posterity had been excluded from the Covenant of grace in Christ which is contrary to Scripture and in like sort all the Gentile from Ishmael Keturah Esau â—ad been excluded from being called Christian believers For none are called by God who are excluded out of the Covenant of grace 3. That the natural seed of Jacob is included in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 in the full latitude and exâ—ent of it as it comprehends a promise of Evangelical grace is so far from being the Apostles determination thaâ— he resolves in the contrary in those words Rom. 9.6 All are not Israel that are of Israel Secondly saith Mr. Bl. We dâ— not say that this Covenant was entred with Abraham as a nâ—tural Father nor his seed comprehended as natural children but aâ— a pâ—ofessour of the Faith â—ccepting the Conant taking God for his God he accepts it for himself and fâ—r his seed his natural pâ—sterity And all that profess the Faith hold in the like tenâ—re are in Covenant and have the Covenant not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity Answ. I do not remember that I did any where say that Paedobaptists said that covenant Gen. 17.7 wâ— entred with Abraham as a natural â—ather but the Authour of the little Treatise intituled Infants Baptism proved lawful by Scripture asserted the Covenant was made with Abraham as a believer to which I replied that as it was Evangelical it was not made with Abraham simply as a believer for then it had been made to every believer as to Abraham but with Abraham as the Father of believers and with his seed as believers as he was But that ever any Paedoâ—aptist did afore Mr. Bl assert that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it was a Covenant of Evangelical grace was entred by God with him as a professour of the faith accepting the Covenant taking God for his God accepting it for himself and for his seed his natural posterity I do not remeâ—ber If they should yet I take it to be false and without likelihood of truth For if the Covenant of Evangelical grace were made with Abraham under that formal consideration then God had promised Evangelical grace justication adoption to him as a professour of faith onely so that if it were supposed he had been an hopocrite yet he should have been justified adopted in that he was a professour of faith or else it is to be conceived justification and adoption were not to Abraham by this Covenant contrary to Gal. 3.16 17 18. nor hath it any likelihood of truth that God would single out so exemplary a believer as Abraham was Rom. 4.18 19. and enter so solemn a Covenant with him barely as a professour of faith which was competent to an hypocrite Nor do I well know in what sense God entred the Covenant with him as â— professour of the faith accepting the Covenant for himself and his sâ—ed For Gods entring the Covenant is no other then his making of it But God did not make it on this condition that Abraham should accept it fâ—r him and his seed but as knowing Abrahams integrity bâ— way of testification of his love and grace to him being so eminent and tried a believer afore this Câ—venant was made with him Nor is it true that all that profess the faith hold in the like tenure are in Covenant and have the Covenâ—nt not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity there being none in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but Abraham and his seed of whom no meer professour of faith much leâ—s his seed except elect or true believer is either Nor was the Covenant ever made to Abrahams or Israels mere natural posterity as it is Evangelical much less enlarged to the posterity natural of every professour of faith Thirdly saith Mr. Bl. We entitle the seed oâ— Abraham as before to spiritual mercies and so the seed of all that hold in the tenure of Abraham to saving grace and justification to life eternal not by an absolute conveyance infallibly to inherit we know though Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant onely shall be saved Rom. 9.27 but upon Gods terms and conditions in
away their sins for this reason because they are beloved according to the election and calling of God which are unchangeable But such salvation election love gifts and calling never happen to them that perish the Covenant turning away from impieties and taking away sins belong onely to them who are eternally saved therefore they are not an election love gifts and calling which put into a meer visible Churchstate and condition 2. Such gifts and calling of God are not here meant which are revocable or of which God repents for to be without repentance is to be without revocation or change But the gifts and calling which are into a meeâ— visible Churchstate are revocable and with repentance as both the Scripture and experience shews therefore they are not here meant 3. That calling and election are meant here which are ascribed to God in the passages where there is speech of Gods election and calling of persons before in the 8th 9th and 11th chapters for it is manifest that the dispute about election and calling of the Jews and Gentiles ch 9 10 11. arose from the words of the Apostle Rom. 8.28 29 c. But the election and calling in all the passages signifies such an election and calling as is to eternal life and righteousness as is manifest from Rom. 8.28 30 33. Rom. 9.7 11 24 25 26. Rom. 11.5 7. Therefore not an election or calling into a meer visible Churchstate 4. That calling and election is meant here which is usually if not always meant by the Apostles in their writings For it 's likely Paul would speak here in the sense in which the word is commonly used there being no cogent reason to the contrary But the words election and calling in the Apostles writings are taken usually it not always for election and calling to righteousness and eternal life as may appear by these places 1 Cor. 1.2 9 24 26 27 28 29. 7.15 18 20. Ephes. 1.4 18. 4.1 4. Gal. 1.6 15. 5.8 13. Phil. 3.14 Col. 3.12 15. 1 Thes. 1.4 2.12 5.24 2 Thes. 1.11 2.11 14. 1 Tim. 5.21 6.12 2 Tim. 1.9 2.10 Tit. 1.1 Heb. 3.1 9.15 James 2.5 1 Pet. 1.1 15. 2.9 5.10 2 Pet. 1.3 10. Judeâ—â— â—â— Revel 17.14 Therefore the meaning is in like manner Rom. 11.28 29. That which Mr. Bl. alledgeth from Deut. 7.6 7. doth not weaken this For though it prove that which is not denied that there is an election of a people to a visible Churchstate yet it proves not such an election and love to be meant Rom. 11.28 nor by my argument doth it with any colour of reason follow that the Church brought out of Aegypt was the invisible Church because they are said to be chosen Deut. 7.6 7. any more then because Judas is said to be chosen by Christ John 6.70 therefore election Rom. 11.28 is into a meer visible Churchstate or Apostleship But Mr. Bl. after his calumny of my dis service to the Anti Arminians wiped away before tels us that the Apostle there delivers an universal proposition and apâ—lies it to such election love and gifts that belongs to bodies or nations yet it is a truth that equally holds when it is applied to election to salvation and with just warranty is applied by Divines to that purpose Answ. It is not true that the Apostle delivers Rom. 11.29 an universal proposition concerning any election love calling gifts for then It would be false there be many gifts and callings of God which are not without repentance in the Apostles sense but a proposition of the gifts and calling which are to salvation according to that love and election which are to everlasting salvation according to the Covenant mentioned v. 26.27 and therefore those Divines who understand it of election love gifts and calling to a meer visible Churchstate and condition have no warranty to apply it to prove that election and perseverance which the Text if they speak true speaks not of and the argmuent from thence for that purpose is utterly enervated by that interpretation sith the assumption is by it made confessedly false if the argument be thus framed That decree is immutable and that gift and calling of God do certainly continue which the Apostle saith are without repentance But the Apostle saith the decree of election to eternal life and the gift of taking away sins and the calling which is inward are without repentance Ergo. As for Pareus his forming it as from the less to the greater it is as for the most part such arguments are liable to many exceptions and in this matter hath no strength for then it would follow that if Gods gift and calling to visible Churchstate is without repentance calling to the office of a Presbyter which is more is without repentance I deny not but Commentators do speak some of them as Mr. Bl. alledgeth and some doubtfully of which election and calling to understand it and some speak disjunctively as if it were meant of either and some one while means it of the one and another while of the other But it is not worth while to search into or set down their words It is sufficient that I have demonstrated that iâ— must be meant of such election love gifts and calâ—ing as are to saving holiness and righteousness and eternal life Yet those which I alledged as writing against the Arminians and understanding it of the decree of election unâ—o life and perseverance in saving grace Mr. Bl. denies not that I have â—ightly cited them onely he will not have Ames so peremptory as I am by reason of some words of his from which Mr. Bl. doth most falsely infer thus so that it appears according to him that they spake truth in the denial of this to be meant of the unchangeable decree of eternal election which they who read Ames his words in his Coronis art 5. cap. 4. may easily discern I add to thoâ—e I cited in the first part of this Review sect 2. pag. â—5 Dr. Owen of perseverance c. 2. § 7. c. Dr. Kendal of redemption ch 8. pag. â—20 c. The reason why some wil not have it meant of election and effectual calliâ—g to salvation is their mistake that particular persons may not be said to fall away from such eleâ—â—ion and calâ—ing For though it be true that the particular persons never fall away from their personal election and calling yet they may fall away from that election and calling to eternal life which they in their ancestorâ— had which sense I have shewed to be agreeable to the Apostles meaning in the first part of this Review sect 3. And Dr. Twiss in his Vind. Grat. l. 3. err 8. sect 3. acknowledgeth that when the Apostle saith Rom. 11.23 they shall be graffed in he means it not of those individuals in their persons but their posterity But Mr. Bl. argues thus The Fathers for whose sake they are beloved are the ancient Fathers
their children were holy because they were holy Rightly saith Piscator in hiâ— scholie on the place The argument is from the effect to wit a consequent absurdity and it is after this form If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified in the wife their children would be unclean But they are not unclean for they are holy therefore the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife Whence it is apparent that the words are not a resoluâ—â—â—n of a doubt of their children for then the childrens holinesâ— would have been the conclusion whereas it is the assumption and consequently that the Apostle useth formal arguments or gives the middle-terms of them and that he doth not resolve two doubts but one of the lawfulness of the living together of yokefellows in disparity of Religâ—on and thâ—t the first argument is taken from that which obviateâ— the ground of their fear and the later confirms that argument from a consequent absurdity even in their apprehension if that were not granted Tâ—is to be the tâ—uâ— Analysis oâ— the Apostles words the words of Chamier Beza Zegedin in his tables and many more do shew which I forbear to alledge as conceiving it needless What saith Mr. Bl. to this Let us look first into v. 16. where the for may lay as fair a claim to a formal reason as this in the â—4th and M. â— himself says is a reason Antipâ—d pag. 110. But I would fain learn how he can make it up into a reason he must thus draw it up Whom a man in marriaâ—e society may have hopes to save from idolatrous ways with such a one he may continue in marriage society But a believing husband in marriâ—ge society may have hopes to save his unbelieving wife from idolatrous ways Ergo This proposition as to such a conclusion is 1. vain for though there were no such hopes yet marriage society is to be continued Gentilism being not of the substance of marriage which Mr. T seems to yeeld Examen pag 121. 2. This proposition is false as to this purpose the incestuous Corinthian might â—ave had hopes to have converted his fathers wife if a heathen and yet such hopes would not conclude the lawfulness of their society together Herod might have had like hopes to have converted his brother Philips wife and yet this was not objected against John Baptist and had it bâ—en objeâ—â—ed it had beâ—n frivolous We have many â—ases put about marriage if such an argument would serve the turn it would salvâ— them all Answ. Though I say 1 Cor. 7.16 is a reason to perswade to the resolution v. 13. yet I do not say it is a reason to conclude the lawfulness of living together but to perswade them the rather to live together from the possibility or hopefulness of that event which he urgeth in a Rhetorical way in an interrogation not in a Logick way as he did v. 14. and yet it may be drawn up Logically thus They are the rather to live together it being otherwise determined lawfull whereof one if they live together may save the oâ—her But so it may be if the brother or sister live with the infidel yokefellow Ergo. So that by my maintaining that v. 14. for notes the medium of a formal argument and that thereby the lawfulness of the believing and infidel yokefellows continuing together in marriage society is concluded and that for v. 16. notes a reason of the resolution v 16. yet it follows not the conclusion inferred v. 16. is the same with that inferred v. 14. nor the reason to be drawn as Mr. Bl. would nor is there any need I should retract my Analysis of v. 12 13 14. nor answer Mr. Bls. objections against 〈◊〉 argument which I neither ascribe to the Apostle nor is deducible out of any of my grants Mr. Bl. adds And for v. 14. though I cannot say but in case iâ— were made up into Mr. Ts. his sense into a reason of the former conclusion it would contain a truth and so far might pass in the way of a reason Yet I have many material exceptions against it 1. from the thing it self it would be a reason silly childish vain your married condition is lawfull else your children were bastards what child in Corinth but well understood it 2. From the phrase in which it is delivered altogether unsuitable to a reason of this doctrine 1. being onely to tell them that the legitimation of their issue proved the lawfulness of their marriage society he should attribute all as to either sex to the believer when the child oweâ— his legitimation equally to either parent 2 That being to give 〈◊〉 reason of the lawfulness of marriage in such a special case he should give his reason of equal concernment to all marriages where both are unbelievers both believers as well as this between a believer and an unbeliever 3. When he is to speak onely of legitimation and bastardy he should phrase it in such uncouth language and in words fit it onely suteable to their parents Ecclesiastical capacity whether title to it as in the believer or want of it as in the unbeliever Now on the other hand interpret the Apostles words as his method will equally beare accordingly as you have heard before and no such inconvenience follows from the words either v. 14. or 16. Answ. Mr. Bls. confession that my analysis and exposition would contain a truth and that it might pass in the way of a reason and therefore is opposite to the Apostles purpose and his exceptions though termed by him material yet as I shall shew having no weight and his method and exposition neither agree with the words nor matter is a very good evidence for me against him As for his exceptions they are the same which he brought before sect 3. and are answered by me in this section that it was the fitter for the Apostle to usâ— if the reason were so easily understood that the Apostle doth not attribute all to the believer that no reason was so fit to settle them about their special case as that which evinced that the marriage state was not made void by the unbelief of the parties that the Apostles phrases are not uncouth language after my sense but very agrâ—eable to such language he useth in the same Chapter as when v. 20 by an Antanaâ—lasis he terms the civil state of the Christians the calling wherein they are called and to other expressions as I shew in the first part of this Review sect 12 23 24 25 26 and that the phrases are not suitable to the parents Ecclesiastical capacity and the Apostles speeches and argument do imply falshood and are inconsistent with the terms and matter of them if expounded and râ—solved as Mr. Bl. would Mr. Bl. adds And now Mr. T. may easily receive answer to that odious inference which he makes from our interpretation of Covenant holiness According to this interpretation saith he the medium of the Apostle to prove the
there is no fear of non-federation of their issue the minor is thus expresly after Mr Bls. minde But the unbelieving fornicatrix is sanctified by the faith of the believing fornicator so as that there is no fear of non-federation of their issue Ergo they may live together according to Mr. Bl. and consequently Mr. Bl. blasphemously by his exposition makes the Apostle justifie the living together of a believer with an unbeliever in fornication which is enough to shew the falshood of that exposition yea and of any other which ascribes the sanctifiedâ—ess v. 14. which is the reason of their lawful living together v. 12 13. to the faith of the one party and not to the conjugal relation The rest of Mr. Bls. talk of my willingness to have him waste his time his falling on my sapless tree the readiness of his axe his pains in applying it is vain and frivolous talk sith the tree still stands after all his hacking and hewing at it and his axe appears to bee very blunt or else he strikes besides the tree As for my sixe years space Mr. Bl. might have understood that the reason of my not publishing the first part of my Review till 1652. six years after the printing of Apology was besides my constant labours and extraordinary publike and private employments from the necessity of my removing my dwelling from the Temple to Bewdley from Bewley to Ledbury thence to Lemster besides my frequent flittings by reason of the wars travels to regain my plundered goods difficulty to get my treatise printed the variety of Antagonists I had to answer which is yet the reason of my slowness in publishing this part of the Review and comes from the venemous spirit of such as Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists who would never comply with me in the fair motion in the Epilogue of my Examen to joyn together in a brotherly way of ventilating the point but what they can bait me with calumnies tending to discredit me as covetous arrogant c. with multitude of replies and magnifying them though frivolous vilifying my writings that men might not reade them and discern the truth nor Book-sellers be willing to print or sell them stirring up Parliaments and Rulers to remove those of our way out of all places which have publike salary that our hands may be weakned which I may truly call wicked practises of which too many of them have been guilty and for which God will judge them I go on Mr. Bl. sect 6. to my argument against his instrumental sanctification that barren persons cannot be said to be instrumentally sanctified for producing an holy seed pressed by me in the 1. part of this Review p. 150 151. sect 19 saith thus And I will appeal to any yea the meanest Christian whether persons that have children born in wedlock bonds in such disparity may not have their fears and scruples about them notwithstanding others in the same condition of marriage are childless or unable to bring forth children Whether the seed which came of those marriages Ezra 10. were not unclean notwithstanding many so married had no children Many of the Priests had herein transgrest and it was but some of them had wives by whom they had children Ezra 10.44 All which I grant but there is not a jot in all this which answers my objection that the barren by accident or nature could not bee said to bee sanctified to produce an holy seed and yet the reason of the Apostle must bee conceived to reach to the proof of the lawfulness of their living together in disparity of religion as well as the fruitful and therefore the sanctifying must be expounded in another sense then Mr. Bls. which agrees not to their case But hee adds And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination v. 1â— that they might live together pag. 152. hee will have it to be from a future contingent but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination as hath been sufficiently shâ—wn it is not this fals with the other Answ. That it hath been sufficiently shewn that the first part of v. 14. is not a medium for proof of the Apostles determination is said without any colour of truth All the reason I finde given is v. 16. is not a formal reason ergo neither v. 14. to which answer hath been given by denying both the antecedent and the consequence it is a formal reason though not â—s Mr. Bl. frames it and if it were not yet the term for else but now being argumentative terms shew there is formal reasoning v. 14. v. 14. and the producing an holy seed being a contingent event if the Apostle should as Mr. Bls. exposition makes him prove their lawful living together because the unbeliever is sanctified instrumentally to produce an holy seed hee should argue from an uncertain event which Chamier tom 4. paustr. Cath. lib. 5. chap. 10. sect 46. disapproved in another case as I shew in my Examen pag. 7â— To my argument against instrumental sanctiâ—â—cation that it cannot be meant oâ— it sith the barren cannot bee said to bee Gods instrument â—or that always effects and when God sanctifies hee specially designes some whereas this is common to all husbands and wives and the unbeliever is said to bee sanctified whereas it is the believer according to them who is the instrument of producing a holy seed Mr. Bl. saith I am sure they bring â—orth children unto God Ezek 16.20 and this they do not independently of themselves so Christ would not have warned Matth. 23.10 call no man father upon earth for one is your father who is in heaven All natural parents are instruments of God to produce a seed to people the world according to that blessing of Gen. 1.28 Gen. 9.1 Bee fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth All believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed it being of his free grace that the promise is to them and their seed Answ. What is said Ezek. 16.20 was said onely of Israelites and those manifest idolaters as well as true believers and the words do import no more but this that the Israelites children were born of right to him that is to be at his disposal for his service Levit. 25.42 because hee brought them out of Egypt and therefore it was unjust in them to alienate them from him by offering them to idols which is not to be said of the Corinthian believers children Matth. 23.9 is as impertinently alledged for it speaks not of Gods being a Father in respect of natural generation nor forbids calling any man a father in that respect but in that manner in which the Jews termed their teachers fathers and themselvâ—s their children in respect of absolute subjection of their consciences to their dictates as Diodati rightly in his annot This teacheth the believers not to yeeld that absolute reverence nor power over their consciences to any living man which
conclusion doth prove that Mr. S. doth here falsely charge mee to say that 1 Tim. 4.5 is meant onely the lawful use of the creature Nor is it true that I fled to this place to make an exception against the taking the word holy in a religious sense For neither did I make use of 1 Tim. 4.5 about the sense of the word holy but the word sanctified nor do I conceive the word sanctified used in any other then a religious sense yea I have often said that sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 is taken for religiously sanctified as 1 Cor. 6.11 as baptised 1 Cor. 10.2 mother Mark 3.35 dead Heb. 11.12 made himself Eunuch Matth. 19.12 son Exod. 2.9 and many more places the words are taken in their proper notion onely they are applied in a limited sense or in some respect by an impropriety or abuse of speech to those to whom absolutely and in propriety or exactness of speech they do not belong and therefore this which Mr. S. here suggests of me is but his calumny which he was willing to take up that through my sides he might wound the truth But Mr. S. adds The Apostle saith first Every creature which God hath made is good in it self and none to be refused that is all may be lawfully used without any legal pollution as formerly But then he goes higher speaking of a religious use of outward things they are sanctified by the Word and Prayer they are all good and lawfull in their use to every man but they are onely sanctified by these holy means the Word and Prayer And he might have as well said that the Word and Prayer are not holy means but onely lawfull to be used as that the sanctification which is by the word and prayer is to make the creatures onely lawfull to be used If a wicked man eaâ— his meat without seeking a blessing on it or giving thanks will any one say that he hath not a lawfull use of the creature but any man may say it 's not sanctified to him The Apostle in these 2 ver goes on gradatim by degrees from a lawfull use to a holy use of the creatures All is good and may be used but they are sanctified by the word and prayer Thus you see the nature of this priviledged place Answ. What word it is which is meant 1 Tim. 4 5. whether the word of Gods power creating them which the words v. 3. which God hath created for receiving seem to lead to or the word of Gods declaration whether by our Lord Christ Mark 7.15 or to Peter Acts 10.15 or promise of blessing it is manifest that the Apostle in that place doth not make any distinction between a sanctified and a lawfull use nor doth he say they are created for any to be received but with thanksgiving of them who believe and know the truth nor doth he make the creature good or not to be refused but being received with thanksgiving nor sanctified but by the word of God and prayer Nor do I find but that interpreters take lawfull use and sanctified for the same So Beza in his Annot. It is made holy to wit in respect of us so as that we may use it with a good conscience as duly received from the hand of God For other men do enjoy it no otherwise then as thieves and sacriledgious persons goods usurped And he lawfully useth goods who acknowledgeth and invocatâ—th the giver of them after his word Piscat anal He minds which is the lawfull and allowed use of meats to wit when we receive them with thanksgiving and prayer proceeding from faith Diodati Dicson and others speak to like purpose Nor is there any thing here that intimates any gradation from a lawfull use v. 3 4. to a sanctified use v. 5. For v. 3 4. to the receiving of them thanksgiving is required of them that believe and know the truth and the creature is not said to be good and nothing to be refused but being taken with thanksgiving which is the same with sanctified by the word and prayer v. 5. and v. 5. is a reason of that which is said v. 4. and therefore no gradation or rising higher as Mr. S. imagines Which I do not produce to shew that I conceive no distinction between a lawful use and a holy use of things which I do acknowledge in the first part of this Review p. 114. and elsewhere but onely to shew how insufficiently Mr. S. opposeth me whom he so severely censures even in that which I spake rightly enough and his own blindness made him to judge hardly of me as left by God to blindness Mr. S. saith further But the main place Mr. T. alledgeth for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful is that 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. Here uncleanness is taken saith he for fornication and holiness for chastity To which I answer with Mr. M. that chastity among the heathens is never called sanctâ—fication but among believers it is being a part of the new creaâ—iâ—n and one branch and part of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God And though Mr. T. saiâ—h this is but a shift yet he shall see it demonstrative if he observe the phrases in the text and the nature of sanctification in the 1 and 2. v. the Apostle beseecheth and exhorteth them to walk as they had received from him how to walk and to please God according to the rules of Jesus Christ and he urgeth it in v. 3 with this It 's the will of God even your sanctification that is that you should walk in all holiness sutable to the blessed rules of the Gospel and as one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin And he instanceth specially in fornication which was the common and reigning sin among the Gentiles so that if you view the place you shall find that 1. He speaks of sanctification in general in it's full latitude v. 3. as sutable to all the will and mind of God This is the will of God even your sanctification that is it is Gods command and Gods delight to see you sanctified then he brings in abstinence from fornication the sin of the times as one part of that holiness God requires For sanctification may be considered as it lies in vivification or in mortification which for distinctions sake we we may call the two parts of sanctification Now chastity in it self as in the heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification some other Epiâ—hite becomes it better would Mr. T. call all the abstinencies and actings of the heathens by the name of sanctifications and speak like a Christian and a Divine Would it be proper to say in his Pulpit when he was speaking of the nature of holiness and chastity sanctified Socrates holy Aristides And can he think the Apostle would express that which is common among heathens in such a high Gospel dialect as sanctification is appropriated always in Scripture to
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.
quibus Latina versio â—orrigi possit emendâ—ri And I find cited Erasmus his preface on Hillary aâ— charging Ruffinus with this practise of adding and châ—nging be â—nd an interpreter in all his translations as of Eusebius hiâ— History but chiefly of Origens writings Grot. annot in Matth. 25.46 â—uid Oâ—igenes senserit ex ipsius scriptis difficile est dictu adeo omnia a Ruffiâ—o sunâ— interpolata Hieronymus Apol. adv Ruff. l. 2. speaks thus to Ruffiâ—â—â— concerning some of his translations of Origen Novit conscientia â—ua 〈◊〉 addiderris quae subtraâ—eris quâ— in utranque partem ut â—ibi vâ—sum suerit immutâ—ris Whereas therefore Mr. Ms. frâ—enâ— Defence part 1 p 15. tels me You call the Author of them supposed Oâ—igen It had been your part before you had so branded them fiâ—st to haâ—â— made it manifest by some undeniable evâ—dence or other that they were not Oâ—â—gens I tell him that being but a respondent it was enough that I shâ—wed sucâ— evidences aâ—â— did to prove the passages doubtfull an uncertain witness being no gâ—od proof And to Dr Homes his saying in his Animadvâ— on my Exerciâ— p 129. Truly a man can hardly with patience enougâ— look upon Mr. 〈◊〉 â—is dealing in this When we urge Origen he is not Origen wiâ—h him but if he do it then Origen must be received I answer if the Dr. had had 〈…〉 eâ—ough to have considered my words he might have observed that I onely named Origen Hâ—m on Rom. 6. but did neither assigâ— the 〈…〉 for the time in which thosâ— words were written noâ— did 〈…〉 that they were to be received 〈◊〉 his but added two reasons to 〈◊〉 this imagination â—s iâ— by alledging thosâ— words under the 〈…〉 homil on Rom. 6. by which onely it is known I did 〈…〉 his whereof the one was thâ— cenâ—urâ— of Erasmus the 〈…〉 Austin nor Hierom menâ—iâ—â— Origen as â—vouching 〈…〉 which is enough to shâ—w it to be likely that the passagâ—◠〈…〉 by Ruffinus though Hierom and others mention not these in particular sith neither doth he mention all the particulars of his dealings in this kind but chargeth them upon his conscience Nor is it true that what is added is ingeniously confessed by Ruffinus the translator himself For though the words cited by Mr. Ms. friend Defence p. 16. shew that Ruffinus acknowledged of what sort his addiâ—ions were to his translation of his Homilies on Leviticus yet they shew not what in particular they were nor is any thing produced to shew the words cited for infant Baptism were not one Nor is there any good answer made to my allegation to prove that passage likely to be one 1. from the bringing of them in as it seemed to me when I read them in a patcht manner not as if they were woven at first with the whole cloth that is the rest of the writing before and after but as sewed to it by a botcher without any handsome coherence which neither Mr. Ms. friend p. 16. nor Dr. Homes p. 130. deny and therefore I count worth the observing by the judicious Reader when he shall examine the places as being of some moment to discern whether they were Origens words at first or Ruffinus his assument 2. Because they are the very words which are frequently used by the refuters of Pelagians in the 5th century who denied Original sin whereas Origen is taxed as the very Father of Pelagianism by Hieron praesat ad lib. 4. in Hierem. and elsewhere as teaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfection or freedome from sin contrary to the express words of those cited passages and when August tom 7. l 1. adv Julian c. 1 2. alledgeth ancients avouching Original sin he never mentions Origen and therefore these passages being so express against Pelagians and in the very words used by the refuters of them in Augustines time are to be judged to be added either by Ruffinus whose words to the same purpose on the 50th Psalm are cited by Chamier paâ—str cath tom 3. l. 1. c. 6. § 9. and of whom the same Author tom 4. l. 7. c. 9. § 30. saith Sciunt omnes docti exiguam fuisse Ruffini in vertendis authoribus religionem or by some other Nor are these passages in Origen onely hints against some piece of Pelagianism which might be conceived by some few in his time as Dr. Homes minceth the matter p. â— 30. but express arguing against the main point of Pelagianism denying original corruption and that in the chief arguments used by Augustine and others Nor did Origen Pelagianize a little onely but is supposed to have first brought in Pelagianism into the Church Hieron adv Ruffin saith Dr. Owen display of Arminianism ch 12. And though it 's not â—enied that Origen did deliver contraries yet I think it 's hard to find him so often and so directly arguing against his own tenet Nor do I conceive however Dr. Homes Mr. Blake Mr. M. and others imagine contradictions in my words which are not so that ever Dr. Homes hath found in my writings such clashings against my self Nor do I make such an argument as M. Ms friend Defence â— 17 answers â—hat the passages make against the Pelagians and therefore necessarily they were written after the Pelagian heresie was broached which is a meer shifting fashion in that Author who ever he were used before in answering my argument from Irenaeus words and scope which he answers as if I made it from the scope and not the words but thus these passages are plainly and directly against the Pelagians chief point of impeccability which Origen is charged to bee the Author of therefore according to Rivets rule tractat de patrum autoritate c. 14. it 's not likely they were Origens to which he answers not I will add only the words of Vossius Hist. Pelag. l. 2. part 1. th 6. p. 153. Idem Origines T. 2. p. 471. nisi is potius Rufinus interpres quis enim quae vel Origenis vel paraphrastae adeò liberi suerint hodii discernâ—t in cap. IX rectiùs VI. ad Rom. ubi ait ab sorde pâ—ccati mâ—ndus non est quisquam etiamsi unius diei fuêrit vita ejus super terram Sed fuse clareque imprimis â—oc de peccato scribit lib. VIII XII in Levit. nisi isti in Leviticum commentarii Cyrilli potiùs sint quando etiam in hujus operibus inveniunâ—uâ— ac ut in Origenianis libri sexdecim ita inter Cyrilliana sexdecim homiliae appellantur which shews that that learned writer for Paedobaptism did distrust those very passages cited for infant Baptism to have been none of Origens Mr. C. aâ—ds The third thing objected is that he calls it a tradition so does the Apostle things contained in Scripture 2 Thes. 2.15 Epiphanius calls Baptism and other divine truths 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 traditions and yet quotes Scripture for them Bellarmin calls infant Baptism a tradition and yet brings ten places of
66. denies that he made the future hopes any part of the sense of hath been sanctified in all these paraphrases he sets down nothing but the future hopes which are no part of the sense by his own confession but as he imagines the rational importance the score ground or consideration of admitting children to Baptism And not onely so but adds more then he makes the rational importance of the term hath been sanctified in his paraphrase as that by their living in the family with Christian parents they probably will and ought to be brought up in the faith and the Church requiring and receiving promise from the parents reasonably presumes they will None of which he doth so much as pretend to be the rational importance of hath been sanctified but adds them of his own and with like fancying might have added the Church doth reasonably presume they will be Teachers Officers in the Church Martyrs and what else they could wish them to be I refer it to any sober ingenious Scholler to judge whether such kind of paraphrasing especially when an argument is drawn from it as the chief if not onely piâ—lar of the cause be tollerable On the other side that the Dr. did make the Apostles arguing otherwise when he refuted the answer to his argument hence in his Letter qu. 4. § 82. appears by his words there p. 257. which I cited Review par 2. pag. 322. and were those whence I gathered the Drs. framing the Apostles argument when he said The invalidity of this answer will be discerned First by the method of the Apostles arguing in that place for the coâ—habiting of the believing wife with the unbelieving husband c. because the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified by the believing wife or else were your children unclean but now are they holy that must needs be this unless there were some hope that the co-habiting of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to the faith 't would certainly follow that their children were unclean now putting to it that which he in his paraphrases § 31. of his 4 th qu. in his Letter where he expresseth hath been sanctified thus The unbelieving party hath been brought to the faith by the company and conversation of the believer and unclean by not admitted to Baptism and holy by admitted to Baptism and your children by the young children of Christians whereof was an unbeliever and I appeale to any that shall compare my words in the 2d part of this Review sect 26. p. 331. where I make this the Apostles arguing as the Dr. expounds it If some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been converted by the faith diligence and conversation of the believing party that then was then the children of you who are believers but begotten or brought forth by one that yet is an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian Baptism in infancy but now that is upon this score that some former unbelieving yoke-fellows have been brought to the faith of Christ by the faith conversation and diligence of the believer they have been admitted to Baptism with the Drs. premised arguings and paraphrase in his Letter qu. 4. § 31 82. and here whether I have not rightly set down the Apostles argument as the Dr. expounds him and the Dr. hath not changed here his frame of the Apostles argument to hide the deformity of it and whether there be any truth in it that I have not understood his paraphrase that I have substituted another way of arguing in his name in stead of it or have combated with the shadow of my own creating and whether these propositions the children of a believing yoke fellow who is joyned to an unbeliever had not been admitted to Christian Baptism if some other unbelieving yoke-fellow had not been brought to the faith The children of a believer by an unbelieving yoke fellow have been admitted to Christian Baptism by reason that it hath been usual that other believers have brought the unbeliever to the faith are not included in the Apostles argument according to the tenour of his reasoning conceived by the Dr. and whether there be any shew of connexion in the consequence of the Apostle as the Dr. expounds it and whether he hath not shifted in stead of answering and imputed fiction to me that he might hide his own collusion SECT XCV Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled THe Dr. next pretends to vindicate his reasons for his interpretation from my exceptions My first reason saith he is Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy noting a relative holiness a setting apart to God and the lowest degree of that imaginable being the initiating into the Church by Baptism this must in reason be here noted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy as all visible professors Ezr. 9.2 are the holy seed and in the Epistles of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy To this he answers that it being all granted confirms not the Drs. exposition because 't is no good argument a genere ad speciem affirmativè and because infants are not visible professors But sure when the species is such that he that hath not that hath not any part of the genus the argument will thus hold very irrefragably Suppose that of the Deacon to be the lowest order of Officers in the Church and that without which there is no ascending to any higher degree in the Ministery will not then the argument hold He hath some degree Ecclesiastical upon him therefore sure he is a Deacon Thus sure it is in this matter the relative holiness belongs to no person that is not baptized Baptism is the lowest degree of it and all superiour degrees of Apostle Prophet c. in the Christian Church are founded in that therefore if the infant children be holy the infant children are baptized So again Baptism is the lowest degree of visible Profession therefore if these that are said to be holy are visible Professors then sure they are baptized And so there is no force in that whether answer or exception to my first reason Answ. That there is no force to avoid my exception in this reply may appear 1. That he saith nothing to what I said p. 333. of the 2d part of the Review that the term holy seed Ezr. 9.2 hath a far different notion as I shew in this Review Antipaed par 1. sect 13 25. from what the Dr. imagines 2. Nor doth he here or any where else prove infants to be visible professors 3. Nor doth he prove Baptism to be the lowest degree of visible profession 4. Nor doth the Dr. prove or can prove that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 must be meant of a relative holiness of setting apart to God in the Christian visible Church short of real saving holiness The opinion of matrimonial holiness I assert with many more is not yet refuted They who after Tertullian interpret it of
writers which by reducing things to the primitive institution exclude other things added by men as abuses But the Dr. tels me he that saith man is a living creature doth not thereby deny â—n Angel to be so also True but this is impertinent â—â—th this is a proposition not a command and as impertinent is the other when Christ gives his Dâ—sciples poâ—er to heal diseases Matth. 10.1 he cannot be deemed to with hold from them power of raising the dead for that we see comprehended in their Commiâ—sion v. 8. for thâ—s is not an instanâ—e of an institution of what they should do but a relation of what CHRIST gave them To my arguing from passages of the Doctors Letter of resol q. 4. § 55 92 94. pract câ—t l. 6. § 2. that infants are not baptized according to Chriâ—ts institution and Baptism no Sacrament to them he tels me 1. That Christs institution of Baptism was not nor is ever affirmed by 〈◊〉 to be set down in those words of Matth. 28. that having been long before instituted and practised as appears by plain words Job 4.1 2. Whereto I answer 1. The first is not true for in his Letter of resol q. 4. § 24. he mentions the copy of Baptism set down in the N. T. i. e. in the words of institution which § 25. shews are those Matth. 28.19 and § 29 having as he thinks avoided the exclusion of infants from the command Matth. 28. â—9 he saith Nothing is discernable in Christs institution of Baptism which can exclude infant children of Christianâ— from it and again he terms them that institution of Baptism for all nations 2. His reason iâ— as frivolous For though it were instituted before yet it was set down Matth. 28.19 as the institution of the Lords Supper was before the Epistle to the Corinthians yet is set down 1 Cor. 11.23 Secondly saith hee that though Christs will and institution foâ— baptizing infants be not so manifestly exprest in those words Matth. â—8 19 as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gain-sayer without any other way of evidence or proof added to it yet by the Apostles practise of baptizing infants appearing to us by other means it is most evident that they who certainly did not mistake Christs meaning did thus understand and extend his institution and commission The truth of this is there made more evident § 30 c. I shall not here repeat it Answ. 1. It is to be observed that here the Dr. makes Christs will institution and commission to be exprest in those words Matth. 28.19 and yet in the next words before he said Christs institution of Baptism was not nor is ever affirmed by him to be set down in those words Matth. 28.19 Quo teneam nodo 2. That he acknowledgeth Christs will and institution for baptizing infants is not so manifestly exprest in those words Matth. 28.19 as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gain-sayer Now sure iâ— not there no where As for his other proof from other places it is so fully proved here to be vain that if the Dr. do not others will see it to be so Yet he adds Secondly that the infant when he is to bee baâ—tized doth though not by his own voice personally yet by his lawfull proxies which the Church accepteth in his stead profess the believing in three the Father Son and Holy Ghost deliver himself up to three c. Answ. How comes any man â—o bee a childs proxy who doth not make hiâ— so By wâ—at law becomes he a lawful proxy Where did God allow him to become a proxy or suâ—ety for an infant How dares any take upon him to be a surety of the Covenant which iâ— Christs office Heb. 7.22 With what face can any Christian say the child bâ—lievs or desires â—o be baptized when the child at that very instant by its crying shews its unwillingness thereto How dares any undertake it shall believe when it is not in his power to give faiâ—h and so many do not believe but oppose the faith who are thus baptized What warrant hath any parent or as Mr. Baxâ—er terms the Gossips proparent to profess the faith of Christ in behalf of an infant and to desire Christian baptism for it What is the Church the Doctour means that accepts a proxies profession in stâ—ad of the childe Who gave them or that person the name of the Church What Commission whence have the Church power to exchange and commute ones profession for anothers Who gave the Minister authority to alter Christs institution and to accept of that which Christ never appointed in stead of that which Christ appointed It is undoubtedly a most high presumption derogatory to Christs peculiar office forbidden Matth. â—3 8 for any Minister or Bishop or Council or Congregation who are all to be subject to Christ and to follow his prescriptions to take on them in stead of the persons own profession before Baptism to accept of anotherâ— as â— proxy parent or proparent his confession instead of the baptized perâ—ons profession Thâ—ugh I marvail not that Dr. Hammond a man Prelatical who too much favours corruptions in Fathers Counciâ—s and Prelates disguising them under the name of the Church which is a preâ—ence for many superstiâ—ions should thus determine yet I wonder how Mr. Baxter and those who have opposed the use of the Cross in Baptism and other abuses of Papists and Prelates should having proved in his 2d Disputation of right to Sacraments that none but Professors of saving faith and repentance are to be baptized yet without the least proof or shadow of proof but a parents or proparents proâ—ession instead of an infants and without any institution or practise in the New Testament darâ— to teach and accordingly to praâ—â—ise 〈…〉 and to require parents or others to profess the faith to that â—nd and in their stead Just zeal to the glory of God and honour of Christ and his truth makes me thus earnest no man can justly blame me in inveighing against if not the hypocrisie of such men yet certainly the iniquity of them who oppose humane inventions in one thing and noâ— in another and the wickedness of them who either by Consistorial sentences excommunicaâ—e as Heretiques or by exciting Magistrates against them persecuâ—e or in preaching exclaim or otherwise oppose those that will not yeeld to such corruptions though obtruded under the name of the Church I had said yea if the positive will of Christ be the reason of Baptism they usurp upon Christs prerogative who baptize otherwise theâ—â— Christ hath appointed and then if the precept of Christ doth not necâ—ssarily infer infant Baptism which the Dr. ingenuously acknowledgeth it doth by manifest consequence deny it sith hee forbids that to be done otherwise then he hath appointed when he hath determined how it should be done The Dr. when hee saith above the words I baptize into the Name
parallel to a laâ—ger discourse such we know S. Marks for the most part is an abbreviation of S. Matthews Gospel as in many others so in this particular some passages indeed there are in S. Mark in this place which are not iâ— S. Matthew as shall anon be shewed but in the particular now before us S. Mark is according to wont more concise there is no mention in him of baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost nor consequently of discipling of which that was the ceremony as in S. Matthew there is Answ This doth rather confirm my major then oppose it For if Mark express the same more briefly and Matthew more largely in this particular and there is no other expression in Mark besides Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature which answeâ—s to Matthews words Go make Disciples all nations then what is exprest in Matthew is the same with that which is exprest in Mark. And indeed the time occasion and expressions 〈◊〉 so plainly evince this that almost all editions and translations which use marginal references and commentators I have seen expound the one by the other Secondly saith the Dr. That Christs appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach the Gospel 〈◊〉 Mark doth no way infer â—he precedent instruction of every single person that was received to baptism the phrase signifies to proclaim or promulgate the happy tydings brought into the world by Christ grace and mercy and eternal felicity to all that should come into him and take his yoke upon them and learn of him And upon the publishing of this to all the world to every creature i e. to the Gentiles universally as well as the Jews I suppose 't is very possible that many of them should make all speed to come unto Christ and come out at the Apostles preaching they and their whole housholds together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Oracle commanded in Homer and to bring their infant children as they used to do that became Proselytes to the Jews and then the Apostles knowing their Masters minde for receiving of infants and that as from the institution I suppose them fore instructed to baptism receive them all and as many as interposed no voluntary hinderance baptize them and having taken them into the School of Christ make good provision for the future instruction of them as soon as ever they should be capable of it That thus it was I pretend not still to deduce from these words Matth. 28. but to infer from anoâ—her medium the practise of the Apostles otherwise notified to us All that I am now to manifest is that this passage hath nothing contrary to our hypothesis but is perfectly reconcileable with iâ— and this is done by the scheme thus laid And so 't is most visible how no force there is in this first reason of exception Answ. It is most visible that the Dr. was in a dream when he wrote this 1. Because he talks of an institution which is onely iâ—agined by him of receiving infants and as many as interposed no voluntary hinderance to baptize them not excepting infidelâ— children contrary to his own interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 which declares them unclean that is not to be baptizâ—d in the Drs. sense and to take infants into the School of Christ as if the School of Christ were to nurse up infants for that was all could be done to them and to make good proâ—ision for the future instruction of them as soon as ever they should be capable of it Which is so ridiculous a conceit as no waking man me thinks should fancy it For what provision could the Apostâ—es who were to go and preach the Gospel to every creature make for the future instruction of them as soon as ever they should be capable of it who were not to stay till they were able to speak or receive any commands from them 2. The Dr. as if he forgot his matter in hand saith All that he was then to manifest was that this passage Matth. 28.19 hath nothing contrary to his hypothesi but is perfâ—â—â—ly reconcileable to it whereas his business was to answer my argument against his position that the making or receiving Disciples Matth. 28 19. supposeth not any precedent instruction but looks wholly on it aâ— subsequentpunc 3. The Drs. answer that Christs appointment to â—reach the Gospel in S. Mark doth no way infer the pâ—ecedent instruction of every single person that was received to Baptism might be true yet his position false that the making Disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth not any precedent instruction but looâ—s wholly on it as subsequent 4. His reason why to preach the Gospel in S. Mark doth no way infer the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to baptism shews his talk to have been incoherent like the talk of a man in a dream For what consequence is in this The phrase signifies c. Ergo To preach the Gospel in S. Mark doth no way infer the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to Baptism Might not all this be true that the phrase so signifies they so publish the thing set down be possible the Apostles know Christs minde as the Dr. imagines and yeâ— to preach the Gospel in S. Mark infer the precedent instruction of every single person that was received to Baptism So that in all this whiâ—h the Dr saith there iâ— no answer to my argument But the truth is by the Drs. own grants my argument is mâ—de good For if preaching the Gospel be instruction and this be the way of making Disciples which are not deniâ—d then it must needs go before makinâ— or â—eceiviâ—g Disciples sith the mâ—anes in order of actual bâ—ing must be before the effect and so the Drs. position faâ—se That the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not aâ—y precedent instruction Matth. â—8 19 but loâ—ks wholly on it as subsequent Again if afore baptizâ—ng they were to publish the Gospel to all the World to every creature i. e. to the Gentiles univâ—rsally as well the Jews then afore any single person was râ—ceived to Baptism instruction waâ— to be precedent unless there were any single person which was not comprised under all the world every creature Gentiles universally as well as Jews Yea the terms every creature and all nations comprehend every person that was to be baptized and more but they were every one to be made Disciples and that by preaching the Gospel to them afore they were to be baptâ—zed Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 therefore instruction of every single person was to be precedent to his reception to baptisâ— Hereto agree the words of Athanasius Hierom and others cited by me Review part 2. sest 5. p. 86 87. The 2d saith the Dr. followes that such as the making Disciples wâ—s Joh. 4.1 such is the making Disciples Matth. 28.19 For by the Drs. confession they are all one But
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
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
intolerable presumption but a certain truth in them that assert that infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pretended as now taught is a late innovation In his fifth Arg. he undertakes to shew Infants have great profit by Baptism but either asserts a meer Title or a Profit which they have not by their Baptism or that which they may have without it It is not true that there is the like profit to infants by baptism as by circumcision for the one is appointed and not the other and there is no penalty for omitting infant-baptism as for neglecting infant-circumcision nor any promise or privilege assigned to infant-baptism as to infant-circumcision SECT XI The Agreements between Circumcision and Baptism do not justifie Infant-baptism and the validity of sealing Infants with an initial seal now is shewed to be null HIs sixth and last Argument runs thus The promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to infants of visible Professors seeking it for them both Jews and Gentile therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament The Antecedent he proves not it is in effect no more than the infants of Jews and Proselytes were circumcised onely Mr. Church useth the affected Phraseology of Paedobaptists to call that sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament which is no more than circumcision which it is false did seal or assure to every circumcised person the Promise of propriety in God or any other Promise made in the covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. And he says It was sealed to infants of visible Professors intimating it was done to them by reason of their Profession and not to others whereas the infants of any in his house whether born in Abrahams house or bought with his money who were not of his seed but a strangers children were by command to be circumcised He puts in his conclusion our Baptism for sealing by the initial Sacrament But to let pass these stale Paralogisms he takes on him to prove the consequence by six Arguments The first is The principal Promise is not made void He means that Gen. 17.7 but gives no reason why that should be the principal Promise and not that v. 4. But I grant that Promise Gen. 17.7 meant of Abrahams seed by faith is not made void He thence concludes Therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation which is not a proof of the consequence but of the conclusion of the former Argument nor is there any force in this inference for though the Promise were still in force as then yet it is not a sufficient reason to baptize an infant the command being not to baptize persons in covenant but disciples of Christ. In his second he tells us Sealing that Promise by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people which was the substance of circumcision and a distinct thing from it did not of right cease with the Jewish church-state for it was not peculiar to that church as a national church for that Promise was sealed to infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation Gen. 27.2 Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholik church For shews of grace are sufficient to it thoughâ— the parties have not joyned themselves to any particulor church Acts 18.36 37. and 10 47. and one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the catholick church cannot have the promise sealed to him by an initial Sacrament though he be a member of a particular church Answer That which Mr. church saith sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people was the substance of circumcision and a distinct thing from it is many waies faulty in respect of falsehood and obscurity For 1. the substance of circumcision as a type or shadow is Christ exhibited as the Apostle Col. 3.7 not the promise of God to every Infant of a believer by profession 2. as circumcision was asign or taken of the covenant made with Abraham and it is true the promise Gen. 17.7 was the thing signified by it but not onely that part I will be the God of thy seed but also the other I will be thy God yea and all the rest of the promises as ver 4. thou shalt be a father of many nations fruitfulness descent of Kings ver 6. inheritance of Canaan ver 8. yet how the promises or the sealing of them should be the substance of circumcision I do not understand Circumcision was a ceremony consisting of an action and a relation Circumcision as an action hath no other substance or essence but the cutting off the little skin as a relation the signifying or sealing is the very relation but it is a trifling speech to say paternity is the substance of paternity if the promises sealed be meant to be the substance yet no Logicians I know so speak to call the object of sight the substance of sight the thing signified the substance of the sign Faith is Heb. 11.1 said to be the substance of things hoped for but there the act is said to be the substance of the object not the object the substance of the act so the covenant should not be the substance of circumcision but circumcision the substance of the covenant 3. It is more unintelligible to me how sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people was the substance of circumcision and yet a distinct thing For first if he mean that it was the substance of circumcision as a relation that is the essence of it in which sense only I know how to understand his speech then sure it was the very same and no distinct thing the essence being not a distinct thing from the essentiate the thing defined and definition are not two distinct things though the notion be formally distinct if he mean that sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament should be the Genus to circumcision yet so it should not be a distinct thing the Genus and species are not distinct really but formally Quae formaliter distinguunter non habent se ut res et res Kick. â—ist log lib. 1. part 2. cap 5. nor was there any other sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament then by circumcision and therefore no real distinction all the distinction was meerly notional or verbal circumcision being one word and sealing with the initial seal at that time another yet both expressing the same thing If any imagine a sealing with an initial seal then that was not circumcision let him shew what it is and were commanded Mr. Church himself pag. 41. calls circumcision the initial Sacrament aforetime 2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacramment is said to be the substance of circumcision yet pag. 41. he saith it was a distinct thing from sealing the promise and only a ceremony for that time