on earth or to any opportunity in any day whatsoever whether week day or Lords dâ—y wherein they might exhort 3. Bâ— comparing these placâ—s with 〈◊〉 Cor 6 2 where it is said Now is the accepted time now 〈◊〉 the dâ—y of salvation which seem plainly to intimate the same day with that which is meant Heb. 3.7 13. and that day being manifestly meant of the time wherein the Embassadours for Christ do beseech men to bee reconciled to GOD 2 Cor. 5.20 it is very probable or rather certain that to day Heb. 3.7 13. 4.7 is not meant particularly the Lords day or first day of the week but any day of a mans life wherein the Gospel of Christ is preached and reconciliation to God offered him and received by him Or as Cameron quaest in Epist. ad Heb. 3.7 That time which by the Prophets and Apostle is called the last dayes and fulness of time which is the time of the Messiah exhibited not precisely the Lords day or first day of the week Let us view Mr. Carters reasons for his conceit First it is evident that it is meant of a day of rest câ—ap 4 7 8. for if Joshuah had given them rest namely that rest of which David speaketh then hee would not aftewards have spoken of another day therefore of a day of rest iâ— must bee meant else the Apostles argument had not been concluding nor pertinent because many other days might have afterwards been spoken off although Joshuah had given them all the rest that was ever to bee expected Answ. It is true that he Authour of that Epistle doth rightly gather from the word to day that there was another day of rest yet remaining for the people of God besides the seventh day rest aâ—d the rest in the Land oâ— Canaan which they pâ—ssessed by Joshuah s conduct yet doth not imply that the day in which the word was spoken was the day of rest But thus hee gathers it These words were spoken by David many hundreds of years both after God sware in the Wilderneâ—s they should not enter into his rest who believed not and after Joshuah had setled the posterity of the unbelievers in the land of Canaan and therefore the rest in the land of Canaan is not that which is meant in Davids speech but there is implied a future day of rest to bee attained by believing in JESUS the Messiah For David if it had been meant of the rest in Canaan would not have spoken to them not to harden their hearts fâ—r fear of being excluded from Gods rest Secondly saith Mr C. It is meant of such a rest as GOD can and sometimes doth swear in his wrath against his own people who are his house and the people of his pasture that they shall not enter into it this cannot bee said of what they enjoy in their personal inâ—erest by faith onely but as for the coâ—fort of his ordinances and Sabbath Answ. To omit the unfitness of the expression sith the comfort of Gods Ordinances and Sabbath is a personal interest enjoyed by faith onely it is not true that what is said of the rest cannot bee meant of what the people of God enjoy in their personal interest by faith onely because of Gods oath For that oath doth not imply that believers shall not enter into the rest yea the Apostles inference is to the contrary v 1 6. sith some were not to enter in others were to enter in and sith GOD sware some should not hee promised some should and chap. 3.18 sith some entred not through unbelief others in whom the word is mixed with faith ch 4.2 do enter in And this is a good argument that the rest mentioned is not the Christian Sabbath day which is the first day of the week sith they that believe not come short of it it 's a consequent upon the holding the boldness confidence and rejoycing of our hope firm to the end it was then in promise to the Hebrews and remained to the people of God who were to bee warned that they came not short of it where as the Sabbath dayes rest was then in pâ—ssession not to bee expected afterwards but then in use when this Epistle was written and yet such as hypocrites unbelievers and Apostats did in some sort enjoy as well as sincere persevering believers Thirdly saith Mr. C. That it is meant of a Sabbath dayes rest appeareth by the manner of the Apostles arguing in this place in as much as the Apostle proveth it to be another day of rest besides what was in use in the Church before Another in opposition to the 7th day Sabbath and that because David speaketh of it as a rest to bee entered into a long time after although the 7th days rest was entered into from the beginning of the world in as much as hee spake as it is Heb. 4.4 5. implying a promise that some shall though others shall not enter into it Now sayes the Apostle this being spoken by the Prophet David of a time then to come and again as Heb. 4.7 9. over and beside the seventh dayes Sabbath Now from this his manner of arguing it is evident that he supposeth this day of which David speaketh saying To day if ye will hear his voice to be a day of the same kinde as the seventh dayes Sabbath was because else there had been no such opposition to bee made nor would there have been place for an although or a notwithstanding in the case as in v. 31. because any other rest might have also been entred into from the beginning of the world as a believers personal rest by faith was but that which maketh the opposition is that David speaketh of a Sabbath dayes rest to be entred into now a long time after even in the times of the New Testament of which times that Psal. 95. is a prophesie as appeareth by the Apostles application of it in this place and thereupon hee concludes it to bee another day of rest remaining for us besides the seventh dayes rest By this wee see that by to day if yee will hear his voice is not meant onely of a Christians personal rest by faith which is every days enjoyment and was entred into from the beginning of the world but of another Sabbath dayes rest besides what was in use before Answ. It is not denied that Psal 95. is a prophesie nor that it speaks of a rest to be a long time after Davids time even in the times of the New Testament nor that although doth imply a distinct rest from the seventh day Sabbath rest and an opposition of that kinde which some Logicians call disparato though others will not have it called opposition but distinction yet the words Heb. 4 3. are not as Mr. C. cites them although the seventh days rest was entred into from the beginning of the world but although the works were 〈◊〉 or finished from the foundation of the world Nevertheless this doth not prove that either the rest is not a believers personal rest by faith or that it is of the same kinde with a meer weekly Sabbath dayes
relation unto Christ his ceasing from his works and entring into his rest as the 7th day Sabbath was in relation to God his ceasing from his works after his making the first creaâ—ion and entring into his So iâ— followeth v. 10. Which to be meant of Christ and his entrance into his rest which he makes to be his passing into heaven v. 14 inferred from his entring into his rest v. 10. he endeavours to prove by 5 reasons Answ. 1. The coherence beâ—ween Heb. 4.9 and v. 10. doth rather intimate that he that is entred into his rest v. 10. is a term common to all the people of God mentioned v. 9. and the exhortation v. 11. doth also import tâ—at the person that enters into his rest v. 10 is meant every believer Nor is any one of Mr. Cs. reasons convincing of the contrary For 1. let the translation be mended as Mr. C. would have it yet it may be true of every believer that he also hath ceased from his worâ—s as God did from his own works 2. Seeing then v. 14. may point out to what is said Heb 3. â— 2 3. 3. If Heb 4 10. cannot be meant of ceasing from sin yet it may be from labâ—rious works and sufferings as Revel 14.13 and such rest may be 〈◊〉 with refreshing and looking upon them as good 4. That v. 10. should be taken for a proof of v 9. is not necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being not always causal or ratiâ—nal yet if it were it might be thus The rest of the people of God in heaven shaâ—l be a Sabbatism like Gods for such of them as shall enter into their rest shall cease or have ceased from their sufferings and painfull works as God did from his in the beginning 5. What he saith that Christ were not Lord of the Sabbath as he saith Mark 2.28 Luke 6.5 unless he had entred into his rest or as p. 75. he could not be Lord of the Sabbath unless he also had a rest which he entred into as God did into his iâ— without proof and is false sith Christ speaks of his being Lord of the Sabbath at that time afore he entred into his rest and doth imply that which some would call blasphemy that Christ as God had not been Lord of the Sabbath unless he had entred into his rest as man But were it granted that Christ by reason of his entring into his rest as man was Lord of the Sabbath doth that prove that Heb. 4.10 is meant of Christs entring into his rest or is it not rather a baculo ad angulum But were it granted that Heb. 4.10 were meant of Christs entring into heaven yet the rest before mentioned is rather thereby confirmed to be meant of rest in heaven with Christ then rest on earth on a weekly sabbath sith the argument is strong thus Christ is passed into his rest in the heavens therefore there is a rest remaining for the people of God there but hath no strength thus Christ is entred into the heavens to rest therefore there remains to the people of God a weekly day of rest on earth Lastly this very reason quite overthrows Mr. Cs. building For he would ground the week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest and this day he would have to be the first day of the week and the reason for inferring a week day Sabbath upon Christs entring into his rest is taken from the rest of God after the first creation whereby the 7th day Sabbath was sanctified Now if there be the like reason of keeping a week day Sabbath because of Christs rest as there was of keeping the 7th day Sabbbath because of Gods rest then it will not be the first day of the week which must be the Sabbath for that was not the day of his entring into his rest but another day to wit the fifth day of the week as may be gathered from Acts 1.3 Mr. C. himself p. 76. though he say that it is very probable that the ascension day was on the first day of the week yet confesseth it not to be clear and the reason of the probability from Act. 1. by the computation of the forty days from his resurrection and the mention of a Sabbath days journey from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem occasioned as is likely from their making that journey then upon that day v. 12. is so slender that I know not that ever any learned man did conceive so with him and the computation of forty days from his resurrection being on the first day of the week though the day of the resurrection contrary to the common computation should be excluded will not fix the Ascention day on the first day of the week but two days at least short of it And for the mention of a Sabbath days journey Act. 1.12 it is clear from the words that it was onely to shew the distance of the place from Jerusalem not to shew that day to have been the Sabbath day I list not to trouble my self about the reason of using that expression rather then another it being not material Yet were it granted it had been on the Sabbath day it had not been the first day of the week for that is not termed in Scripture certainly not in the Acts of the Apostles the Sabbath day What Mr. C. adds But albeit his rest was not compleated till he passed into the heavens yet he first entred into it at his resurrection which being upon the first day of the week there needeth no more to fix the command of the Sabbath on that day doth overthrow his arguing from Heb. 4.7 9 10 14. whence he would deduce the Christian Sabbath because of Christs entring into his rest at his passing into the heavens Which hurts not others as Mr. Cawdrey Sabb. Rediv. part 4. sect 23. who confesseth the words Heb. 4.10 not to be spoken of Christ though he allude to them I have insisted on this point by the way because Mr. C. makes use of it for infant Baptism but to how little purpose the sequel will shew Mr. C. for proof of infant Baptism p. 20. layes down this position that what the Lord confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed it to us even to all believers after Christ to the worlds end which I grant if understood of spiritual Evangelical promises which accompany salvation but not if meant of those peculiar blessings and priviledges which were promised to Abrahams natural seed Yet in his proof of that position I conceive sundry things not right which are vented by him as p. 28. that the voice of Christ meant Heb. 3.7 is an inviting us to celebrate his day of rest in his house in the worship of the Gospel which he means of a weekly Sabbath and a particular Congregation and outward worship as sundry passages following shew and this he makes a part of the Gospel p. 31. and the believer that neglects it comes short of the promise of entring into Gods
rest but rather the contrary It is distinguished from the seventh day Sabbaths rest and so it is also from the rest which the Israelites had by Joshuah's conduct in the land of Canaan which the Authour mentions v. 8. as well as the seventh dayes rest v. 4. and therefore the seventh dayes rest opposed to the rest v. 7 9. doth no more prove the day of rest to be a day of the same kinde as the seventh day Sabbath was then the day of rest in Canaan by Joshuahs leading Yea sith the seventh days rest mentioned Heb. 4.4 is onely Gods rest it is apparent the day of rest is of different kinde from an ordinary Sabbath dayes rest Neither doth the term although impart any such identity of kinde but that God spake of another rest of his athough hee had rested long ago when his works were finished from the foundation of the world Yea the words Heb 4.10 Hee that is entred into his rest hath also ceased from his works as God did from his which expresseth the rest for the people of God yet remaining v. 9. do shew that the day of rest is not till a mans works bee ceased which I know not how to understand of any other works then his works of labour and sufferings which are not till the end of this life and therefore the sabbatism or day of rest is not here the keeping of a weekly sabbath but a day of rest as is meant Revel 14.13 which though it bee not every dayes enjoyment yet it may bee a Christians personal test by faith onely that is that rest which by faith onely is entred into or obtained And though it were entred into by all believers from the foundation of the world yet it was not so conspicuously as when Christ entred into the heavens However those Hebrews and the believers to come after had not then entred into it That the Sabbath days rest was in use before proves against Mr. C. that the rest was not of the same kinde unless in manner of a type or shadow as one thing like that 's resembled by another may in a Catachrestique manner be termed of the same kinde with that which resembles Mr. C. adds Fourthly it is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in Gods house in his worship So the Apostle concludeth v. 9. There remaineth therefore a Sabbatism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the celebration of a Sabbath for the people of God a word comprehending the Sabbath and worship put together as was before observed And the coherence of the words Psal. 95. implieth as much Psal. 95.6 7 8. It appeareth also from the Apostles wherefore chap. 3.7 His house are we wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith To day if yee will hear his voyce c. So as if the question bee what voice Or what day The answer from the Psalm and from the Apostles inference must bee this the day of worshipping the Lord our Maker and of resting with him in his house and his voice whose house we are inviting us to it Answ. Sabbatism in the notation of the word imports no more then rest what it imports in the use of it I cannot discern but from this place sith I know not where it is used in the New Testament but here nor in any other authour afore this Here it appears not to import any more then rest sith it expresseth but what is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 8 10 11. though I conceive that the matter shews it to bee meant of a holy rest it being thâ— rest of Gods people But that the word comprehends rest and worship put together I do not conceive For the word aâ—ludes to the Sabbath Gen. 2.2 3. quoâ—ed Heb. 4.3 4. Now Gods â—est imported not worship though his appointâ—ng us to rest on the Sabbath and to sanctifie it doth import our worship of him Nor do I think the coherence of the words Psal. 95.6 7 8. doth imply that Sâ—bbatism Hâ—b 4.9 comprehends the Sâ—bbath and worship put together or thaâ— Psal. 95.7 To day if yee will hear his voyce is meant of a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his woâ—shiâ— sith in those words there is not the word Sabbatism and the Exhortation To day if yee will hear his voyce doth not appâ—ar to have been on the weekly Sabbath daâ— the Psâ—lm being not as the 94th Psalm intituled A Psalm for the Sabbath and it is more likely that to day if you will hear his voyce intimates the day at the end of every seven years in the solemnity of the year of release in the feast of tabernacles when all Israel was come to appear before the Lord in the place which he should chuse and the Law was to bee read before all Israel in their hearing Deut. 31.10 11. at which time of the year every year they had gathered in their Corn and Wine Deut. 16.13 and then they had no harvest and so it was the fittest time to resemâ—le the rest remaining â—o Gods people yet so far was it from being the weekly Sabbath day that as Ainsworth notes on Deut. 31.11 The Jewish Doctors say that if the day of the assembling of the people happened to bee the Sabbath day the reading of the Law was put off till after Yet were it the Sabbath day it doth not follow that it is meant of a day of rest to be celebrated in the house of God in his worship for the weekly Sabbath was not celebrated in the house of God that is the Tabernacle or Temple but in their dwellings Exod. 16.29 And therefore if the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore Heb. 3.7 did refer to whose house ye are v. 6. though I conceive the inference is made from the words if wee hold fast the confidence and reâ—oycing of the hope firm unto the end yet it proves it not to bee a weekly Sabbath of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship For the weekly sabbath was not celebrated in Gods house and if it were each Christian or the Church were not fit to answer Gods house in which it was celebrated sith they are not the place where that made the worship of God accepted as the Tabâ—rnacle or Temple that is proper to CHRIST and his body John 2.19 Heb. 8 2. but the persons by whom it is celebrated and who worship God Lastly were all this granted that Heb. 4.7 were meant a day of rest to bee celebrated in the house of God in his worship yet this might be meanâ— of the rest in heaven often called Gods house where the Elders cast down their crowns before God and worship and praise him and not the weekly Sabbath Fifthly saith Mr. C. Because the Apostle understands it of a day to be kept upon the same ground in
that command is in force to all persons in Covenant as it was then Answ. The command in force then to all persons in Covenant is expressed by himself in the words before pag. 22.23 the command of Circumcision Gen. 17.11 12. when he saith All the Infants of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first signe or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord which was Circumcision so that if he mean as his words are this is his meaning in his conclusion that command which is Gen. 17.11 1â— to Circumcise the flesh of the foreskin of Abrahams males of eight dayes old is now in force to all persons in Covenant as well as it was then which neither hath nor can have any other sense taking words as they are used by other men but that still all in Covenant with God are bound by thâ— command Gen. 17.11 12. to Circumcise their male children of eight dayes old which is to maintain that which the Apostles have abroâ—â—ted Act. 15. to intangle us with the yoak of bondage which the Apostâ—e saith would make Christ unprofitable to us Gal. 5.1 2 3. But it will be said he means not the command of Circumcision but the command of signing with the first sign or seal of the Covenant Ans. If he means so he rather juggles than disputes For the words speak of the command which is Gen. 17.11 12. and that is no other than of Circumcision no such command of signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant in the Old Testament besides that of Circumcision is either there or any where else that I know of if there be let it be shewed But this is the manner of Paedobaptists in their disputes to imagine a command of sealing as they call it with the first seal the Infants of Covenanters abstractively or distinctly from Circumcision in the Old Testament Gen. 17. which is indeed a meer fiction with which they mock their auditors and readers who unwarily take what they say without examination Now this were an answer sufficient to this argument yet because this mans reasoning is so commended let 's view his proofes For proof of the Major thus he writes For when God giveth the reason of any command that reason is the ground of the command and till that reason ceaseth he is very bold with God that dare exempt himself from the practice And again If the first proposition be denied viz where there is the same reason of a precept continued there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God and who can say unto him what doest thou For the Lord commands nothing without a reason if there be no reason exprest the reason of his will is implyed which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world till he makes it appear that it ceaseth This is very clear Answ. The reason of a Command may be understood either of the reason why Cod commands a thing or the reason why we are bound to observe that command The reason why God commands is various sometimes one thing sometimes another sometimes expressed sometimes concealed And sometimes the same reason is given of very various commands as I said before I am the Lord your God is Levit. 19. the promiscuous reason of moral and ceremonial and judicial commands yea that the very reason which 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. is given for the command to be obedient children not fashioning themselves according to their lusts in their ignorance but to be holy in all manner of conversation is citâ—d from Levit. 11.44 45. and is the very reason why he forbids the Israelits to eat certain meats or to touch certain things unclean by the Law And therefore by Master Drew's reasoning the reason of the precept not ceasing we are bound still to the precept Levit. 11. of abstaining from meats unclean by the Law and from touching things legally defiling But though there may be many motives to do it the rather yet the onely formal adequate reciprocal reason why we are bound to observe any thing is the command of our Lord revealed to us besides which we are to look no further nor are we to neglect it till by some declaration of his will it appears we are discharged Thus Abraham was bound to offer his son Isaac on the Altar because of Gods command without knowing any other reason yea though he had known the reason from the end to be fulfilled yet he had not been discharged till God signified it by the Angel that he should not slay him Now then to Master Drews argument Iâ— he understand the reason of the precept in the first sense his major is false the reason why God gave a precept may continue and yet the practice is not to continue as Levit. 11 44 45. On the otherside the reason of a precept may not reach and yet the precept reach as though God brought not us out of Egypt which is the reason of the command Deut. 5.6 7. yet the command pertains to us and vers 15. It is said Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day Where I presume Master Drew will say the command reacheth us though the reason of it do not And as for his inference That if it be denied where there is the same reason of a precept there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God it is true if by the same reason of a precept he understand the reason of a precept in the second sense for the reason why we are bound to observe his precept to wit the declaration of Gods will it should continue but if he understand it in the first sense for that reason which God gives why he declared his will and bound us to observe it though it continue yet the precepr may not be in force nor on the other side doth the precept alwayes cease to binde though that reason cease as is proved before Now that reason of the precept Gen. 17.11 12. which is vers 4 5 6 7 8. is a reason of the first sort and not of the latter And indeed in more positive rites which are by institution the precept continues not in force however rhe reason God used to inforce it remaine except the institution be continued Rightly Pareus comm in Gen. 8.20 to an Objection That sacrifices are to be continued because the cause is perpetual Answereth The perpetual cause of a thing necessarily co-hering with the thing as a Cause continued with its effect makes the same perpetual But the said causes or ends do not so co-here with the sacrifies of the Ancients but onely by appointment that is divine ordination which was that those sacrifices should be the confirmation of the faith of the fathers and a signification of gratitude unto the coming of
a bird in a net seeking some evation from this objection though all in vain He tels us they were a mixt company to whom the Apostles spake Acts 2.8 11. and not all Jews for they were of divers languages and that they were adulti But what is this to the avoyding the objection that notwithstanding it is said the promise is to you yet they were not intitled to baptism without repentance He then discourseth that repentance was in them onely in fieri before their baptism and that the Apostle accepted of probabilities of it and baptized them For in that distance from his preaching and their baptizing so many could not have repentance visible by its fruits and discernable and thence would gather if such hainous sinners were baptized upon probability of repentance therefore Infants of Christians guilty of no actual sin may be baptized unto repentance To which I reply 1. It is expressly said ver 41. they that gladly received the word were baptized therefore there were visible fruits of repentance and faith discerned by the Apostles and other Disciples who were many and could confer with them in that space of time and baptize them in that day though their conversion was easily discernable without distinct conference with each 2. His argument is not worth a rush notwithstanding Cyprians words to back it to prove Infant-baptism For it goes upon this frivolous supposition that Infants because they have no actual sin may be baptized though they shew no repentance much rather then hainous and great transgressors upon probability of repentance As if lesser sinners might be baptized upon no testimony of repentance because greater sinners are baptized upon probability of repentance which if true the more civil and orderly persons though pharisaically minded as if they needed no repentance have much more right to baptism then publicans confessing their sins because but probably penitent 3. All this is nothing to answer the objection but to strengthen it that notwithstanding the promise was to them yet they were not to be baptized till their repentance either in facto esse or in fieri either visible in fruits or at least probably conceived of which neither is to be said of Infants Yet Mr. Church is not ashamed to conclude thus Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Appostle for baptism whereas repentance is undeniably prerequired and that if any disable the reason he imputes not a little weakness to the Apostles and their converts wheras he that disables the inference from being rightly judged in the promise to right of baptism doth vindicate the Apostle from weakness which paedobaptists do by their exposition and inference thence blemish him with and cast the blame of weakness onely on Mr. Church and such inconsiderate expounders and disputers as he is I had not thought to have said so much of so poor a piece as that book is yet lest any say it is not answered I add SECT IX Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to be of the visible Church Christian. HIs second Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be of the Church with Christians of riper years therefore they may be baptized To which I say His words are ambiguous it being uncertain whether he means the Antecedent of the visible or invisible Church of all infants of Christians or some but conceiving it meant of all and of the visible Church of Christians I deny the Antecedent And for his ten Arguments not one proveth it The Medium of the first is the Antecedent of the former Argument to which I have answered before denying that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God expressed Gen. 17.7 in those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But I deny the consequence also that if it were true that all the infants of Christians are rightly judged in the Promise of Propriety in God therefore they are rightly judged to be of the visible Church nor is it proved by that which he allegeth For they onely are aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel which are strangers from the covenant Ephes. 2.12 For if it did prove that all that are strangers from the covenant of Promise are aliens from the visible Church of Christians yet it proves not that all who are in the covenant are in the visible Church but the very truth is neither the one nor the other is proved from that place for this only is asserted there that the Ephesians who were Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands no Proselytes were in the time of their infidelity Idol-service then without the policy of Israel and the covenants of Promise but it doth not follow that every one that was then uncircumcised in the flesh and out of the policy of Israel meaning the outward policy was stranger from the Promise of Propriety in God meaning of it of saving Propriety for Cornelius Acts 10. was a stranger from the policy of Israel being no citizen but unclean as being a Gentile uncircumcised yet then he feared God God heard his prayers accepted his alms c. much less now that every one that is rightly judged to be in the Promise of Propriety in God is of the visible Church or every one that is rightly judged of the visible Church is rightly judged to have the Promise of Propriety in God His next Argument is Infants of Christians are rightly called the Lords children for his manner hath been to call the children of his people his children In the old world some were called the sons of God as children of his people Gen. 6.2 3. And the infants of the Israelites were called by him his children born to him Ezek. 16.20 21. and their lawfull seed a seed of God And the Jews were accounted to him great and small in every age untill the breaking off and the same was prophesied of the Gentiles when they shall be converted and of the Jews when they shall be grafted in again and the Psalmist calls himself the Lords servant as he was the son of his handmaid therefore such infants are rightly judged to be of the Church which is the House of God Answ. Not one of these Texts proves the Church-membership of Christians infants The term Sons of God Gen. 6.2 3. is attributed to persons before the Floud and those not infants but such as took them wives of all that they chose which could not be said of infants nor are they said to be Sons of God because children of believers but because they professed the true worship of God Dei filios professione Christ. Cartwright Eborac Annot. in locum Such as descending from Seth and Enoch professed the true worship of the true God New Annot. I omit the opinions of Josephus Aquila and many of the Ancients recited by Mr. Gataker against Pfochenius cap. 13. and
not who yet were to be circumcised nor is any a childe of the promise because he is the child of a believer but because he is elect of God As for Mr. Lyfords answer to the Objection in conference with him it is indeed no answer For he that objects that the blessings of the Covenant belong to elect infants not to all and therefore under that pretence all in general are not to be baptized doth not by that speech grant that baptism belongs to one infant or to any because elect but only shews the insufficiency of the adversaries proof for that practice As for those who deny baptism to all because they are infants I know not who they be the reason why it is denyed them is not because they are infants but because in infancy they appear not to be disciples or believers in Christ who only by the command are appointed to be baptized and I agree with Mr. Lyford That the Sacraments do belong to the elect not as elect but as visible members and Professors and that upon this account Simon Magus was baptized though Mr. Lyford is mistaken in saying Peter baptized Simon Magus which was done by Philip whereby Mr. Lyford doth indeed overthrow his dispute For if the Sacraments belong to the Elect as visible Members and Professors then to all and onely visible members and Professours For what belongs to any quatenus ipsum as such belongs to all and onely such universally and reciprocally and so if he will stand to his own words though children be in the Covenant or elect yet till they be visible members and Professors they are not to be baptized which doth plainly refute his own Argument viz. the Major of his own syllogism nor need we by our reason know whether a person be elected that we may baptize him but whether he be a visible member and Professor SECT XIV The Arguments of Mr. Stalham Mr. Brinsley Mr. Hall and a nameless Author from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined MR. Stalham in the Conference at Terling page 4. argued thus They who are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant are not to be excluded from the seal of the Covenant But infants are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant and therefore not to be excluded from the seal of the Gospel Covenant But in this Argument the Conclusion is not of baptism in particular and so concludes not what was to be concluded and sith circumcision according to him was a seal of the Gospel covenant it might be true of it and so granted Yet the Major if universal is not true no not of circumcision For women and infant-males afore the eigth day were excluded from the seal of the Covenant though they were included in the substance of the Gospel covenant s his phrasiology is nor hath he a word in all the conference to prove his Maor and for his Minor setting aside his phrasifying if this be his meaning All the infants of believers or the infants of believers in as much as they are their children have the substance of the Gospel-Covenant that is the promise Gen. 17.7 as it is a Gospel promise made to them it is false and contrary to Romans 9.7 8. nor is there any thing in the conference there brought that proves it Mr. John Brinsley of Paedobapt page 11.32 makes this his first and grand argument for the baptism of infants If children of believing parents be within the Covenant then they may be baptized But they are within the covenant Ergo. The Major he takes as granted though I deny it as being most false The Minor he would prove 1. From Acts 2.39 where he makes the promise to be of remission of sins but that belongs only to the penitent believer and therefore proves not that it belongs to the infant of a believer without repentance and faith 2. In that they were in the old Testament in the Covenant But he himself page 33. saith All infants of believing parents are in the outward visible covenant As for the covenant it self to speak properly and strictly it depends upon Gods election Neither doth it belong to any but those who are elected What juggling then doth he use to tell us that they are in covenant and that the promise belongeth to them without any difference of elect and non-elect and p. 11. he saith To whomsoever the covenant it self belongeth to them belongeth this seal of the Covenant And so his Minor must be but the Covenant it self belongs to infants of believers and yet to say the covenant it self doth not belong to any but those who are elected but the outward visible covenant to all But what this outward visible covenant is he tells us not I cannot understand any other than Circumcision for that was the outward visible covenant in the old Testament and then his Minor asserts infants are in Covenant as they were in covenant in the old Testament that is they are to be circumcised Besides what interfering is there in Paedobaptists Mr. Stalham saith they are included in the substance of the Gospel covenant Mr Brinsley saith the Covenant it self and then surely not the substance of the Gospel covenant belongs not to any but elect but the outward visible covenant that is a new nothing belongs to them all And thus people are cheated by these Doctors 3. In that they are federally holy 1. Cor. 7.14 but of it enough already in the first part of the Review So much for Mr. Brinsley one of Mr. Halls Champions Let us see what Master Thomas Hall himself in his Font Guarded page 9. argues To whomsoever the covenant it self belongs to them also belongs the seal of the Covenant But the covenant belongs to Believers and their children Ergo the seal of the Covenant belongs to them also Answ. If Mr. Hall mean in the Minor that the Covenant it self belongs to all the children of believers then he contradicts Mr. Brinsley out of whom he saith in his Epistle to him and Mr. Blake he gathered his weeds who saith it belongs only to the Elect and if he mean it only of the elect then he can conclude onely concerning the elect if he mean the outward visible covenant than it is either circumcision and then he asserts circumcision to belong still to infants or he means baptism and then his Minor and Conclusion is all one and his Argument a meer inept tautology unless he mean some other new nothing And indeed this Argument of Mr. Hall is like the rest concluding of the seal of the covenant indefinitely when he should conclude of baptism using in the Major and Minor the term the covenant belongs but not explaining what covenant to whom or how it belongs using children for infants so that there is nothing but equivocation in his Speeches And for his propositions in the sense they are commonly taken neither Major nor Minor is true nor is the Major proved though he say it is clear For
many Authors relate that the Habassines and Iacobites do at this day circumcise females then it is not true they were uncapable of it by reason of natural impediment But if it be true which Mr. M. saith yet Gods chosing a sign of which they were not capable and that for a typical use when he might have chosen one as baptism of which both sâ—xes were capable it is an evidence That it was not the Will of God since Abrahams time and so forward that all in Covenant should be sealed with the initial seal which was Mr. Ms. proposition Nor do his two limitations added in his Defence help him For if incapacity and non-appointment be a sufficient exemption from the initial seal yea a prohibition of it then his proposition is but what I contend for that those in covenant to whom God appoints it and no other are to have the initial seal which is as much as I would evince that it is not bare interest in the Covenant without institution or appointment that gives right to a person to claim either circumcision or baptism nor warrants a baptizer to admit a person to baptism And therefore though it were yielded that all infants of believers were in covenant yet they have not right to either initial seal without a command or institution concerning each rite As for Mr. Ms. general proposition as he states it as it advantageth it him not for the reason last given so it may be granted if he mean by exemption or particular dispensation the non-appointment of it For then I am sure infants of believers are exempted from baptism till they be proved disciples of Christ or believers by profession which if it could be proved we need not fetch it from circumcision and the Covenant From which they that deduce infant-baptism do but in vain weary themselves and others as they that seek to draw water out of a pumice stone But there is some more in Mr. M. about womens circumcision which I must not omit Mr. M. in his Sermon had answered that women were circumcised virtually in the Mâ—les To which I answered that a virtual circumcision was not enough to make good his argument For then his Syllogism must have four terms thus They that are in Covenant must be sealed actually in their now persons or virtually in others But infants of believers are in the Covenant therefore they are to be sealed If the Conclusion be meant of actual sealing in their own persons then there are four terms and more in the Conclusion then in the premisses But if it be meant disjunctively they are to be sealed actually or virtually then it is less than is to be proved his business being to prove that they were to be sealed actually For a virtual sealing is less than Mr. M. would have and might be granted without any detriment to the cause of Anti-paedobaptism To this Mr M. makes no answer at all but chargeth me with a scoff where there was none tells me it is like refuting Bellarmine with Thou liest whereas I did shew wherein his answer was insufficient and that by putting his Syllogism into form according to his own meaning and then shewing how it would not conclude what he should prove And to this in his Defence he makes no answer but tells us what his plain meaning was which is nothing to the present point he should have shewed how with that exposition or limitation his argument would prove actual sealing of infants in their own persons But to slight a reason and speak nothing to it is not to answer but to shift But I also said to speak exactly women were not circumcised virtually in the Males For that supposeth they might receive it in their own persons wheras it had been a sin in them to be circumcised God not appointing it which is confirmed by the like it would be sin for the male to be circumcised afore the eighth day sith it was not appointed which may now be confirmed by Mr. Ms. words that God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old To this saith Mr. M. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of Law that no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxy or Atturney which he might not actually receive himself in his own person I question whether this be good Law but I am confident it is bad Divinity sure we sinned virtually in Adam yet we could not actually though the sin of Adam be ours by imputation The Sun is virtually hot yet Philosophers say it 's not actually And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons yea and received such things by the hand of the High Priest who bare their names in the most holy place which they might not receive in their own persons immediately and the Saints now in this world do virtually and quoad effectum juris receive some such privileges in Christ their Advocate who in their right is at Gods right hand which here they are not capable of receiving immediatrly in their own persons Answ. My words were not as Mr. M. recited them but thus He is said virtually to have a thing by another as by a Proxy or Atturney that might receive it by himself yet quoad effectum juris according to the effect of Law another's receiving it is as if he had received it In which I understand by having a thing that having a thing which is by possession of it as a benefit privilege commodity and by might receive it without any prohibition in Law and that he receives it not in his own person is onely from some temporary impediment as minority absence or the like And this according to that skill I have in such terms I conceive still to be the meaning of them Nor do Mr. Ms. instances take me any whit off from it being without fear of being chargeable with bad Law or Divinity For our sinning in Adam is not receiving something as a benefit the Suns heat is natural not by vertue of any Political Law it is not having as a proxy or atturney for another the High Priests offering for the people was an action in their stead not receiving a benefit for them and what they received for the people which they might not receive in their own persons immediately was not by reason of any prohibition but from some other cause nor were they in imparting it the peoples Proxies or Atturneys but Gods were it an answer from God or any other thing they received for them if God had immediately communicated it to them it had not been their sin And the like may be said of what Christ receives for us as our Advocate But the circumcising of women had been a sin forbidden according to Mr. Marshalls and others doctrine before recited they
more than for women now to eat the Lords Supper unless it be founded upon circumcision yet in practice we know they did eat it and if they eat it not as circumcised persons tell me by what right they did it Answ. I have proved Examen part 3. S. 12. pag. 112. Postscript to my Apology S. 11. that 1 Cor. 11.28 10.17 and 12.13 Acts 20.7 are express precept and example for womens receiving the Lords Supper And for eating the Paseover there is an expresse precept That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it Exod 12.47 in which women were meant and they were to eat according to the number of the Souls v. 4. and no leaven was to be in their habitation v. 20. therfore either women must eat the Passeover or else they must not eat bread so that we need not go to circumcision for womens eating the Passeover Yea if we use no other way than that of Mr. M. it will not be proved that women ought to eat it For Exodus 12.48 no mention is made of any circumcised who are to eat it but males and though it be said no uncircumcised might eat yet it is not said all circumcised must eat much less they that are only in some sense counted circumcised But Mr. M. seeks to make his advantage of this point thus If you say they were included in the Houshold Exod. 12.3 4. every houshold was to eat the Paschal Lamb and there was no exception of women I reply first grant but the same consequence that when we read so frequently in the New T. that whole housholds were baptized and no exception of children that therefore all the children in those housholds were baptized and this Controversy is quickly ended Answ. If it were granted that we had no other way to prove women were to eat the Paschal Lamb which yet we need not as I have shewed but from Exod. 12.3 4. in that every houshold was to eat the Lamb and there was no exception of Women yet the consequence were not good whole housholds were baptized therefore infants because not expresly excepted For as Exod. 12.3 4 infants are excepted from being required to eat the Lamb though not in express words yet because the thing to be done was not such as could agree to infants of a few daies old suppose eight or nine So where Act. 16.15 33. and 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 the houshold is said to be baptized besides this that no infants are expressed in the same chapter or elsewhere the speech is plainly interpreted to be meant of those that heard the word and believed as Acts the eleventh chapter and fourteenth verse and ch 16. v. 32 34. and 18.8 1 Cor. 16.15 as if the holy Ghost had of purpose prevented this misconstruction and frivolous consequence of Paedobaptists But saith Mr. M. I add further it is not said the whole houshold shall eat it for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it and none but circumcised persons had warrant to eat it Answ. It is said Exod. 12.4 they shall eat the Lamb according to the number of Souls i. e. hominum Pisc. Schol. in locum every man according to his eating which is a plain precept for women to eat who could eat Yea further saith Mr. M. suppose some words in the institution should reach the Jewish women yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who should prove Proselytes to them For Exodus chapter 12. verse 48 49. there is order taken for the male stranger let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near and keep it but there is not any word that takes order for the strangers females Answer It is said verse fourty seven That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it and the Proselytes of Righteousnesse women as well as men were of that Congregation and verse fourty nine it is said One Law shall be to him that is homeborn and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you if then the Law appointed the Israelitish women to eat the same law appointed the Proselyte Women to eat So that notwithstanding Mr. Ms. vain hope my exception against the consequence of his Argument They are foederati Therefore they are to be signati stand good and it is not yet proved that bare interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of grace did intitle to Circumcision much less to baptism which were enough to overthrow his first argument But sith it is my task I will now go on to the rest of his Dispute taking in by the way Master Blakes third section of the 42. chapter of his Vindic foederis SECT XIX Mr. Blakes exceptions against my Speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled MR. Blake asserts a reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal and first he meddles with my Examen and then with my Anti-paedobaptism To my objection that the Proposition is not true that all that were federate in Abrahams family were to be signed for neither Males afore the eighth day nor females were to be circumcised besides his avouching Master Marshallâ— answer as sufficient which is reviewed before he saith Is there no connexion between them because he that receives into Covenant and appoints the seal hath prescribed a time when it shall be applyed To which I say it proves that there is not a connexion between being federate and to be signed to make this Proposition true All that are federate are to be signed barely in that they are federate For they are federate the first second third fourth fifth sixth seventh day as well as the eighth yet not to be signed whereas if there was such a connexion between them according to Gods will that the one being put the other is to be put they would be to be signed as soon as ever they are federate And if it be Gods will that they should be signed but not till the appointed time after I might say that though infants were federate yet they were not to be signed with baptism till Gods appointed time which is not till they be disciples and so infant baptism is not proved from their being in Covenant the Major Proposition All that are in Covenant are to be signed being true only with this limitation in the appointed time which is not for baptism till they be Disciples And whereas in answer to my objection that if infants have right to the seal by being in covenant then they have right to the Lords Supper he answers 1. That in baptism there is no more of necessity than to be passive This is false for baptism is enjoined as a duty and such as is to have repentance and faith antecedent Mark chap. 16.16 Acts the 2. chap. 38. Acts chap. 8. verse 37. 2. He grants that infants have true title to the Lords Supper jus ad rem not jus in re a right to it yet by reason of infancy have their actual
were yet under Gods Gospel call Answ. There 's neither tautology nor mystery in limiting the promise to the called of the Jew parents and children nor doth any thing make it seem strange but ignorance Tautology is not sith the Propositions are three distinct ones in words and sense it is not the same to say the promise is to you called the promise is to your children called the promise is to all that are afar off called you your children all that are afar off being different tearms Mystery is no more if it be added to the former part of the verse then to the latter The calling in the latter part of the verse can be understood of no other than effectual calling whether inward onely or both inward and outward for to none other of the Gentiles is the promise of remission of sins And for the same reason the limitation is necessary to be added to the former part of the verse nor can any good reason be given why the promise should be to the Jews and their children without calling by God and not to those afar off without it The Jews were then under call but were not then called nor doth Mr. Sidenham say they were and therefore Peter might aptly enough say to them The promise is to â—s many of you as the Lord our God shall call The manner of expression is usual to put after a distribution of persons the limitation in common There is the like Acts 3.24 where as many as have spoken limits the Prophets from Samuel and those that follow after Had Mr. Sidenham understanding in him of these things he had not charged my exposition with making the Holy Ghost faulter in common expression of his mind Such censures ill become such a smattering scribler But who so bold as blinde bayard It follows Lastly saith he the word children may and must he understood of little ones infants not of adult and grown persons for these reasons Answ. Boldly said like a young hotspur Belike then when persons are ten twelve or more years old they cease to be their parents children and seed But I am willing to hear reason 1. saith he the word here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies an off-spring any thing brought forth though it be but of a day of a moment old Thus when a woman is said to be in pain and to bring forth this word is used John 16.21 Luke 1.31 Matth. 1.16 Luke 1.57 Answ. How heedlesly did this Authour scribble when he said this word which can be no other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used John 16.21 Luke 1.31 Matth. 1 26. Luke 1.57 when it is used in none of those places though the verb whence it comes is used in them But were it used there yet the reason is frivolous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a thing brought forth ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children Acts 2.39 may not must not be understood of adult and grown persons He might as well have said it must be understood but of those that are in this moment brought forth not of an infant of a day old and that the person brought forth is only the mothers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or child because she only brought him forth not the father I did think till I met with this new Master that the Holy Ghost spake properly when he called persons grown to ripe age their fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or children Ephes. 6.1 Col. 3.21 c. 2. Saith he It s an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to grown children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase Answ. Mr. Sidenham alters the conclusion he undertook to prove and concludes that which he findes not denied His reason is as well against his own conclusion It s an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to infant-children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase And indeed the reason is good only thus It s an indefinite word therefore it s to be restrained as the subject matter directs But Mr. Sidenham shifts as it may serve his turn His conclusion set down at first excluded adult children because he knew the promise had not then been to them without calling and so his project of drawing thence a priviledge for infants intituling them to baptisme had failed but here his proof coming short he alters the conclusion into that which might be granted him without detriment to the cause 3. Saith he It must needs be especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years Now when we distinguish between men and children we suppose the one adult the other under age and not grown up and it is contrary to all ways of expression to think otherwise Answ. Belike then we must think that where it is said Matth. 10.21 the fathers shall deliver the children to death and the children shall rise up against the parents and Luke 1.17 to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children it must be especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years and to think otherwise if the Dr. of New-Castle say true is contrary to all ways of expression which you may imagine he knew 4. Saith he It cannot be rationally conjectured otherwise because the Apostle doth join them with their parents in the same promise and not leave them to stand by themselves as grown persons must Answ. Belike then if any understand the promises to Abraham and his seed to David and his seed of any other then infants it is not rationally conjectured I have done with this Writer about this Text of which he vainly talks as he doth in the rest so that all things weighed this text of Scripture if there were no more holds forth not to be seen the sameness of the promise to believers of the Gospel both Jew and Gentile and their children as ever it was to Abraham and his natural seed SECT XXV Mr. Marshal's Reply to my Examen about his first Conclusion is reviewed and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt and that Gentile self justiciaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed nor Gal. 4.29 proves it and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right I Now reassume the Review of Mr. Ms. Reply to my Examen of his Sermon Next saith he come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my Sermon But I supposed he had intended to prove by his five Conclusions not onely his Antecedent but also his Consequence If I apprehend him rightly there are none of his five Conclusions but the two first that are for proving of the Antecedent But let 's view what he writes The first whereof is this That the covenant of grace for substance hath always been one and the same both to Jews and Gentiles The first Conclusion you grant and therefore
the Gospel as well to them as to us their eating the same spiritual meat and drinking the same spiritual drink as he doth in his Preface and here of untowardness in my expression and such as will bear no fair sense without the overthrow even of that difference between the Covenants which I would build on this distinction But let 's consider his Reason of this last Speech To this saith he I readily agree and then his distinction falls to nothing Answer I should rather have imagined that the contrary follows that if Mr. Blake do readily agree to my explication of the mixture of the Covenant that my distinction comes to something being confirmed by Mr. Blakes suffrage unless he take it for nothing But let 's follow Mr. Blake Seeing in Gospel-times in New Testament days this will denominate not a pure but mixt Gospel we are under such a Gospâ—l Answer 1. Mr. Blake alters the term distinguished I did not distinguish of a pure Gospel and a mixt Gospel as he intimates I did but of a pure Covenant and a mixt Covenant and asserted not the Gospel preached to Abraham to be mixt but the Covenant made with Abraham 2. It is false that we are under such a mixt Gospel as he imagined I asserted but Mr. Blake confirms his Assertion thus I know not how we could pray in faith Give us this day our daily bread in case we were without a promise of these things or how man could live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God in case we had no word from God Answer A believer may pray for daily bread in faith trusting on Gods goodness as he is a Creatour as our Saviour argues Matth. 6.26 as he is a Father in Christ Matth 7.11 as he hath made general promises Mark 10 30. Matth. 7.7 8. as he hath made special promises Prov. 10.3 Psalm 34.10 confirmed by constant experience Psalm 37.25 by the great assurance of the gift of Christ Rom. 8.32 though the special promises domestick or civil specially respecting the house of Abraham and the policy of Israel belonging not to him The word Deâ—t 8.3 I take to be his word of power or command such as that Psalm 33.5 not his word of promise yet if it be meant of his word of promise there are other promises by which the Patriarchs afore Abraham and the believers since have lived without the domestick or civil promises specially respecting the house of Abraham and the policy of Israel But Mr. Blake adds The Apostle tells us Godliness hath the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 It would trouble many a perplexed man in case he could not make good that those words Verily thou shalt be fed Psalm 37.3 did not at all belong to him There is no believing man in any relation but he hath Gospel-promises in concernment to that relation as appears in that speech of Paul 's encouragement of Servants Ephes. 6.8 It were ill with all sorts had not they their domestick relation-promises Answer All this is true and yet it is true also that the special promises domestick or civil specially respecting the house of Abraham and policy of Israel belong not to every believer Mr. Bl. saith I place great confidence in my proof this mixture of the Covenant And sets down my words Apolog. 127. averring my proof so full as that I wonder Mr. M. Mr. Blake and others are not ashamed to except against it that what I deliver is plain according to Scripture that there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham Gen. 17. which are not made to every believer that the words 1 Tim. 4.8 is not to the present purpose for it doth not follow therefore that godliness hath the promise of the Land of Canaan or that Christ should be every godly mans seed And then adds I think I shall more gratifie the Reader in leaving this to his smile than in giving any refutation of it if he could assume that there is no earth but that of Canaan or at least that no other promise of earth but that will serve to make a mixture then he spake somewhat to the purpose otherwise it will be believed that our promises under the Gospel of things of earth as well serve to make up a mixture as Abraham 's promise of the Land of Canaan Answer Whether Mr. Blakes talk or mine be ridiculous the Reader may judg My speech is to purposes aimed at by me to wit the enervating the arguings from Abrahams Covenant and Circumcision for infant-baptism by shewing that the Covenant Gen. 17. was not a pure Gospel-covenant that is having no promises but what belongs to every believer and consequently Baptism not sealing the same covenant every way which circumcision did and therefore there is not the same reason from the covenant why infants should be baptized though they were circumcised And this purpose I doubt not to attain though I grant there is other earth than that of Canaan and that there may be other promises of earth besides that which will serve to make a mixture and yet the promises of things of earth as now extant under the Gospel do not as well serve to make up the mixture I assert in Abrahams covenant promising the Land of Canaan to be in the covenant of pure Evangelical grace as now it stands sith those promises of earth and this life are made to every believer or godly man now whereas the promises of Canaan and other things specially respecting the house of Abraham and policy of Israel Gen. 17. and elsewhere were not made to Lâ—t and other godly believers it is likely then living nor to Gentile-believers now under the Gospel Mr. Bl. goes on thus 2. As his expression is untoward so taking him at the best his proof is weak that the Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt The most eminent promises which contain the mâ—rrow of all give the denomination and not such that are annext as appendants to them Answ. Though the most eminent promises may give the denomination of the covenant to be an Evangelical covenant yet to denominate it a pure Evangelical covenant it is necessary that not onely the most eminent but also that all the promises be Evangelical as though a man may be termed a Saint from the habitual purpose and bent of his heart and the constant course of his actions yet he is not denominated purely a Saint but from the entire and universal purpose bent inclination of his heart and entireness of holiness in his actions without the least inconformity to it Mr. Bl. proceeds thus Such as is the promise of the Land of Canaan an appendant to the great Covenant made of God with Abraham as Chamier with good warrant from the Text Gen 17.7 8. calls it lib. de baptis cap. Sect. The Covenant being made of God to be a God of Abraham and his seed which might have
Covenant with believers and their seed they must be all saved c. But in stead of answering me poseth me thus doth God make the covenant of salvation with every visible professor whom they baptizeâ— or with every visible Saint Answ. No Or do they baptize them out of Covenant Answ. Yea If by being out of Covenant be meant that the Covenant of salvation is not made by God to them then how come any to fall off and be damned Answ. None of those God made the Covenant of salvation with fall off and be damned others though baptized rightly and were visible professors yet fall off and are damned because the Covenant of salvation was never made â—y God to them Or what rule have they to baptize by Answ. That which is Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. Acts 2.38 41. and 8.12 37 38. Why should it be thought more hanious to set a seal on i. e. baptize infants as in the covenant then on these professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant Ans. because infants are not Disciples of Christ when visible professors are though they be not in covenant with God by his promise of saving-grace The being or not being in Covenant is not the reason of the baptizing or not baptizing of them but their being or not being Disciples of Christ or do they baptize because that persons are in the covenant Answ. not because they are in the covenant that is Gods covenant to them but because they covenant to be Christs by their own Declaration and promise which is certainly known upon hearing their words and seing their actions nor is it any trick to evade but a clear truth that it is not being in covenant by Gods promise of saving grace to us but being an actual believer gives right to baptism Nor doth it follow if the covenant be the ground i. e. the object of faith it may well be the ground i. e. adequate reason on the baptizer and the baptizeds part of an outward privilege i. e. baptism for the institution is not to baptize men in covenant by Gods act of promise but Disciples or persons in covenant by their professing of faith Nor is there danger of separating the Covenant from the conveyance of actual priviledge for the Covenant of it self till it is fulfilled by the making a person a known Disciple of Christ doth not give right to baptism any more then to the Lords supper Nor is there reason why infants without faith should now be baptized because they were circumcised the institution of the one being different from the other neither do we account Simon Magus c. Abrahams spiritual seed nor deny elect infants to be so if God doth administer all his graces by covenant yet not all outward ordinances by the persons interest in it and if he did then infants by this reason should have the Lords supper as well as baptism The invisible design of God may be known to us and is carried on secretly in an outward visible dispensation and some may be condemned by an outward rule and yet persons not admitted into or ejected out of the Church by their being or not being in Covenant through Gods act of promise to them but by their profession and practise we say not none are to be baptized but real believers the spiritual seed nor that none are the spiritual seed but visible believers nor do we conceive infants no spiritual seed of Abraham because no visible believers But we deny that an infant of a believer is as visible by promise as a believer by profession For on the one side no infant is of the visible Church barely by Gods promise of regeneration justification salvation 1. Because that promise is according to Gods election which is secret so as that no man can know who are they to whom the promise pertaines till it appear by some others declaration then the promise or act an infant can ordinarily perform 2. That which makes a thing or person visibly must be something existent in act for then a thing or person is visibly when it is the object of sense but sense is onely of singular things actually existent But persons may have a ptomise afore they are in being as Isaac was in Covenant afore he was begotten or born yet not a visible Church-member therefore an infant is not visible by promise 3. On the other side profession makes a person manifestly visible and therefore Mr. Sidenhams speech is palpably false that an infant is as visible by promise as a believer by profession SECT XXVIII It is proued from Luke 1.54 55. and 19.9 John 8.39 Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7 16 29. and 4.28 Rom. 9.6 7 8. Mat. 3.9 That the seed of Abraham to whom the promise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17.7 are onely true believers or elect persons TO those texts in the foregoing Section alleaged to prove that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 as it is Evangelical belongs are only true believers or elect persons which have been vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams answers I shall adde some more in the new Testament 1. In Maries song Luke 1 54.55 It is said He hath holpen his Servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy as he spake to our fathers to Abraham and to his seed for ever That seed of Abraham is onely meant in the promise Gen. 17.7 As it was evangelical which he hath holpen by Christ in remembrance of his mercy this is manifest from the text But they are onely true believers or elect persons Pisc. Schol. in Luk. 1.55 Semini 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est posteritati nempe spirituali id est electis sive sint ex judeis sive ex gentibus ut docet Apostolas Rom. 4. v. 16. and ch 9. v. 8. New annot on Luke 1.55 to his seed for ever that is to the faithfull and holy See Gal. 3.16.26 27 29. They only are holpen by Christ in remembrance of his mercy which is confirmed from the words of Zacharias Luke 1.71 72 73 74 75.76 77 78. wherein the holy Covenant and Oath God sware to Abraham was that he would grant them that is Abrahoms seed salvation deliverance to serve god in holyness and righteousness before him all the daies of their life the salvation is expressed to be by remission of sins through the tender mercy of God whereby the day Spring from on high visited them which shewes the Covenant as it was Evangelical promised not outward privileges but saving graces which are not promised to any but elect persons therefore by Abrahams seed in the promise Gen. 17.7 As it was Evangelical are meant onely elect or true believers 2. It is said of Zaccheus Luke 19.9 This day is salvation come to this house for so much as he also is the son of Abraham for the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost In which words the term son of Abraham is
the God of believers and of their seed that the seed of believers are taken into covenant with their parents I cannot derive its pedigree higher than Zuinglius To this Mr C. opposeth his seventh Conclusion with ambiguity and seeming hesitancy For what else can be the reason of those terms at least as well which are not like the expressions of a man that is well resolved what to hold But that we may rip up this Conclusion 1. He supposeth that right to outward ordinances or more particularly to an initiall seal is covenant-interest from the covenant of grace which is a mistake as I have often shewed 2. That such externall covenant interest of grown persons is Gospel without Scripture which mentions onely justification by faith and life by Christ to be the Gospel not such a covenant interest as they call it which may be to reprobates as well as to elect persons 3. He speaks to believers inchurched by such a covenant as the Scripture mentions not 4. He annexeth the covenant interest he speakes of to this Church-covenant as well as to the covenant of grace without any warrant but his own conceit nor shewes how far it is annexed to the one with or without the other 5. He asserts the covenant interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of infants of inchurched believers 6. That this is Gospel The first place he brings for his Conclusion is Deut. 30 6 11 12 13 14 compared with Rom. 10.6 7 8 and saith The matter of the promise scil inward power of grace sheweth it was a Gospel-promise like that Heb. 8.10 11 12. Ans. This is enough to shew the impertinency of this text to prove the meer externall Ecclesiasticall interest of infants of inchurched believers For it contains that promise of inward grace which Mr. B. saith belongs onely to the elect Friendly Accom pag. 362. 2 Saith he Now this was made to the seed or children of these church members as ch 29.14 15. here is not any evasion as is usuall in mentioning Abrahams seed c. this people to whom this was made being not so spiritual themselves Answ. I grant that the promise Deut. 30.6 of circumcising thine heart and the heart of thy seed is meant of the seed of those then assembled but not of all their seed but onely such as were elect nor at all times but a speciall time upon their return to God when they were in captivity nor at all to their infant-seed but to their grown seed as Mr B. proves in the words and place above cited Friendly Accom page 361. And whereas Mr. C. conceives the people to whom this promise was made not so spiritual he is mistaken For if God promised to circumcise their heart they must be spiritual 3 That it was not a bare tender which I grant 4. saith he Lest any doubt should arise how this should be ratified and made good Moses prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen in whâ—m this covenant was ratified v. 12 13. All which the Apostle further explaineth Rom. 10.6 7 8 Answ. I do not conceive that either Moses Deut. 30.11 12 13. useth the words there to shew how the promise v. 30.6 should be ratified or that he prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen Deut. 30.11 12 13. or that the Apostle Rom. 10.6 7 8. so explains it He that reads the chapter may perceive that Deut. 30. v 11 12 13 14. are brought to this end that Moses might prevent the excuse which might be made for their disobedience by alleaging that Gods lawes were at such a distance from them as that they could not come to them And though it is true that the Apostle appliâ—s those words to the word of faith Rom. 10.6 7 8. yet it is manifest that it was not a prediction of Christs resurrection as there the words stand 1. from Deu. 30.10 where the commandment mentioned v. 11. is said expresly to be Gods commandment and statute which are written in this Book of the Law 2. That it was that which was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it v. 14 which is meant of the Law not of the word of faith concerning Christ dead and risen which was not to be done by us but to be believed Rightly saith Beza Annot. ad Rom. 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baddabar quo vocabulo Moses intelligit legem quam Dominus voce sua promulgavit audiente universo populo suo ita ut nullam ignorantiam possit â—raetexere eum ejus tabulas baberet descriptas tanquam adeo singuli ex re citare possent intus haberent quasi in cognitioâ—e animo insculptam sed quod Moses dixit de lege hoc totum Paulus ad Evangelium acommodat per allusionem Pisc Analys alludit Apostolus ad verba Mosis Deut. 30.12 Diodati Annot. on Rom. 10.6 speaketh on this wise S. Paul makes use of this passage though spoken in another sense The like to which he doth in the same Chapter v. 18. alledging the words Psalm 19.4 concerning the preaching the Gospel in all the world which is undeniably meant of the course of the heavens Nor is it of force to overthrow this exposition to say that the word Deut. 30.14 is said to be in their heart for to be in their heart is there no more than to be understood by them though they were â—isobedient and might be true of the law â—s wel as the Gospel Noâ— is it any disparagement to the holy writings to say that sometimes holy writers accommodate to their purpose words that have oâ—her meaning in the places where they stand Whence I infer that the words v. â—1 he Commandement which I command thee this day do not prove that thereby is meant the very Gospel-Covenant ratified in Christ but the Commandment given in Horeb Deut. 29.1 nor is there any shew of likelihood that the words Deut. 30.11 12 13 14. should be meant of the promise v. 6. of circumcising the heart of their seed for that was not to be done by them but God And though it be true that Moses had that day propounded the Commandments as a mutual Covenant betwixt them and God as wel as God and them the parents or rulers stipulating therein in behalf of themselves and Chidren or rather in the behalfe of the whole nation in present being and unborn posterity and so in reference to them also a conditional covenant that day in the plains of Moab Deut. 29.1.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 29 and 30.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. yet the covenant was on their part to keep the commandments of the Law for their prosperity Deut. 29.9 not to believe in Christ which few of them understood And when it is said Deut. 29.13 that it was that God might establish them that day for a people to himself and that he might be unto them a God it is not meant that they should be
Ishmaels posterity should be cut off from external right to the Covenant he being a Church member according to Mr. C's dictates Mr. C. then tels us that God saith in reference to our times he will be a God to the families throughout the earth and pag. 83. he cites for this purpose the prophecy Ierem. 31.1 but there it is the families of Israel But were it the families throughout the Earth this proves not that it is Gospel that Infants of inchurched believers have external Ecclesiastical covenant-interest If it did it may as well infer infants of inchurched believers yea servants who are part of the families of the earth to have the same interest yea all in the world if we must understand it without limitation and if with limitation then it is most rightly expounded as the Apostle doth Gal. 3.8 the promise of blessing all nations of believers v. 9. and so all the families of the earth to whom God will be God shall be only believers of all the families of the earth Gentile believers as Mr. C. truly saith without Infants As â—or what Mr. C. observes that God said to Abrahaham to be a God to him and his seed in their generations not in their regeneration it is frivolous For none of the Gentiles seed are Abrahams seed but by regeneration and so to be Abrahams seed in their generations applied to Abrahams spiritual or Church-seed among the Gentiles is all one as to be Abrahams seed by regeneration And for the prophecy of being a God to all the families of the earth it is meant not of every member of the family but the meaning is that God would not restrain his Gospel and Church to the Jews but take in any of the families of the earth who would embrace it as when it is said Mark 16.15 preach the Gospel to every creature that is to any Gentile as wel as Jews yet infants not meant This is proved from the event because parents did believe when children did hate them for it Mat. 10.35 36. and the husband was often a believâ—r the wife an infidel But saith Mr C. it was usually otherwise and God speaks of things as they usually prove extraordinary occurrences cross not such a rule To which I say if the prophecy were as Mr. C. would that it should be Gospel that God will be a God of children with parents because he will be god of all the families of the earth than it must be true of the children of all and every of the families of the earth which recieve the Gospel Nor are prophecies to be expounded at if they foretold onely contingents what may be and what may not be but what shall certainly be nor can ther be a rule much less Gospel made of that which is uncertain somtimes it is somtimes it is not a rule being as they say in logick a determinate known thing nor is it true that the occurrent of the families being divided in religion was extraordinary For our Lord Christ speaks of it rather as ordinary commonly to be expected Matth. 10.34 35 36. But Mr. C. would have iâ— a rule from Acts. 11.14 Acts. 16 31. Luke 19 9. To this may be answered 1 that three instances mak not up an induction of particulars whence a rule may be made 2. The first instance is not meant of infants for none are thâ—re said to be saved but those that heard the words which Peter spake The next includes not infants For the very next v 32. shews that by the house were meant those to whom the word of the Lord was spoken Nor is there any intimation of an infant meant Luke 19 9. And it is certain that none of the texts speaks of that which they are produced for a bare external interest for they expresly speak of salvation and therefore if they prove it to be a rule that parents and children are joint Covenanters or are taken in together they will prove they are saved together which Mr. C. I suppose will not assert But some other answers are in my Examen which I must vindicate with these I had said Examen part 78 there is a necessity to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a restrinctive particle and to expound this house Luke 19.9 of Zachâ—us his family only in reference to his person Against this Mr. C. speaks thus Nor by salvation come to his house is meant the comming of salvation to himselfe as if he and his house were all one nor do I know any parallel Scripture speaking in such language that when the scope and intent is to mention the comming of such or such a mercy to such a person that phrase is used to denote the same that such or such a mercy is come to his house what need such a circumlocution if so intended the word might more plainly have been set down this day is salvation come to this publican this person this man or the like in as much as he also is become a son of Abraham And what though the Greek word be used in Acts 2.45 and 4.35 for secundum according as yet not for quatenus or in quantum forasmuch as the text and sense thereof are cleare that it noteth proportion of such administration not meerly the cause or reason thereof Or if it be supposed to imply the cause or reason thereof its evident it noteth the proportion also they gave to every one as or according as they needed scil proportionably to their need it being regular as to give to the needy so to give them according to the measure of their present necessity But how that sense will here be fitly applicable I see not to say that salvation is come to his house or to him according as he is a Believer but rather as our translators render it it 's to be taken as a reason of the former salvation is come to this house forasmuch as he is a son of Abraham Answ. By restraining the salvation come to Zacheus his house to his person I do not make Zacheus and his house all one but salvation is come to his house that is to this place inasmuch or in that Zacheus is also become a Son of Abraham But whereas Mr. C. thinks no Scripture using such language I will use Grotius his words shewing the contrary even in Luke because they are full to answer this passage of Mr. C. Annot. in Luc. 19.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synecdoche Domus enim pro Patre familias dicitur ita supra 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domum autem ideo nominâsse videtur Christus ut ostendat relâ—tam hospitii gratiam Dixerat enim Zachaeo Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quare quae ad hunc locum afferri solent de beneficiis Dei in familiam pii Patris familias quanquam vera sunt rectè accepta tamen huc pertinere non arbitror As for what he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie
of the Israelites when brought out of Egypt and then God said live to them when they had been ready to perish in Canaan first and then in Egypt by oppression and after brought them to mount Sinai and entered into the covenant of the Law which Mr. C. â—ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external priviledge of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare It is neither said there to Jerusalâ—m then live nor Micah 7.20 that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded there for that end v. 18 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9 10 11 12 13 14 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2 yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4 5 about external covenant-Church-interest but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30 was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ that it should be done and now by all believers that it is done But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25 and 5.29 ther 's no mention of any Covenant nor that these were Covenant babes much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some others in respect of propogating mankind others because of Christ to come from him in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum the new Annot. follow that sense But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25 to the promise Gen. 3.15 and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed yet all this is noteâ—ing to the point Mr. C. should prove that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest nor of any generall promise to them but onely a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned Psalm 102.25 26 27 there 's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon and were the prayer of the Iews as v. 13 14 makes it probable then it seems to be meant as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28 thus The children of thy Servants shal continue This is the literal as I may call it immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God their surviving in their posterity If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles or as some would of the reingraffing of the Iewes that Paraphrase of Junius may be right â— Vera germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua tibi curae futura sunt Take iâ— of whomsoever the words may be verified it mentions no such thing as externall federall Church-interest but continuance and establishment before God that is as Ainsworth notes as much as so long as God doth dure meaning for ever For assurance whereof they had a word of faith to wit some revelation of God though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines intâ—tuling children of inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning and he begins with Gen. 3.15 to prove that it was held as Gospel that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace as if infants of believers were a Species and not Individuals or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace And then he dictates without proof that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind or if as a Church more likely as the seminall invisible than as the visible Church He interprets The Seed of the Woman not onely of the principall Seed Christ in and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers For Adam and Eve were eyed saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church If so then it is true of Cain that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed which how he did unless being of the wicked one and slaying his brother as is said of him 1 John 3.12 be bruising the Serpents head I understand not Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed but none I have met with comprehend him or any reprobate under the Womans Seed mystically understood There are Interpreters that understand the promise Gen. 3.15 as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel as John speaks 1 Epist. 3.8 and others of the elect overcoming Satan and treading him under their feet Rom. 16.20 But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest Believers it is true are called Abrahams seed but no where true believers as such are called Eves Church-seed nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise Gen. 4.25 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed Gen. 3.15 in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby sith no other overcome the Divell So that it is so far from being true
controversie But whether also the first original corrupted nature it selfe before any sin against recovering grace did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdome of the Redeemer or whether the sins of later parents may propagaâ—e this as an addiâ—ional corruption in our nature I will not now stand to discuss Onely as to our present business it s certain that the general natural enmity to Satan may consist with an habitual friendship to his ways and cause And though as men they may have the first common advantage of nature and as subjects de jure may be under the common obligation yea and as listed in Christs Army may have man of its priviledges yet for the enmity of disposition to Christ they may be under a greater curse 10. As it is certain that it is not onely Christ himself that is here made the object of this promise and is here called the seed of the woman as is before proved and may be more and is commonly granted so it is to be noted that those others in whom this enmity are put are called here the seed of the woman and not the seed of Christ though the chief of them are his seed And so though the promise is made to none but the the womans seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed Till you can prove that infants are none of her seed we must take this fundamental promise to extend to infants and that very plainly without using any violence with the Text. Answ. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed serpentiâ—e with winding in and out wrigling and wresting the Text one while it is a promise another while a precept sometimes meant of one sort of enmity sometimes of another sometimes the woman under one consideration sometimes under another sometimes the seed of the woman comprehend all the natural seed sometime onely one kind with so many ambiguous speeches and unproved dictates and inconsequent inferences that I know not what better to term it then the way of a serpent on a rock which the Wise man said was too wonderfull for him and one of the things he knew not Prov. 30.20 21. And sure when I yeeld to acknowledge this discourse as a convincing proof of the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which Mr. B. asserts I shall deliver my self as a Pupil to him take him for an infallible Oracle and profess blind obedience But let me see what I can make of this Riddâ—e The sum of it so far as I can collect is this Here is an enmity proclaimed legally against the Devils pravity malignity and works hâ—reby all the seed natural of the woman are obliged to list themselves in Christs Army or the woman as a believer is to list all her infant progeny in the Redeemers Army infants being part of her seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed this fundamental promise extends to them and all duly listed are visible Churchmembers Ergo here is the fundamental law or ordinance for infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed To discern how silly and insipid these arguings are if I may use â—r Bs. own phrase let us grant him here is a promise and precept implied and inquire what listing is here enjoyned of whom by whom and how far this makes the listed visible Churchmembers The listing is not here exprest but in his book of Baptism p. 14. he saith They are first made Disciples and then solemnly admitted eâ—tred or listed by baptism P. 24 As every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn engaging sâ—gne so every one that hath right to be solemly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily bee admitted by baptism Christs listing engaging signe The persons to be listed are according to Mr. B. mankinde the woman and her seed even infants no exception being put in against infants or any age of her seed The persons that are to list are each man for he saith It is the duty of mankinde to list themselves infants being at the parents dispose it is they that are to list them in Christs army and this listing which he counts duely done makes infants visible Churchmembers Concerning which I grant that God doth proclaim here an enmity against the Diabolical praviâ—y malignity and works and that it is the duty of mankinde to fight against satan to joyn with Christ For this is no more but that God forbids sin and it 's our duty to resist â—t and to believe and follow Christ and here is a fundamenâ—al promise that they who do so shall bruise the serpents head or prevail against satan Nor do I deny that it is the duty of parents yea of all men to do what lies in them to engage persons even iâ—fants to this war provided they do it by wayes allowed and appointed as by their prayers vowes to God or the like But it is utterly false 1. that there is any precept of listing by baptism here for baptism is a mere positive rite of the New Testament not enjoyned here 2. That it is the duty of all mankinde to list themselves For then it is their duty to baptise themselves 3. That it is the duty of the woman to list her self and all her seed For then she had been bound to baptise her self and the children of unbelievers as well as believers Cains seed as well as Abels and if it were supposed that she had lived to this day she had been bound to list all the infants at least of the professed Infidels at this day For if it were a precept unrepealed it must have bound her still 4. That such a listing as Mr. Bs. words import is either duly done or that the listed in that manner are all visible Churchmembers 5. That here is any fundamental promise made to persons so listed 6. That as listed in Christs army in the manner Mr. B conceives infants have the priviledge of Christs soldiers None of these things denied by me have a word of proof in all this pâ—olix discourse nor do I imagine any proof for them can be from this text and therefore conceive his discourse without proof and like the dream of a sick man or the dotage of a phantastick He adds 11. Some learned men do use contemptible arguments to prove further That the sanctifying enmity is here promised to the seed of the woman as her seed I mean those that go the way of Dr. Ward Mr. Bedford c. that is that as the two former sorts of enmity are put into all the seed of the woman as is explained so the spiritual holy enmity promised to her seed as she is a believer 12. And some learned men do accordingly conclude That the impiety of parents may do much to hinder their children from that blessing more then by original sin they were hindered and therefore their faith
the Dispute which though imperfect yet both agree that the argument then was â—his They who solemnly entred into Covenant with God were visible churchmembers But the infants of the Jews in the wilderness uncircumcisâ—d did so Ergo. Mr. B. himself in his Corrective sect 5. The Text in Deut. 29. was brought to prove that God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God and consequently made them churchmembers The form here used doth vary the conclusion and the medium and particularly the term who solemnly entred into Covenant with God into this were entred into Covenant with God and in his Correct sect 5. into this God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God between which there is so great a difference that as the argument was framed in the Dispute I should not deny the major but as there it is framed I should deny the consequence it being certain God may enter into Covenant with some to take them for his people and to be their God who neither are nor ever shall be visible churchmembers as elect peâ—sons dying with death-bed repentance not manifested c. But I shall keep to the form as it is here used And 1. I grant that the churchmembership of the infants which did pass into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12. is not repealed For it being an individual accident can neither in congruous sense be said to be repealed nor it being nonâ—ens now is it capable of repeal if the speech were right 2. I grant also that Gods Covenant of grace or his Gospel covenant is not repealed that is changed into another Covenant 3. I grant also that invisible churchmembership is built on the Covenant of grace or the Gospel covenant or is inseparably conjunct with it But this I deny 1. that any law of infants visible churchmembership unrepealed is contained in Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That the mutual Covenant entred into there was the Gospel covenant of grace 3. I say that if it were yet it follows not that infant visible churchmembership is not ceased or in Mr. Bs. dialect repealed But let us view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he Mr. T. denied long together in the face of many thousand people that the infants were entred into any such Covenant against the plain letter of the Text Yet he persisted to deny it without any reason as you may see in the Dispute if out If plain Scripture will not satisfie these men why then do they call for Scripture The words are Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Officers Elders and all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and the stranger that is in thy camp from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be to thee a God c. He that saith infants did not pass into this Covenant I question whether he believe this to be the word of God For how should it be spoken plainer Answ. The thing which I denied was that infants did visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant which Mr. B. affirmed and I gave the reason because they did by no visible sign declare their assent to the Covenant And when Mr. B. replied that the parents did it for them I answered the parents act for them might bind them but yet it is not their act nor that which makes a visible churchmember and sure had I conceived his minor so meant that the infants did by their parents visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant I should have granted it and denied his major They who visibly and solemnly entred into Covenant with God by their parents act for them were visible churchmembers Now this answering of mine he endeavoured then and since to represent with as much disparagement as might bâ— to me though what ever imperfection there were in my answer which I do not deprehend to have been such as Mr. B. hath made it it was in a great part from Mr. Bs. ambiguous use of words and his captious taking advantage from my words and not explaining his own which made me answer somewhat perplexedly But the matter being now in print let 's view the Dispute as iâ— stands in the Books I had said in my Sermon and after in my Antidote sect 5. that thou v. 12. doth not necessaâ—ily comprehend the little ones To this Mr. B. in his Correct pag. 249. replies 1. that he either sets a low value on my conscience or judgement which is not worth answering 2. Do you not know saith he that thou is a collective term usually through the Books of Moses spoken of all the people except any be particularly excepted Answ. I do know it is a collective term yeâ— often used with exception of infants by the matter of the speech though not pâ—rticularly And for this I need go no further then Deut. 29.2 3 4 5. Deut. 30.1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. And in some of these v. 2. thou and thy children v. 6. thine heart and the heart of thy seed v. 19. thou and thy seed Deut. 29.29 us and our children are so expresly distinguished that I am much confirmed that thou Deut. 29.12 doth not compreheâ—d the little ones v. 11. 3. Saith he Are not little ones here named and yet are they excluded Answ. Tâ—ey are named v. 11. yet not meant by thou v. 12. 4. Saith he Why should Moses say here stand your children and wives that not they but you might enter into Covenant Answ. 1. Why should the strangers stand there v. 11. and yet Abraham Isaac and Jacob not their fathers v. 13. 2. I conceive God would have a general appearance for the more solâ—mnity of the thing but that some should act in the name of the whole people and therefore menâ—ion of all v. 11. yet the act of covenanting which was personal v. 12. restrained onely to the representatives 5. Doth not Mr. T. confess that the Jews infants were in Covenant why else were they circumcised which is the seal of the Covenant Answ. 1. Circumcision is no where called in Scripture the Seal of the Covenant and how far I allow it may be seen sect 31. 2. Infants were circumcised not because they were in Covenant those who were not in Covenant were to be circumcised 3. The Jews infants were in the political or domestical Covenant made to Abraham all of them upon condition of their obedience to the law some of them in the Covenant or promise of saving grace made to the elect none of them in the Covenant by their own personal act of covenanting or promising which is that alone which I deny and which
makes visible churchmembers in the Christian Church 6. Saith Mr. B. I desire no means to convince any man of your strange abuse of the Text but onely that he will read it Ye stand this day all of you c. and that he may be to thee a God He that can considerately believe Mr. T. that the word thou v. 12. doth not necessariâ—y comprehend the little ones if I knew him I would tell him that I will not undertake by Scripture to convince him of any thing at all And I say again in sobriety that if the Papists had as plain Scripture for their Religion as it differs from ours I would not delay a week but would turn Papist c. Answ. Mr. Bs. words onely express his confidence in his conceit which in this and many more things I conceive to come from his hasty determinations without weighing all objections to the contrary But I desire both him and the Reader to let me know what that entring into Covenant is which may be termed the infants act afore he censure my interpretation of thou as not comprehending little ones necessarily but as noting some instead of the rest as a strange abuse of the Text sure it was no act of words or sign shewing any consent or assent to the Covenant or Oath of God And if as Piscator conceives in his scholie it were by passing through as the word in the Hebrew is the â—arts of the divided living creatures in testimony of the covenant I say again surely neither little ones nor all the rest did pass between the parts of the the beasts divided but some in stead of the rest I think they will not say it was their bare presence which was the entring into Covenant for their standing there was before it and the entring into Covenant a consequent of it I do not accuse him as he knows who hath done of being a Papist nor dare I absolve Mr. B. from yeelding too much in some of his writings for Papists Arminians and Socinians advantage in sâ—eking to avoid Antinomianism and Anabaptism But I hope both Mr. B. and his Reader will be more sober and wise then to go over to the Papists upon this declaration of Mr. B. who if he did not suggest to the people as if it were my impudence to deny it at the Dispuâ—e I was mistaken and so were others and I intreat him to pardon my mistake But Mr. B. adds Where he saith that you v. 14. is distinguished from them that stand c. I answer 1. I think not but from them that were absent q. d. not with you onely but both with him that is here that is you and him that is not here Answ. I find no interpreter who doth not render â—â— v. 15. by the adveâ—sative and the Tigurine Divines render it sed et but also which shâ—ws a plain distinction of you v. 14. from him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God and if I understand any thing in this kind Mr. Bs. exposition is not good sense to expound not with you onely but with him that is here with us that is you For v. â—5 him that standeth here is opposed to you v. 14. and you onely being an exclusive terme must exclude the rest and when it is said with us meaning himselfe and you v. 14. it is meere non-sense to expound it thus him that standeth with us if us comprehend him that standetâ— there as it doth according to Mr. Bs. exposition Besides the different numbers of him that standeth here with us and you do shew that they are not the same And I thinke I may say as Mr. B. I desiâ—e no meanes to convince any man of Mr. Bs. strange exposition but onely that hee will read the Text. But he saith 2. Were it otherwise yet it were onely from the people of other nations that stood among them Answ. 1. If Mr. B. mean thy stranger which is in thy Camp v. 11. I expect some reason why you onely v. 14. should exclude them more then the little ones and wives rather me thinkâ— you onely should include those menâ—ioned v. 10. and him that standeth with us here this day should mean those v. 11. And the plain sense seems to be this that though the Captains Elders Officers men of Israel who were to enter into Coâ—enant did by themselves onely covenant yet Moses in Gods stead did make that Covenant and Oath not onely with them to whom his speech was directed but also with the rest v. 1â— 2 If he mean the strangers not of that congregation or Church of Israel surely the Covenant was not made with them as here Moses saith it was with him that standeth here with us this day Mr. B. adds of me Where he saith some entred into Covenant in behalf of the rest I answer 1. God entred into Covenant on his part immediately or by Moses the Mediatour with them all and not with some onely Answ. Be it so yet on the other part some entred into Covenant in behalf of the rest and so thou v. 12. comprehends not little ones v. 11. for sure if in behalf of any some entred into Covenant and thou comprehend not them them they were the little ones 2. Saith he I doubt not but the parents entred their children into Covenant and not the infants themselves which shews that God hath given parents this interest and authority Answ. 1. This is a confession of what I aver and of which Mr. B. and his followers have made such exclamations against me For if thou v. 12. entred themselves into Covenant and infants entred not themselves into Covenant then infants are not comprehended under thou v. 12. But so it is Ergo. The consequence is plain of it self the minor is for the first part the words of the Text unless Mr. B. will say that thou shouldest enter into Covenant is not that â—hou shouldest enter into Covenant thy self which is a gross absurdity and the other paâ—t is Mr. Bs. own and thus Mr. B. hath justified me in that which he counted so strange an abuse of the Text. 2. For my part I doubt whether the parents entred the children into Covenant and do rather conceive that the Captains Elders Officers v. 10. did enter into Covenant by some solemn act of passing between the parts of a beast divided or otherwise in stead of the children wives and servants v. 11. and not the parents for the infants 1. because the distinct mention of those v. 10. under the titles there used do intimate that they were representatives of those v. 11. now v. 10 persons are not expressed under the tiâ—le of parents but under other relations 2. Because it being a national covenanting it seems most suitable to the end of it that it was done by national Officers 3. If there were any other then those persons the solemnity could not be likely done with decency the number being so great as could not
Ephes. 2.14 and the removing the enmity v. 16. Jews and Gentiles are not made one visible Church after the Jewish frame but one by faith and by it the Gentiles are clâ—ansed Aâ—â—s 15.9 not a whole nation parents and children as the Jewish Church but believers repenting Acts 11.17 18. one body one Lord one faith one baptism c. Eph. 4.5 6. proves not the Gentile and Jewish Church visible to be the same but the invisible of both Gal. 6.15 hath not a word tending to prove that there is the same reason of Jews and Gentiles infant visible churchmembership but of the equal interest in Christ of Gentiles who are new câ—eatures as of the Jews It is no part of Pauls Epistles and therefore not much of their substance to prove the taking in of the Gentiles and graffing them into the Olive which the Jews were of if by it were meant the visible Church Jewish but it is most palpably false The discipling nations the Kingdoms of the world becomming Christs Rev. 11.15 prove not infantâ— discipleship or churchmembership All hitherto brought by Mr. B. hath yeilded no sufficient proof let 's view the rest SECT LXX Mr. Bs. 16th and 17th arg from the promise of mercy Exod. 20.6 and of blessing Psal. 37.26 are answered CH. 21. saith Mr. B. The 16th arg then is this Exod. 20.5 6. From hence I argue thus If God have made over this mercy of Churchmembership in the moral law to the children of all that love and obey him then it is not proper to the Jews children nor is it ceased But God hath made over this mercy in his moral law to the children of all that love and obey him therefore it is not proper to the Jews children nor is it ceased Nothing but the antecedent here needeth proof Every man I think among us will confess that the moral law was not proper to the Jews and that it is not ceased Even the most of the Antinomians confess the ten Commandments are in force as the law of Christ though not as the law of Moses However if they be against the preceptive part of the law yet sure they will not bee against the promissary part Though there be some clauses that were suted to the Jews peculiarly yet I never yet met with man that would say this was so If the ten Commandments be not currant proof there is no disputing with them out of Scripture Answ. There is need of proof of more then the antecedent to make this argument good For 1. the conclusion is not that which Mr. B. should prove Churchmembership and visible Churchmembership children and infant children being not all one God may shew the mercy of Churchmembership to infants and yet not make over to them visible Churchmembership and he may make over visible Churchmembership to the children of them that love him and yet not to them in infancy So that the conclusion may bee granted as it stands without any impeachment to my tenet But if it be meant of visible Churchmembership of infant children the minor is to be denied And to the proof 1. I except that this promise was proper to the Jews made to back the legal Covenant and though it be a promise annexed to the observing a moral precept yet as in the fifth Commandment termed the first Commandment with promise Ephes. 6.2 So in this the promise hath special reference to their prosperous and safe estate in Canaan in which they were continued while they kept themselves from idolatry and on the other side expelled captivated enslaved when they served idols unto the third and fourth generation upon which considering the time of making this promise the usual tenour of promises in the Books of Moses as Deut. 7.9 12. to the same purpose the place where this promise is put the event which doth best expound it and that no where under the Gospel promises are made to believers children but onely to believers themselves of Evangelical mercy yea the Apostle concludes that notwithstanding the promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 and to Israel yet God hath mercy on whom hee will have mercy and whom he will hee hardens Rom. 9.18 I do determine without fear of Mr. Bs. censure that this promise was suited to the Jews peculiarly 2. I hence infer that if this mercy be meant of Churchmembership yet it might bee yea was proper to the Jews children 3. The mercy here cannot be proved to be visible Churchmembership 4. That it is onely to those mens children who love him and keep his Commandments which is an invisible thing and so whose infants are visible Churchmembers by this promise cannot bee known 5. That this promise is made good though it be not performed to all those that love him nor to all their children nor to any in infancy 6. That this promise is not true without the exception of election and the expounding of it as conditional and not absolute sith it must then follow that God exempts none yet from mercy there being not a thousand generations from Noah to this day So that till Mr. B. have proved the contrary to these which he can never do his proof from hence will appear to be of no force But let us examine what he saith Let mee try therefore whether this 2d Commandment in the words cited do not prove the minor to which end I argue thus If God have assured his mercy by promise to the children of all them that love and obey him then he would have them be taken for members of his Church But hee hath here assured his mercy by promise to the children of them that love and obey him therfore he would have them bee taken for Churchmembers The minor is plain in the text The consequence of the major I prove thus viz. that all those must be taken for Churchmembers on whom God hath thus stated or assured his mercy by promise the word mercy I shall explain anon If God have estated and assured his mercy by promise to no other society of men in the world but the Church then all those are members of the Church on whom his mercy is thus estated and assured But God hath estated and assured his mercy on no other society Therefore c. Here let me a little explain my meaning Sometime when God promiseth mercy it is first to some particular person or family Sometime to a whole species or sort of persons 2. Sometimes it is some particular named mercy and sometime in the general naming no sort or individual mercy 3. Sometimes it is upon a special ground proper to some one person or to few and somtimes it is upon a common ground 4. When the mercy is specified it is sometime meerly corporal and sometime spiritual 5. And of spiritual mercies sometime it is common to others besides the saved and sometime special and proper to the saved 6. Sometime it is mercy limiâ—ed to a short or certain time and sometime estated
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ— but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâ—ration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâ—eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â— Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an â—dea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâ—iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâ—sh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way â—hen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâ—ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â—2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâ—chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâ—lk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâ—fies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed â—o them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâ—lieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the â—ather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
have cause to repent of our judgements â—nfants may be inwardly sanctified and God hath taken them into Covenant with their parents and would have us look on them as separated to himself which is ground enough to build our charity on as to esteem them holy as grown persons There is no difference but this in it That concerning the holiness of persons at age we trust our own judgements and in judging of infants we trust Gods word who hath comprehended them under the promise with their parents there hath been as many deceits in the event in our judgement of those of riper years as in that which is acted through a mixture of faith on infants And Gods promise though never so indefinite is a surer ground for hope then my probable judgement which is the most I can have of the generality of professors of ripe years is much of it false as that God hath taken infants into Covenant with their parents thay are comprehended under the promise with their parents God would have us to look on them as separated to himself by the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers we onely account them holy by a judicious charity and all impertinent forasmuch as professors of faith are accounted visible Saints not by a judgement of charity but of certainty from their profession which is visible and so are qualified for Baptism not from hopes of real holiness or faith of Covenant holiness which do not entitle to Baptism without certainty of profession What he adds That holy is a pure religious word that in my sense it would be no considerable medium for argumentation that else were c. hath force from the specialness of the priviledge to their issue to be in a peculiar state of seperation to God visible Churchmembers with the believing parent contains nothing but unproved dictates often before refuted What he adds of cold comfort in my sense and of strength and sweetness in his is alike frovolous For the speech of the Apostle was to be no otherwise consolatory then so far as it might satisfie their consciences of the lawfulness of their continuing together which is clearly done by my Analysis and exposition of the Apostle and not done at all by his way For what is a priviledge of the children which perhaps they shall never have or if they have it is nothing to take away the defilement by the infidel for satisfaction of their consciences concerning living together in disparity of Religion I have done with this scribler I shall a little examine what some others have said with as much brevity as the maintenance of the truth will permit and hasten to an end SECT LXXVII Mr. William Carters attempt of proving the Christian Sabbath from Heb. 4.7 9 10. is shewed to be succesless and so useless for proof of Infant Baptism THere is a Treatise intituled The Covenant of God with Abraham opened by Mr. William Carter which pretends to clear the duty of Infant Baptism and in his Epistle to the Reader saith the root of this matter is the Covenant of God with Abraham which because of the eminency of the Author and the publishing it in observance as is said of the commands of the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London rather then for any shew of strength in the discourse I shall examine that if this Review come to their hands they also may discern their mistakes Which I think necessary to be done because he also as other Paedobaptists use to do is not afraid upon his own conjectures for they are no better to charge us who baptize not infants as breaking Abrahams Covenant as small friends to Christs Kingdome waving and neglecting the right way of increasing that Kingdome and of exalting his Throne and power in the world taking-up ways unnatural unsafe and false Letâ—s then see what he writes Afore he meddles with the point of infant Baptism which he saith is the thing he especially intended in his discourse he endeavours to deduce the Christian Sabbath as it is termed from Heb. 4. I omit that he saith p. 3. that Heb. 2.15 16. the birthright vendible is their priviledges in the Church and worship of the Gospel and that p. 6. he expoundâ— the holding â—ast â—he confidence or liberty and the rejoycing of the hope Heb. 3.6 by holding fast the ordinances and priviledges of the Gospel Which if he mean as he seems to do of the oâ—twarâ— priviledges and worship it appears that he mistakes sith the birthright not to be sold and the confidence and rejoycing of hope are greater matters which no hypocrite may attain to and are plainly intimated Heb. 12.14 15. to be the seeing of God the attaining his grace and the estate Evangelical mentioned v. 22 23 24. which they might sell though they never had it by their Apostacy from their profession of Christ through whom they were in expectation of it at least in appearance And in like manner the boldness liberty confidence or râ—joycing of their hope must needs be of something yet attainable and not to be attained without holding it to the end v. 6 14. and which no unbelievers could attain to which are not true of bare outward Chuâ—ch priviledges and Gospel worship but of that salvation mentioned Heb. â—â— the grace brought in the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Pet. 1.13 whereby we are Gods house Heb 3.6 are partakers of Christ v. 14. But I shall insist somewhat on that he saith p. 8. that by to day if ye will hear his voice in that Psal. 95.7 is meant the Christian Sabbath day by whiâ—h he means the day which in the New Testament is termed the Lords day or first day in the week which I conceive not right for these reasons 1. The day Heb. 4.7 iâ— a limited or definite day and that must needs imply this meaning This is the day in which if ye hear his voyce and harden not your hearts ye may enter into â—ods rest if ye do not this day ye will come short Which if true then as Mr. C. expounds it though they should hear the voice of Christ and not harden their hearts on the week day yet they should not enter into the rest promised which I think will be counted absurd and evacuate the hopes by all the week day Lectures 2. From Hâ—b 3.13 I thus argue To day Heb 3.7 is the same with the space of time which iâ— called â—o day v. 13. This is so evident in the Text that every one that reâ—ds the â—ext will easily perceive it sith it is plain that the calling it to day is meant â—f the calling it iâ— that place v. â— and the words lest any of you be hardened shew it But to day Heb. 2.13 is meant of any day oâ— every day wherein Christians might exhort one another therefore not restrained to the Lords day but either extended to tâ—e whole space of time they live
justified believers of all nations Nor do Mr. Cs. reasons prove the contrary For 1. though others faith might be as strong yet no ones faith was so â—minently exemplary the time and other circumstances considered and this is apparent from Rom. 4.18 19 20 21. 2. Abraham had that exemplary faith and promise and declaration of God which no Saint had before in the manner I have explained it 3. This was fit to denominate him Father of believers as Sara the Mother of obedient and well doing wives 1 Pet. 3.6 by her exemplary obedience to her husband and we are termed children of God by following him Ephes 5.1 wicked men children of the Devil by doing his lusts Joh. 8.44 It is true we are to look to other examples chiefly Christs Heb 12 1 2. yet none of meer men so eminently believed as Abraham and therefore no meer sinfull man is propounded as a Copy or pattern equal to him As for Mr. Cs. reason it is not right For 1. Mr. Cs. additional promise in his sense is but a figment 2. There is not the least hint in Scripture of that as thâ— reason of the title 3. If he were the first Father that received this blessing then it was two thousand years and more afore God ordered his eleâ—tion as Mr. C. imagines then believing parents had not this blessing before whereas if there were such a blessing it was rather before then after Abrahams time for we find not any setled Ministery by which the spiritual seed was multiplied afore Abrahams time therefore it is more likely to have been by believing parents but after Abrahams time we read of Prophets and Apostles Priests and Teachers appointed to that end And if Abraham were the first who received this blessing then this was not perpetual and so the application of the seal to infants not moral sith the foundation of it begâ—n but in Abraham Sure I am this directly crosseth Mr. Richard Baxters conceit of infants visible Churchmembership by promise Gen. 3.15 which I leave to them to contend about What Mr. C. saith of the reason of the title of Abrahams seed given to believers is quite besides the Scripture Rom. 4.11 16. Gal. 3.7 Joh. 8.39 And what he saith of one believers being ordinarily the means of conversion of another is true rather of others specially preachers of the Gospel then parents housholders Princes and I wish it were better considered by him whether by his dictates all along in making the multiplying of the spiritual seed to be by every believers being a blessing to families and nations by ascribing ordinarily conversion hereunto and that p. 38. not onely by common providence or so much by good education and example but by vertue of a special word of blessing a creating word of promise to all believers without which other means of conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God do not cross the Apostles speech Ephes. 2.20 be not contrary to the experience both of the first and continued gathering of the Churches of Christ and do not indeed undermine and blow up a select Ministery for conversion as being useless without assurance of Gods blessing God having provided another way and ordinarily working by it according to a special promise And how much this tends to justifie that disorder of every gifted brothers pretended prophesying and teaching in the Churches which is the occasion of the jangling and schisms by which Churches are torn asunder and perverted is easily discernable But of this onely by the way What Mr. C. hath summed up p. 70. hath been examined and found to be a fardel of mistakes Let 's view the rest Those insinuations which are p. 71. as if Antipaedobaptists did easily part with ancient entailed priviledges wherein the Saints have rejoyced for so many ages wanted so much compassion on their children as not to blot their names out of Heaven or thrust them out of the Kingdome of Christ into the Kingdome of Satan have been so often discovered to be false and gross abuses as that were not men resolved to use any artifices to uphold an ill cause by creating prejudices against their adversaries they would leave them But Mr. C. thinks to prove infant Baptism from hence and thus he argues SECT LXXX Mr. Cs. conceit as if Gen. 17.9 were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain IF this be granted that the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. especially that part of iâ— v. 8. concerning Canaan to bee an everlasting possession to his seed bee of such extent and made also to his spiritual seed of the New Testament it will follow that that command of God in those words next following v. 9. is to bee meant also of his spiritual seed even in our dayes and as a command that now lieth upon the same spiritual seed in all generations in as much as that command is brought in with a therefore upon the promise made to the same seed in the words v. 8. Answ. Hitherto Paedobaptists have been wont to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed and the command v. 9 10 11 12 13.14 which it seems Mr. C. dares not rest on but takes another way and yet seems not very certain what to pitch upon For whereas p. 70. to clear the duty of infant Baptism he sums up his suppositions That God made to Abraham Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. an additional promise of believers being a blessing to families and nations that for confirmation of this hee added a seal to wit Circumcision that the application of it to infants was part of the token of the Covenant thereby that additional promise was sealed in reference to them Abraham was called the Father of all them that believe who would not think that he would have inferred infant Baptism from these suppositions and the connâ—xion between his additional promise and seal But in stead thereof as if all hee had before discoursed had been out of the way hee meant to take whether because there is a great distance between the command Gen. 17.9 and the promise Gen. 22.17 18. or whether he saw his exposition would not stand good he now goes another way to work and thinks to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.8 and the precept v. 9. and his inference is thus made The promise is concerning Canaan to be an everlasting possession to Abrahams seed ergo to his spiritual seed in the N. T if so then the command lieth upon the spiritual seed still v. 9. and this the word therefore v. 9. implies That precept ties onely to keep the Covenant by sealâ—ng with the seal of it their children v. â—0 explains what seal should be for that time now another is come in the room of it which is for substance the same and equivalent to it parents are
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.
personal profession but deny 1. That thâ—â— promise Gen. 17.7 I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed is a tacit and implicit profession or makes of it self parties in Covenant externally 2. That infants born of covenanted parents are in covenant with God because they are born of such parents as are in covenant with God Gen. 17.7 What is said Deut. 4.37 Deut. 10.15 is meant onely of the people of Israel as the very words brought out of Egypt as it is this day shew nor is there a word in those verses of their being in covenant with God because born of such parents but of Gods special choise of that people It is false which he saith that the Apostle Acts 2.39 speaks in the very terms and words of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 It is true rather that hee speaks in never a term or word there used It is as false that the Apostle commanded any other to be baptized Acts 2.38 then whom he commanded to repent Did he not presume that Anabaptists as hee terms us were very Blockheads hee would not not presume that wee should believe his vain dictates when the very copulative term shews the same are spoken to in one and the other command and the words being an answer to the question v. 37. shew they are directed to those who spake v. 37. And the word you used in the precept of Baptizing contains the same with those who were to receive remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost and are distinct from their children v. 39. and therefore cannot be meant of their children much less of their infant children whom it had been ridiculous for Peter to have commanded to be baptized How pertinent the answer had been as I expounded it is often shewed before though their children crucified not the Lord Jesus nor were concerned either in the evil of their parents who crucified the Lord of glory nor in the good of their repentance more then stones yet I know no Anabaptists whose grounds infer that the Jews children who crucified Christ were not visibly in Covenant with their parents not capable of actual hearing the word mourning for and repenting of their sins as Zach. 12.10 Matth. 3.8 9 10. nor concerned either in the evil of their parents nor in the good of their repentance more then stones nor do I conceive it true that the opposites of infant Baptism say that Covenant promises are no more made to children then to stones but that these are vile calumnies of Mr. Rutherford unfit for such a man as he is taken to be How Isa. 2.2 3. 19.24 25. Psal. 22.27 Revel 11.15 Isa. 60.1 2 3 4. Mal. 1.11 Psal. 2.8 9. 72.7 8 9 10. are to be understood of persons adult onely and yet infants not cut off from the Covenant is shewed Review part 2. sect 9. and elsewhere It is not contrary to Acts 2.39 to say that Covenant promises are not to the children of Believers and yet it hath been fulfilled that the Gentiles and Heathen are become the Lords people What he saith out of Exod. 20.6 Psal. 37 26. 112.2 Deut. 28 is answered here sect 64.70 71. It is not true that Paul Rom. 11.16 saith the same of the Jews root and branches Fathers and children which he saith 1 Cor. 7.14 of the unbelieving yoke fellowes sanctification in the yoke fellow and their childrens holiness Nor is it true that the same Covenant which was made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was made with the Corinthians 2 Cor. 6.16 or any of the texts he cites there being none of them that promise that God would bee a God to them and their seed His allegations from Heb. 7.22 Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. are shewed to bee frivolous here sect 66. and elsewhere What he talks of a Father having no warrant to offer the Covenant of grace to one Pagan more then another if children be not in covenant is vain the offer of the Covenant of grace being nothing else but the preaching of the Gospel which is to be to all Mark 16.15 whether in Covenant or no. The allegation that the promise Gen. 17.7 is made onely to the elect Rom. 9.8 is a plain proof of this position that the natural children of Abraham and consequently Believers children now except elected have not that promise made to them and therefore are not in covenant by Gods act of promise to them which doctrine Mr. Rutherford himself taught in his Apologetical exercit 2. c. 2. p. 306. when he said The elect alone are said in Scriptures federate sons and heirs of promise Rom. 9.8 And to Christ alone the Prince and leading heir are the promises made Gal. 3.16 Psal. 89.26 27. in him to his seed and children given to him of the Father Heb. 2.13 Nor can he here deny that the sons of the promise are the chosen of God in whom the word takes effect Which if true then it is most false that a Believers seed not chosen is in covenant with God by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 and his allegation of it and Acts 2. â—9 and other places for baptism of believers infants whether elect or not as having that promise made by God to them is manifestly impertinent Nevertheless we need not say that there are none covenanted with God but the chosen under the New Testament or that there is no such thing as an external visible covenanting with God under the New Testament but say that no infant doth visibly externally covenant with God so as thereby to be entitled to Baptism sith no persons are to bee baptized by Christs appointment but such as in their own persons do profess the saith The priviledges mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 Mr. Rutherford himself appropriates to the Jews Due right of Presbyteries ch 4. sect 5. pag. 192. What he saith pag. 77 78 79 80. is all answered before chiefly in answer to Mr. Blake Review par 2. sect 9 or here sect 46 47 48. or in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal And if it were not yet the Reader may discern its impertinency sith the thing hee endeavours to prove is an external visible covenanting in the New Testament which can be onely on mans part and being in covenant thereupon and right to Baptism and is not denied whereas his position he should prove is that the Covenant choise on Gods part is extended to the seed of Believers as such in the New Testament p. 73. His words pag. 80. They cannot be baptized but as in covenant with God are true if meant of being in covenant by their profession externally but so infants are excluded if of Gods covenanting or promise are false and so are those other words We are the same way in covenant as the Jews were and our visible Church now and the visible Church then are of the same constitution I call not the Covenant Gen. 17. civil but mixt containing some promises civil some spiritual or rather
is it unusual for Rabbins to dissent one from another and Christian writer from Jewish about their custome Though I have no engine to draw many out of two nor were two onely mentioned by me for though Mr. Selden cite onely Petrus Alfunsus for the first yet he cites him aâ— ascribing the thing to more then one nec defuere ex Judaeis Christiani aliquot c. yet from the instance of two such which have so conceived I might â—rationally infer the likelihood that many would not be satisfied with the passages of the writers cited by him much less with the inference of the Dr. makes from thence But hee tels me to evidence to how little purpose I said thus much I confess my conceit of such a custome of baptising Proselytes afore Christs incarnation among the latter Jewes Yet I thinke it was to much purpose notwithstanding this my conceit sith thereby the foundation of the Drs. fabrick is inâ—imated to be such as though I pull it not down others may I said that either that custome should begin from Jacobs injunction to his houshold Gen. 35.2 or from Gods command Exod. 19.10 for the Israelites to wash their clothes afore the giving of the Law though the Jewish Doctors allege these for it I do not conceive not as the Dr. misreâ—ites me he cannot those places speaking of washing Jews by nature not Proselytes whereas the Jews baptized not Jews by nature as Selden de jure nat c. l. 2. c. 4. saith but by profession Here saith the Dr. are many weak parts in these few words For 1. the original of the cuâ—tome among the Jews is but an accessary wholly extrinsecal â—o the matter in hand and in no respect necessary to be defined by us If the custome be acknowledged we need ask no more for on that and not on that particular original of it it is that we superstruct our whole fabrick as far as belongs to infant baâ—tism Answ. Be iâ— so yet it was no weak part to examine the original of that custome nor impertinent sith if the oâ—iginal come from unwritten tradition of Elders it is somewhat the less likely Christ would make it the pattern of his baptism who neglected the traditions of the Elders and excepted against them Mark 7.1 2 3 4 5. But then secondly saiâ—h he for the two originals here set down and both rejected by him it is a little strange that he should think fit to do so and not to substitute any third in the place of them Answ. Neither was this any weak part â—ith the originals of such customes arâ— so obscure that there are few of them whose head is known The Dr. I suppose cannot shew the original of the post coenium among the Jews of giving milk and honey to the newly baptised among Christians and yet I suâ—pose the Dr. counts not this a weak part Yet Mr. â—oseph Mede in his diatr. on Tit. 3.5 find â—nother original to wit That custome of washing infants from the pollutions of the womb when â—hey are first born mentionâ—d Ezâ—k 16.4 5. and gathered from the answer oâ— an Oracle in a story related by Plutarch in his quaestiones Romana not farre from the beginning Hence saith he p. 272. the â—ews before Iohn the Baptist came amongst them were wont by this rite to initiate such as they made Proselytes to wit as becomming infants again and entring inâ—o a new life and being which before they had not Wâ—ich derivation of its original suits better with the opinion of regeneration by it in allusion to which as a vulgar notion among tâ—e Jews the Dr. conceivs Christ spake Ioh 3.5 and the Jews imagined old kindred to be lost and this is a good evidence that they baptized not native Jews who were not by them conceived to be born again nor to have any need as being born in sanctity not in uncleaness Matth. 3.9 Ioh. 8.33 3dly saith he For Iacobs injunction to his houshold Gen. 35.2 it is no where vouched by me as the original of this custome among the Jews but onely an intimation given that that other the command of God before the giving the Law was agreeable to what we read of Iacob to his houshold and so certainly it is Answ. Be it so yet Jewish Writers and others derive it from Gen. 35.2 and therefore there was no weak part shewed in my intimation of my dissent 4thly saith he the command of God Exod. 19.10 in which Baptism is said to be founded by the Jews is not as Mr. T. suggests the command to the Israelites to wash their clothes nothing but the custome of changing their garments can be founded iâ— that but the command to Moses to sanctifie them Go unto the people and sanctifie them to day and to morrow in the Hebrew notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctifications for washing either the whole or some parts of the body as is shewed at large § 35. If Mr. T. did this unwittingly he may now reform his mistake if wittingly c. I shaâ—l not then hope even this length of words will be sufficient for his conviction Answ. Neither in this do I think I shewed weakness or deceit though I did it wittingly following herein Mr. Selden â— 1 de Syned Eâ— c. 3. p. 25 c where I think he hath proved by the washing of the cloathes is meant the washing of the whole body and that thereby is expâ—essed the Baptism whence the later Jews say they took the use of baptzing Proselytes and not by the term sanctifie them which was to be done by Moses not onely once but two days together and seems to be from v. 15. by his keeping them from their wives and perhâ—ps some other ways whether offering sacrifice or anointing by which way also sometimes persons are said to be sanctified as Exod. 40.13 and here the Priests are bid sanctifie themselves Exod 19.22 or some other way To me it is improbable that by sanctifying Exod. 19.10 is mean baptising though I think it a general term comprehending that and some other acts And thus I hope the Reader will perceive I neither intended to disguise any thing nor misguide any man Lastly the Dr. conceives my reason very vain for the Jews baptized Jews by nature and it is evidenced from it they took the baptized Proselytes according to Numb 15.15 And so it is evident that of Exod. â—9 10 being the original of baptizing native Jews may and must be the original of baptizing the Proselytes Answ. But neither doth it yet appear to me there is any weak part or vâ—nity in this reason nor hath the Dr. proved the custome of baptising Iews by nature nor do I find the evidences the Dr. brings to oppâ—â—e Mr. Selden or that I made any misadventure in my few words sect 5. Dr. H. thinks reason not to be tied to Mr. Seldens authority which I reject when â—tis not for my turn which I grant when the Dr.
relying on this Councel shewed their darkness Answ. Mr. M. p. 38. of his Defence Though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement yet he relied not uâ—on his reasons to make good infant Baptism this to him is no new doctrine he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church which in that point be followed faithfully Ref. It appears by the words of Augustine ep 28. ad Hieronâ—m where he alledgeth this very thing for infant Baptism that Cyprian said not that the flesh but the soul unbaptized should be lost that he relied on his reaâ—ons and the like is apparent where he and Hierome set down his words and argue from them tom 7. l. 3. de pecc mer. remis c 6 contra Julian l. 1. c. where Augustine hath these words Sed Cyprianus dicit periâ—e parvulum nisi fuerit baptizaâ—us quam vis ei non propria demittantur sed â—liena pecâ—ata But Cyprian saith a little one perisheth unless he be baptized although not his own but anothers sins are forgiven him My 3d. Excepâ—ion was That Fidus started the question out of a Judaizing conceit that the law of Circumcision which was not to be till the â—th day was to be considered and that the footstep of an infant being in the first days of his birth is not clean which shew a relique of Judaism in him To this it is said 1. That Cyprian did not concur with him nor the Councel Refut 1. However it appears that the Baptism of infants was then practised upon the superstitious conceit as if we were to do in Baptism as the Jews did in Circumcision 2. Nor doth Cyprian appear by hiâ— Ep. 7. l. 4. and elsewhere to be free from thinking the ceremonial Law to direct us about Baptism 2. That other learned men as Athanasius Nazianz. August Chrysostome reasoned from Circumcision to Baptism Refut No doubt of it for as in the controversie about Easter so in other things they appeared too much to imitate the Jewish ceremonies by which the simplicity of the Christian service was altered My 4th Exception was That the resolution of this Councâ—l was the spring-head of infant Baptism Answ. Before that time Baptism of infants was in use Refut Yet it was not determined before but disswaded nor was any authority of any Councel which was as a spring head to it whence it continued a stream afore that nor doth Augustine in his allegatiâ—ns for it find any higher spring of it then Cyprian and his Councel My 5th and chief Exception was Tâ—at the Councel determined the baptizing of infants upon these errours which are now rejected by Protestants as Popish 1. That they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it denying Gods grace 2. They thought the souls to be lost which were not baptized 3. That therefore not onely infants of believers but all infants were to be baptized Mr. M. acknowledgeth the two first to be rightly gathered from the words of the Epistle but that he also urged that Baptism comes in stead of Circumcision and if some arguments were used by the Ancients which were not good the truth is not to be rejected when some oâ—her are Ref. 1. The Council determined infant Baptism on no other argument 2. If infant Baptism could be proved by other arguments I should yeeld to it however the credit and authority of this Councel is taken away by reason of the falshood of the grounds of their determination 2 ly For the 3 d. inference though he lays it down in general terms that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ Yet what he saith ought to be understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common Ref. 1. The words are as express as may be We all judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied by not baptizing them nulli hominum nato to none born of men as much as in us lies if it may be nulla anima peâ—denda est no soul is to be lost for want of Baptism 2. The very words Mr. M alledgeth for a restriction to the Church are against it they are thus Sed putamus omnem omnino hominem admittendum ad gratiam Christi cum Petrus in Actibus Apostolorum loquatur dicat Dominus mihi dixit neminem communem dicendum immundum But we think every man altogether should be admitted to the grace of Christ when Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and saith The Lord hath said to me that no man should be termed common and unclean Which is meant of all men not onely of the Church And this enough to answer Dr. Homes who in his animadversions p. 138. finds not that passage in Cyprian which I alledge and p. 139. saith Cyprian doth not say infants perish if they be not baptized though Augustine expresly saith the contrary and p. 13â— takes on him to defend the sayings of that Councel as having no errour or hurt to say that Baptism gives grace instrumentally and that without warrant wittingly to deny Baptism is to deny Gods grace But Protestant writeâ—s generally as Austin before judge the words to have a further sense and the words of the Epistle plainly shew that they held by the very Baptism infants had remission of sin and were saved and without it were lost and to deny them Baptism was to deny them Gods grace That which he saith of me â— 139. That I would not have it that Cyprian doth at all put in original sin among his arguments for baptizing of infants is not true I onely denyed that he put it in in the manner Mr. M. conceived What I said of the absurdity and nakedness of that Epistle hath no more immodesty then is common to Writers Protestant and Papists who charge Fathers and ancient Councels with errours blemishes and ofâ— times with harder censures if I had given that Epistle a â—arter censuâ—e I had done right that I spake was soft enough considering the great hurt which hath come to the Church of God by that Epistle which determined childrens baptism by childish reasons Next to Cyprian of the Latine Fathers are recited Ambrose and Hierome and Paulinus by Dr. Hammond whose words with Augustines and such Councels as were in their times in the 4th and 5th Century I shall forbear to reciâ—e it being acknowledged that in those ages it was practised and by reason of Augustines esteem Baptism of infants was practised in following Ages almost without controul and in process of time that which was before Augustines dayes a rarity became so frequent as that it almost swallowed up the right Bapâ—ism which appears from the words of Walafridus Strabo placed by Usher at the year 840. in his Book de rebus Ecclesiasticis c. 26. who is termed by Mr. George Gillespie in his Aarons rod blossoming p. 567. a diligent searcher of the ancients which were before him and of the old Ecclesiastical rites
be baptized and the truth of Mr. Crs. proposition those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive inâ—o Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel have no dependence upon â—aith or profession of faith then Mr. Baxters 20 arguments in his 2d dispute of right to Sacraments against Mr. Blake are falâ—e so that I need no more but to leave Mr. Cr. to be chastized by his magnified Doctor Mr. Baxter about this point and so enough of this section Sect. 4. He terms this an untruth that a person may bee in Covenant who iâ— not yet born or conceived as my iâ—stance of Isaac implies and saith It may bee confuted insito argumento by an argument inbred in the terms for he implies and that right that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant but none who is unborn and unconceived as Isaac Gen. 17.22 is a person But this is false he may be a person though not in present but future existence Those Ephesians who were elâ—cted before the Foundation of the world Eph. 1.4 were persons when elected for they were singular men though not then in actual being but future Mr. Crs. reasoning in this is like the reasoning of Adam Medlicot my neighbour in his book stiled Comfortable doctrine for Adams off-spring p. 99 Who will not have any particularly elected before the foundation of the world because then they were not any where men and p. 96. that none is absolutely elected till he believe because not in Christ and if not in Christ not in election and one is elected before another because in Christ before another And in his Honey found in the Lions Carkass p. 102. Although the purpose of election and reprobation was fully in God before time yet there could be no absolute or real election or reprobation of men and women until they had a real and absolute beeing Surely infants are in Covenant no otherwiâ—e then by Gods promise or mans vow or some such act in their behalf and this may be afore they are in being and consequently they may be in Covenant afore they are in actual being If I do not mistake Mr. Cr. both here Sect. 5. and in the 3d. Part Sect. 9. makes those with whom the Covenant was made Deut. 29.10 to have been in Covenant but doubtless the Covenant there was made with the posterity yet unbegotten v. 14 15. for no other can bee meant by him that was not with them that day all that were born or begotten then of the Congregation of Israel whether by nature or Proselytism being present as the words v. 10 11. shew and the end of the Covenant being to prevent the Apostasie of their posterity v. 18. therefore the unbegoâ—ten were in Covenant Nor is it a good argument A man is in Covenant ergo he is any more then a man is elected therefore he is these termes being termini diminuentes as Logicians speak and the verb est is in these speeches not noting the present existence of the subject of these propositions but of the act of the person who elects or covenants A child unbegotten may be said to be in a copy or a deed and so in covenant in respect of the assuring an estate to him whâ—n hee shall be existent But Mr. Cr. tels me 2ly It is a false suggestion that to have a Covenant made to one is to be in Covenant if by having the covenant made to for the phrase is somewhat strange â—e meant as he can mean nothing else a promise from God to be and be in covenant for a promise may be made to or of one long before he hath any being nor executed or performed till long after his being Then to be elected and â—o be in covenant would be both one then Mary Magdalen and Paul while a persecutor were in covenant nay from eternity to be in covenant would precede outward anâ— inward calling conversion profession and prerogative of birth then which nothing can be more ridiculous Answ. It is so far from being ridiculous that to me it is very plain to be in covenant precedes calling and to be in covenant is to have a covenant made to one and that a person is said to be in covenant with God by Gods promise to be his God though the man be not existent This is in my apprehension that which Paedobaptists mean by being in covenant for they usually say infants are in covenant which sure they mean of Gods promise to them for they prove it from Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 Nor can they mean it of any other being in covenant sith there is no act of any infant or any other for him that can denominate him in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel but Gods promise which is long before the being of those to or for whom it is made Tit. 1.2 Gal. 3.16 17. And thus two Kingdomes are said to be in league and covenant and they that are born many yeers after may be said to be in covenant by vertue thereof This being in covenant may be though the things covenanted be not executed or performed till long after the being in covenant as persons first enter into covenant and then perform And yet to be in covenant and to be elected would not be both one though attributed to the same persons siâ—h there is a different formal conceit of them election being an immanent act covenant a transient that from eternity this in time as to be justified and sanctified are not both one though to the same persons Nor is it any absurdity to say Paul was in coveâ—ant while a persecutor nor that to be in covenant precedes conversion sith iâ— is by vertue of being in covenant that one is converted Heb. 8.10 Rom. 11.26 27. As for being in covenant with God by prerogative of birth I know not of any such in the time of the Gospel Thirtdly saith Mr. Cr. It is of the same leven of untruth that Isaac was in Covenant when he was not yet born which his own quotation Gen. 17.21 proves against him For he saith he will establish a Covenant with Isaac in the future not that he does establish a Covenant in the present Answ. Surely Isaac was a child of the promise Rom. 9.8 9. and Jacob v. 11. afore they were born and â—â—nsequently in the Covenant and when God said he would establish his Covenant with Isaac he meant no other then the Covenant made with Abraham and therefore it was made to him then and he in Covenant though confirmed and performed after Mr. Cr. saith of my speech that a person is not actually received into Covenant till he is born and by some acts of his own engâ—geth himself to be Gods That it is founded upon the basis of this mistake that every Covenant must be expresly and actually mutual between both parties and talks after his foolish fashion as if it were an argument sophistically though
conceive by the date of his Epistle however whether alive or dead a man very reverend and however he conceived of me one of the most learned and accurate writers specially in such things as this of his age and while he slights him discover so much folly and ignorance in Hebrew and Greek as an ordinary â—rammarian or student in the Bible would hardly have shewed certainly it 's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is word by word the son◠〈◊〉 hundred years for without of it would be non-sense it being the sigâ—◠〈◊〉 Genitive case nor is old substracted but included in that expression it being the Hebrew expression of old or aged as M. Gataker shews from Gen. 11.10 21.5 5.32 7. â— 12.4 16.16 17.1 25.20 26. 37.2 41.46 45.26 and elswhere and the same he might have learned from Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 5 â—2 c. Hebr. son of 500. years that is going in his 500. year An usual speech in the Hebrew Scripture of mens age or of beasts Gen. 17.1 Exod 12.5 And for he and when how can they be said to be superadded when the very term shall die is all one with when he shall die which shews it is not for Mr. Crs. purpose for then it should have been shall be born as an hundred years old as well a churchmember as if he were but is agreeable to the Prophets meaning to express long life And therefore his jeer of excellent Arithmetick shews his folly in deriding that which was right And for his prattle it shews his excellent ignoranâ—e of the Hebrew and Greek of the â—ible Buâ—torf Thes Gram. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. p. 360 in that piece which is termed by Amama c. admirandum opus 〈◊〉 nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius periphrases Hebraismos facit insâ—gnes ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius areus Iob 41.19 id est sâ—gitta similes innumeri Sic Iâ—â—an 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Latinos Horat. 1. carm od 14. Terrâ— filius should one scribble as Mr. Cr. doth here Here 's a new creation of a new generation son of the bow of perdition of the earth who evâ—r heard such a syntax did the son beget tâ—e bow perdition the earth or the bow perdition the earth the son or whether is elder Would not a Scholler say he played the fool For this I leave him to Mr. Vaugâ—ans correction But he seems to be more considâ—rate in what follows According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more infants diâ— when they are young nor an old man till he 〈◊〉 filled his days for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man died till he had compleated his century no mortal disease nor use of Physitians but every man might certainlâ— know the day of his death Answ. The words contain not such an absolute universal longaevity as Mr. Cr. would make to be the consequent of our interpretation but a length of days opposite to former troubles v. 16. in which so many died by war famine and pestilence which therefore comparatively is reckoned as universal as in like manner Ieremiah ch 50.20 speaking of the same times saith the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for there shall be none that is as formerly to provoke God to cut them off by gâ—ievous deaths as before the captivity And according to this iâ— that of Zech. 8.4 and I said without any vaunting Nebuchadnezzar like language as Mr. Cr. abusively chargeth me with Isa. 65.20 was rightly made by me answerable to Zech 8 4. which doth not intimate that the Text was made by me and not by the Holy Ghost but made answerable or correspondent which arrogates no more to me then if I had said made clear made manifest c. Nor is any experience or History contrary to this that the Iews after their return from Babylon 〈◊〉 prosperity increase and long life in Canaan a great while together and were honoured by divers Persian Kings Alexander the Great and some of the â—recian Kings and the Nations near them iuâ—ject to them The Contents of the Chapter were never by any Synod or Parliament interpretatively entitled to the Church of England nor are to be accounted any more valid then Mr. Gatakers notes who though a single man yet had his notes approved by other Annotators and in some sort by the Assembly at Westminster Yet the Contents of the Chapter being v. 17. The blessed estate of the new Ierusalem and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel 21.4 being put shew that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favoured by them then mine And the speech being to be understood comparatively to the former times was true of the Jews after their return from the captivity at Babel V. 25. expâ—essing the Jews peace notwithstanding the Samaritan neighbours was true at the same time although both were accommodated to the Gospel times and the calling of the Jews yet to come Nor is it any strange thing in that Prophet to make thâ— restitution of the Jews from Captivity as answering to making new Heavens and Earth as Isa. 51.16 44.24 25 26. 45.12 13. Yet I deny not that 2 Pet 3.13 Revel 21.1 the words are rightly applied to some other great work of God resembled by this and to be yet accomplished That the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2 were actually baptized or washed under the cloud it raining upon them and in the Red Sea the water touching their feet at least after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage and blowing upon them with thâ— sprinkling thereof is no where set down Exod 13. and 14. Nâ—r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Authour to be termed Baptism formally and therefore it can be no other then similitudinary Baptism which is there meant as the eating Manna and drinking Water was a similitudinary partaking of the Lords Supper and Grotius did rightly expound 1 Cor. 10.2 were baptised by were as if they were baptisâ—d and yet Isa. 65 20. is not rightly so expounded shall die as an hundred years old there being no need of such an interpretation nor any thing leading to it in the Text but the expression is of long life nor if it were meant so iâ— it proved that infants must be Churchmembers and capable of some seal under the Gospel unless there were no other wâ—y then that in respect of which he might be as one an hundred years old Had Mr. Cr. sought the clearing of truth he had been willing to read out the whole that his dealing might not be taken for deceitfull By my refutation of Dr. Savage in Latin some years since Printed it may appear whâ—tâ—er Text Dr. Savage or the Dr. of the Chair did avoid my argument The rest of M. Crs. argumenâ—s are the same with what others have urged and have been answered in this and the former parts as this Review nor do I find that Mr. Cr. hath added any thing of moment to them to which I need make further reply As or his â—â—â—nts quips misrecitals or mistakes of my words mis-reports of my actions together with his own mistakes in Logick Grammer Divinity thâ—y are otherwise discernable then by a particular answer in Print to each part of his Book I presume the Christian and equal Reader will think it unnecessary to make any more reply to what iâ— written of infantâ— Baptism till some thing be found written which better defends it then those have done who are here answered If any other think it fiâ—â— I should answer him also in particulaâ— he may conceive that if I did pâ—rceive any thing that might not have an answer in that which is already written or had in it any difficulty I should have done it But being conscious to my felâ— that I have not declined the answering of any out of contempt of the person or sense of the difficulty of doing it but because it is thought that I have been too large already and that to answer every meer quirk of wit is unnecessary as knowing that however light witâ— that love to shew their skill in disputing be taken with them yet solid conscientious men will be led onely with good proofs out of Scripture which may shew the institution of Christ I do here supersede from this work and commend it to his blessing of whom and through whom and for whom are all things to whom be glory for ever AMEN FINIS Mr. Gatakers Annot. on Jer. 31.30 The former Covenant comprehended together with those spiritual promises which yet were the principal part of it many temporal blessings as the possession of the land of Canaan and multiplicity of issue and outward prosperity Gen. 15.5 7 18. 17.2 7 8. Psal. 105.8 Deut. 28.1 19. Whereas this later runneth wholly upon the Spiritual and Celestial blessings Rom. 3.24 25. 5.1 2. Eph. 1.3 Heb. 8.6 See Ainsworth Annotations on Gen. 21.12 Vide Gatâ—k Discept de vi effic inf baptism pag. 243.
all believers and God to them a justifying and saving God in Christ Mr. B's words in his Friendly accommodation pag. 361. And for that which you urge Ero Deus tui seminis I doubt you will not prove that it reacheth so far as you speak It sufficeth that God will be to them a God of mercy and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum and Mr. C's own exposition I will be a God to some in respect of external interest shew that to be a God to some doth not necessarily infer they shall be regenerate and so the covenant of saving grace in Christ be gathered thence And therefore I deny that Deut. 30.6.11 12 13 14. compared wiâ—h Rom. 10 6 7 8. do evidently or obscurely prove that the Covenant-interest external as he cals it of inchurched stipulating parents children is Gospel or that the Apostles preached this doctrine or that believers are to eye the covenant in such a latitude as to their children with them by faith or that the essentials of the Covenant of grace in the latitude of the extent thereof to covenant parents with their children held forth in the old Testament was delivered and held forth as valid to the faith of the Saints in the new and after Christs incarnation Nor doth Peter propound the word of true faith in such a latitude as with reference to their children in Mr. C's sence Acts. 2.38 39. And though Paul hold forth Rom. 5.14 15. the abounding of Christs grace to them that are Christs in the gift of righteousness yet that any such thing as external Ecclesiastical covenant interest to the natural seed of believers is held forth Rom. 5.14 15. is Mr. C's palpable dotage And how Acts. 2.38 39. Rom. 11.16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 7 14. are mistaken is shewed in the first part of this Review and in this third part But Mr. C. faâ—ls to disputing thus That which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace that is Gospel but this is of that in nature ergo The major needs no proof the former text also clearing the same the major de jure is evident they ought to believe the whole Covenant made with them as is evident faith must be as large as the object the Covenant is the word of faith And so he proceedes in more words Whereunto I answer I grant his major but Mr. C. seems not to heed his own Syllogism For he tels us the minor de jure is evident they ought to believe and by which words he seems to have concieved that this was the minor that they ought to believe the whâ—le Covenant whereas his minor to be proved was this the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace But Mr. C. as a man weary of disputing fals to his dictating way again after his confused manner leaving his reader to aim at what he would prove and how That which he should prove is that the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the covenant of grace surely if they ought to believe it he should produce some promise or declaration that avowes it as a constant and certain thing But instead thereof he fals to Gen. 17.7 and tels us God in making a Covenant in a Church reference especially as was that with Abraham Gen. 17.7 he taketh in their seed or children as joint covenanters but what he means by Gods making a covenant in a Church reference or in which words he takes believers seed as joint covenanters with their parents or in which words the external Ecclesiastical interest of every believers natural child may be proved he shews not nor can shew there being no mans seed but Abrahams there mentioned He goes on thus Hence the phrase of seed in their generations taking in parents generating and children begotten as those in and by whom Churches are like to be continued Answ. It is true it is said Gen. 17.9 to Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations and this Covenant is v. 10. every man-child among you shal be circumcised But that this phrase seed after Abraham in their generations should infer that God taketh in believeng parents generating and children begotten even of the Gentiles in the Covenant of grace at least in respect of external ecclesiastical interest is yet to me a riddle I know no more to be inferred thence but this that not only Abraham but also the Israelites his posterity were bound to circumcise their males in their generations But we have more of this stuffe Whence saith he God when to speak in reference to the Church-seed as well as to the choise elect-seed of Isaac's line in which the visible and not meerly the invisible Church was to be continued he saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael Ishmael was Abrahams seed too and therefore externally in the Covenant and therefore sealed but God knowing that Ishmael would reject this he warneth Abraham of it a little before that it might not trouble him afterwards It is not to be with him in his generations for that cause Gen. 17.8 compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12 13. but with Isaac in his generations God not opposing therein Isaac to his Church-seed who by rejecting the Covenant will and did love he and his to be cast out Answ. Mr. C. in this passage speaks so obscurely that it is hard to say what he drives at and I may take up the saying reed me a riddle what 's this He makes a difference between Gods speech of Ishmael and Isaac that God saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not wiâ—h Ishmael it was not to be with him in his generations who was to be cast out all which I grant true and thence infer that God never made his Covenant with to or for Ishmael and yet he was to be circumcised and therefore the initial seal as it is called was given to him to whom the Covenant belonged not But Mr. C. using this blind index whence leaves us to ghess what he drives at whence importes it is from somewhat before that God said this of Ishmael but that before was that God takes in parents generating and children begotten But me thinks it is from the contrary as the Apostle conceived Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. that God speaks this of Ishmael who was Abrahams seed and yet not taken into the Covenant who yet should be taken in if yet Mr. C's principles were good that the Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed in their generations And how Mr. C. reckons Ishmaels as not Abrahams Church-seed I know not nor do I understand how