baptized He tells us how he means by disciples which meaning of his is before proved not to be the meaning of the text and then saith His major is evident in the text from the conjunction of the two commands Go make me disciples baptizing them If any shall be so quarrelsome against the plain tezt to say It is not all disciples that they were commanded to baptize but only all that were made disciples and this making was onely by teaching I answer 1. If I prove infants Disciples I sure prove therby they were made so or else they they had never been so 2. By teaching the parents and children were both made disciples the parents directly the infants remotely or mediately if they be proved once to be disciples it will easily follow it is by this way He that converteth the parent maketh both him and his infants disciples incompleat or in title This therefore lies on the proof of the Minor 3. But I would say more to this but that Mr. T. as I understand hath in his Sermons professed That if we will prove that infants are Christs Disciples he will acknowledge that they ought to be baptized the like he granted to me and well he may Answ. 1. It is well Mr. B. grants that to go make disciples baptizing them are two Commands and that there is a conjunction of them whence it follows that he appoints not baptizing till the making of disciples nor of any but disciples made as Christ appointed 2. It is no quarrel against the plain text but the very plain doctrine of the text to say It is not all disciples visibly or invisibly directly or remotely compleatly or incompleatly in reality or in title that they were commanded to baptize but only all that were made disciples and this making was only by teaching or preaching the Gospel to them Mark 16. 15. 3. It is true I have often granted that if it be proved infants are Christs disciples made by preaching to them the Gospel they ought to be baptized But when I granted this it did not come into my thoughts that Mr. B. would ever have hatched much lesse have printed such wild nonsense fancies as here he doth of a disciple by title without learning like a King of Jerusalem without reigning or the Popes Bishop of Chalcedon without overseeing of teaching remotely in the Parents conversion without any personal teaching in themselves For which fancies he neither brings a text of Scripture nor any approved Author nor any other besides himself thus speaking Such distinctions are but meer abuses as are without any instance of such an use of terms And to shew the grossnesse of this foppery of Mr. B. which a School boy may easily discern that hath gone no further than Qui mihi discipulâ—s I argue thus 1. If he that converteth the parent maketh the infant a disciple then either because the infant is an infant and then evrey infant should be made a disciple by that conversion or because his child and then every child is made a disciple yea though he be a professed infidel or both and then it would be shewed what grant there is to the child while infant which ceaseth when grown up where the relation of a disciple in his sense is appropriated only to infant child Yea all the plea is by teaching the parents and children were both made disciples therefore this relation comes from being a child of such a one But the professed infidel child is the child of the Father therefore also a disciple in title and to be baptized after Mr. Bs. doctrine 2. If children be made disciples remotely and mediately according to the command Matth. 28. 19. in that the parent is converted and that the teaching of the parent is the teaching of the child then it follows he that teacheth the Father hath done his duty of teaching though he teach not the child himself and so a preacher need not at all go and catechize each child but only preach to parents It would be ill with Kederminster if it should be so there But this follows according to Mr. Bs. exposition of Christs command Mat. 28. 19. 3. It will follow as well that he that baptizeth the Father baptizeth the child for there is a conjunction of these commands and the baptizing is to be correspondent to the teaching if then the teaching the parent is the teaching the child then is the baptizing the parent the baptizing the child according to the command and so the command is only to baptize in another him who is taught in another and it is a gross transgression of Christs command to baptize him in himself who is only a disciple in another 4. Forasmuch as Mr. B. doth not limit the childs being a disciple or teaching remotely to the next parents being converted he that shall teach the Grandfather great Grandfather c. teacheth the child makes him a disciple yea according to his doctrine pag. 101. he that converts the Master of the house makes his servants and those that are at his dispose though not his children whom he would have baptized disciples for sure he would not have them baptized that are not disciples Now I appeal to any man of understanding whether this be not as gross and pernicious a delusion as Hart the Jesuit held so much exagitated in the conference by Dr. Raynold ch 2. divis 7. That the Pope preacheth by another to say he that teacheth the parent teacheth the child Assuredly had I ever dreamed that Mr. B. had such phantastick if not frantick notions I had denyed his major and do now expresly deny it in his sense All that are Christs disciples incompleatly in title only remotely by the parents conversion without their own ordinarily ought to be baptized and expect it to be proved by him ad Graecas Calendas Nor would I have laid the stress of the argument on the proof of his Minor if I had understood his deceitful gibberish by which he detestably abused many people and perverted Christs words But it is my lot to answer such a writer and I follow him He next goes about to prove his minor thus That some infants are Christs disciples and so called by the Holy Ghost is most evident to any that will not grosly pervert the text or overlook it in Acts 15. 10. why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear now who were these disciples no doubt those on whom the false Teachers would have laid the yoke And what was that yoke It is plain it was Circumcision as necessary and as engaging them to keep the Law And whom would they have perswaded thus to be circumcised Why both the Parents and Children in that Age and only the Children in all following Ages ordinarily So that thus I argu Those on whose necks the false Teachers would have laid this yoke were Disciples But some yea most of
said to save v. â—6 to win 1 Pet. 3. 1. to convert James 5. 20. sanctifying is never ascribed to any but God and his Spirit So 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ye are sanctifyed by the Spirit of our God 9. The word holy is expounded in a sense no where else found nor is there any reason of that sense by way of allusion or otherwise given by the Doctor though according to him a known fact is expressed which had another appellation used commonly even in that Epistle ch 1. 13 14 15 16 17. 12. 13. For he expounds holy by are admitted to baptism and so makes the Apostle in narration of a fact to use a term to express what was in his conceit well known to them by a term not imagined to note the thing elsewhere when there was another term baptized used in the same Epistle and familiar to them 10. He makes the Apostle to infer the lawfulness or duty of living together from that contingent event which might with like probability be brought to pass by another than the believing yoke-fellow even by the endeavour of a Father Mother Brother Sister Companion especially a Preacher of the Gospel So that if this reason were of force to conclude husband and wife might live together because one may bring the other to the faith the reason might be as good for Father and Daughter Son and Mother Brother and Sister Companions Preacher and people to couple or live together because it hath been and there is great reason to hope one may convert the other 11. According to his exposition the Apostles speeches were not right For according to him the meaning should be unless there were cohabiting and there had been an unbelieving husband brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa the Corinthians children could not reasonably be presumed to be admitted to baptism 2. Upon this ground that an unbelieving husband was brought to the faith by the wife and vice versa and there is great reason it might be so for the future the children of believing Corinthians unequally matched were admitted to baptism Himself pag. 257. saith This must needs be the method of the Apostles arguing unless there were some hope that the 〈◊〉 of a believer should be a means to bring an unbeliever to tâ—â— saith ' twâ—â—lâ— certainly follow their children were unclean that is not admitted to baptism Now I think all Paedobaptists will disclaim as manifestly false this proposition That the believing Corinthians young children were not or could not be or it could not be reasonably presumed they should be admitted to baptism till the unbelieving yoke-fellow were converted or without hopes or reasonable presumption that he might be won to the faith by the believer It is such a toy as I cannot imagine they will own when they discern it If they do they must quite change their plea and practise about infant baptism their plea being from the imagined federal holines of the childe of one believer without consideration of the others present or future faith and their practise being to baptize infants of one believer though the other parent died or should die in professed unbelief And for the other proposition it is a like false that whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note as much as hoc posito upon this ground as the Doctor expresseth it or to be an Adverb of time noting when their children were holy it is most false that upon the ground of hopes of cohabiting and the conversion of the unbelieving yoke-fellow and experience of what happened the Corinthian believers yonger children noâ— deemed yet believers were admitted to baptism or were reasonably presumed to be admitted or that they were then admitted to baptism when the unbelieving husband was converted or likely to be converted by the believing wife and not before This proposition I make no question other paedobaptists will disclaim nor need I any other proof against his sense than his own words against another interpretation brought in as the Anabaptists though I know none that so interpret it I use his own words pag. 257. sect 82. mutatis mutandis Now I demand of this pretended interpretation whether it be possible Saint Pauls argument should conclude in this sense Suppose the Corinthian parents of these younger children had been one a believer and the other an unbeliever could it of them be concluded if they did not upon the hope of doing good one upon the other cohabit their children could not be holy by designation of the Church in baptism to which when they are brought by the congregation and admitted by the Minister they are thus consecrated and devoted to God This were absolutely to confine the Churches designations to holiness and the Ministers admissions thereto to none but the children of believers as if the childe of parents whereof one is a believer were not thus holy and admitted to baptism without experience of what hath been done in converting the unbeliever by the believer and hopes it should be so It is known that admission to baptism depends upon Chrsts institution not upon such accidental conditions as is the cohabiting of the parents the experience of the converting some unbeliever by the believing yoke-fellow and hopes so of theirs 12. Unto all these I add that I never read or heard any Expositor antient or modern so expounding as this Doctor or Dictator doth nor do I think he can shew any Sure I am Augustin tom 7. de pecâ— merito remiss c. 26. saith Ac per hoc et illa sanctificatio cujuscunque modi sit quam in filiis fidelium esse dixit Apostolus ad istam de baptismo pâ—ccati origine vel remissione quaestionem omninò non pertinet But let us consider what Dr. Hammond brings for this Paraphrase Sect. 32. he speaks thus That this is the true importance of the Apostles words and force of his arguing doth for the former part of it appear evident First by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified which must needs refer to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde or else there could be no reasonable account given of the Apostles setting it in the Praeter-tense Answ. As Dr. Hammonds Paraphrase expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a less reasonable account given than of putting it in the Present-tense in English But sayth he It is put in the Praeter-tense in Greek Answ. I presume the Doctor knows that enallage or change of Tense is frequent in Languages even in the Greek though it abound in Tenses above other Languages In the same Epistle c. 11. 24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present-tense is put for the Future even in the same Verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by Dr.
Testament a man was accounted of God as uncircumcised himself if his children were uncircumcised for so it is written in Exod. 12. 48. that if a man will come and keep the Passeover all the males in his house must be circumcised and the reason given is for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof which plainly argueth that a man is uncircumcised himself and as an uncircumcised person is to be debarred from the Passeover until all his males be circumcised If then our Lords Supper come in the room of the Passeover and our baptism in the room of circumcision look as he that had not circumcised his males was accounted as one uncircumcised himself and so to be debarred from the Passeover so he who hath not baptized his children is accounted of God as not baptized himself and so to be debarred from the Lords Supper Answ. That baptism and the Lords Supper come in the room of Circumcision and the Passeover is often said but never proved But if it were granted though I still deny it yet Mr. Cottons inference is not good till it be also yielded that every rule of Circumcision and the Passeover is a rule to us about Baptism and the Lords Supper which me thinks he should not maintain Nor do I think he can give any reason why in this the rule should bind more than in others Yea did he consider it he might have perceived that if the proportion be stretched according to this rule no parent must be counted baptized nor to eat the Lords Supper except he had not only all his children baptized but also all his Servants For the males to be circumcised were not only children but servants also and so those must be baptized who are out of covenant and a national church must be foâ—med like to the Jews which I think were hated of him as the blind and the lame were of Davids soul. And methinks it should follow that if it happen as it may happen many waies especially in new England where many baptized persons may not have their children baptized because the parents are not Church-members the infants be unbaptized the parent is to be baptized again because counted of God and according to Scripture phrase if Mr. Cottons dictates hold unbaptized Which being absurd I count his inference If therefore you forbid baptism to children you evacuate the baptism of their parents and so make the Commandment of God and the Commission of the Apostles and the baptism of believers of none effect together with that other passage of his pag. 4. If godly parents do withdraw their children from the covenant and the seal of the Covenant they do make void as much as in them lyeth the Covenant both to themselves and to their children also And then will the Lord cut off such souls from his people Gen. 17. 14. to be meer Mormoes or bugbears to fright children though I am afraid they are used for a further evil end to incite Magistrates a gainst Antipaedo baptists and to justify their hard dealing with then in new England That which Mr. Cotton addes That if we gather no infant are disciples from Mark 16. 16. compared with Matth. 28. 1â— because believer and disciple are terms of the same sense and iâ— fants not believers it would follow that no infant were capable of salvation any more than baptism I have answered in my Praecursor s. 6. That which he speaks of the Gospel That the promise of being God to believers and their seed is to be preached as Gospel according to Mark 16. 15. and if his allegations of Acts 16. 31. Luke 19. 9. Gal. 3 16 17. be right and his words true p. 22. God hath promised salvation to believers and their seed and house also is so palpably false that Mr. Marshal and Mr. Geree do both disclaim It as contrary to Protestant doctrine as I shew in my Apology s. 9. That which he saith pag. 24. ' That the expounding baptizing into the Father Son and Holy Ghost Mat. 28. 19. thus baptize them into the true and orderly profession of that which they have been taught and believed is to assert that we are to be baptized into the name of Creatures for profession is an act of our own and so a creature which he counteth an effect of Gods judgement taking men in their own wiliness while they turn the glorious name of the blessed Trinity into the weak performance of a Christian duty is a frivolous quillet unfit for so grave a man James ch 5. 14. To anoint with oyl in the name of the Lord id est saith Beza invocato nomine Domini the New Annot. by calling on the name of the Lord which is a work of their own Do they therein turn the name of the glorious God into a Creature But enough of this childish chapter of Mr. Cotton in which I find so little worth answering that were it not for the esteem he had and his acquainting me with this piece in his letter to me I should have chosen to have let it passe as not worth the labour bestowed in answering it Mr. William Cook in his Font uncovered pag. 13. brings Acts 21. 4 5. To prove that infants in their mothers arms were reckoned among disciples and makes the enumeration there to answer Deut. 29. 10 11 12. Ezra 8. 21. And whereas it might be said that the children are distinguished from the disciples he prevents this by retortion their wives are distinguished from disciples yet might be disciples so the children Answ. 1. The places are no way parralel in the matter nor exactly in the enumeration made in the former there is mention of servants none here all were of duty there to enter into covenant the whole nation together not so here in the later place no mention of wives and the business was a solemn humiliation for them upon their return from captivity but here only a courteous accompanying of Paul to the ship 2. I grant the wives are not necessarily excluded from being disciples nor children by the enumeration Acts 21. 5. nor are they necessary to be included but how doth Mr. Cook prove the the children babes carried in armes or such little ones as had not abilities of understanding More likely this thing being done by common consent the wives and children were of years to conceive what they did whether already baptized disciples or persons catechized and expectants it is uncertain I shall now finding nothing needing more answer in Mr. Cobbet part 2. ch 3. s. 4. but what will fitly come in when I answer Mr. Baxter pass on to the answering Mr. Baxters third chapter of the first part of his plain Scripture proof c. where he thus argues SECT XII Mr. Bs. allegation of Acts 15. 10. to prove infants disciples is fully answered his arguments retorted ALL that are Christs disciples ordinarily ought to be baptized But some infants are Christs disciples Therefore some infants ordinarily ought to be
referred to nurses who he saith will tell me more in this than he can It may be so yet sure nothing to shew that any have made their infants learn the Doctrine of Christ. He adds And what if they cannot at first learn to know Christ even with men of years that is not the first Lesson if they may be taught any of the duty of a rational creature it is somewhat Answ. If they do not learn to know Christ they learn not that which should make them Disciples of Christ. It is somewhat indeed that they can learn to kiss the mother stroke her breasts c. but what 's this to make them Disciples of Christ And if they can learn nothing of the parents either by action or voyce yet Christ hath other ways of teaching than by men even by the immediate working of his Spirit Answ. 'T is true and he may make infants Disciples nor do I deny it to be done invisibly but it would be a greater wonder than yet Mr. B. hath had for all his wonderments a very prodigy that any of them should become a visible Disciple 'T is true they may learn something of God very young and are to be bred up in the nurture of the Lord. But that in their infancy at two or three dayes old they are learners of the things of God of the admonition of the Lord from mothers and nurses is a fiction like Galilaeus his New World in the Moon or Copernicus his Circumgyration of the earth Mr. B. tels us he might argue further All that are saved are Christs Disciples some infants are saved Ergo. And I might answer him that they may be saved and yet no visible Disciples according to the meaning of Christ Matth. 28 19. But sith he hath put this off to another time I shall take a little breathing from Mr. B. and set him aside a little while till I have heard what his seniors say further for their baby-baptism SECT XVI Dr. Featley and Mr. Stephens arguings from John 3. 5. for Infant-baptism are answerâ—d and Baptism shewed not be a cause of Regeneration and Mr. Cranfords words considered THere are some other Texts broughâ— to prove an institution of infant-baptism out of the New Testament which I shall take in though the Assembly and the chiefest I have to do with in this controversie do omit them The Ancients were wont to allege Joh. 3. 5. to prove infants are to be baptized after Christs appointment or rather the reasonableness and necessity of the Churches appointment Augustine in his writings often joyns Rom. 5. 12 and John 3. 5. as the reason of infant baptism Lumb Sent. 4. Dist. 3. allegeth some as making the institution of baptism to be John 3. 5. The Papists commonly allege John 3. 5. for the necessity of infant-baptism Becan Manual l. 4. c. 2. Mandatum habemus Joan. 3. 5. They are refuted by the Protestants as Chamier tom 4. l. 5. de bapt c. 9. yet Vossius thes Th. de paedobapt thes 7. brings it to which being in Latin I have answered in Latin in my Refutation of Dr. Savage his supposition though contrary to my expectation not yet printed Dr. Featley in his Dipper dipt p. 10. 43. makes it one of his prime arguments for infant-baptism p. 10. he thus argues If none can enter into the Kingdom of God but those that are born of Water and the Spirit that is those that are baptized with Water and regenerated by the Spirit then there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God that is ordinarily for we must not tie God to outward means But the former is true Ergo the latter And pag. 43. none ought to exclude the children of the faithfull out of the Kingdom of Heaven But by denying them baptism as much as in us lieth we exclude them out of the Kingdom of Heaven For as Christ affirmed to Nicodemus and confirmed it with a double oath or most vehement asseveration Amen Amen or verily verily I say unto thee except a man he born of Water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Ergo we ought not to deny them baptism Answ. This arguing is the same in effect notwithstanding the Doctors mincing it which is but a little with that which the Papists bring for their horrid tenet of Exclusion out of the Kingdom of Heaven of infants dying unbaptized For he holds that there is a necessity of baptizing children or else they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily In which assertion he denies any infants enterance into the kingdom of God ordinarily without water-baptism And no more is said as I conceive by the more moderate Papists such as Biel Cajetan Gerson cited by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the probleme But no marvail the Doctor who was addicted to the Common Prayer Book concurred thus far with the Papists For in it the Doctrine of Augustin and others is retained of asserting the necessity of infant-baptism because of original sin and Christs words Ioh. 3. 5. as appears by the Preface appointed to be used before the solemnity of Baptism But Protestant Divines do generally refute this opinion as e. g. Chamier Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. de Bapt. c. 8. c. teaching that infants of believers are ordinarily holy and admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven though dying unbaptized But to answer his Arguments 1. it 's known that Calvin Piscator and many more do take water metaphorically and the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to be exegetical not coupling differing things but expounding what is meant by water as if he had said that water which is the Spirit as when it is said Mat. 3. 11. He shall baptize with you the Holy Ghost and with fire that is with the Holy Ghost which is as fire And this they conceive as necessary that the speech of Christ may be verified For simply understood it is false sith the Thief on the Cross sundry Martyrs and others have entered into the Kingdom of Heaven unbaptized And this Exposition Chamier Panstrat Cath. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 9. hath taken upon him to maintain against the opposites to it and if true the objection of Dr. Featley fals which rests on this that there a necessity of water-baptism is imposed on all that shall enter into the Kingdom of God Nevertheless I confess my self unsatisfied in this Exposition 1 Because I do not think that Matth. 3. 11. by fire is meant the Holy Ghost as being like fire in his operation on every sanctified person but that the words are an express prophesie of what Christ also foretold Acts 1. 5. and was accomplished at Pentecost Acts 2. 3. when the Holy Ghost filled them and fiery cloven tongues sate upon each of them 2. Because if it were parallel to that place and water were used metaphorically as is said by them and exegetically added water should be
after and spirit before as Matth. 3. 11. spirit is first and fire after and after the usual manner of speaking it should run thus except a man be born of the spirit and water if it were to be expounded of the spirit which is as water Dr. Homes animadv on my Exercit pag. 30. allegeth Bullinger saying Omnes penè de baptismo Ioh. 3. 5. interpretantur to which he adjoyns Bullingers and his own consent For these reasons I am much inclined to expound it of the Element of Water Yet 2. am very apt to conceive that forasmuch as Mr. Selden de jurenat Gent. juxta discipl Heb. lib. 2. cap. 4. tels us that when the Iews did initiate Proselytes by baptizing them with water they called it Regenerating and that Christ when he taunts Nicodemus with dulness in being a Master in Israel and yet not knowing of Regeneration but by imagining a natural New-birth when Regeneration was frequent in baptizing Proselytes among the Iews insomuch that by it they taught a person lost his natural relations of kinred as he shews lib. 5. c. 18. and hath these words in the place above cited tamet si de eâ quae spiritu fit non solùm aquâ loqueretur Christus our Saviour meant baptism of water not according to his Apostles practice but the Iews and that the sense is this Except a man be born of water and of the spirit that is Except a man be not onely born again by water as ye Pharisees regenerate when ye make Proselytes but also by the spirit as I do beget again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God although he may enter into the Common-wealth or policy of Israel which sense nevertheless doth not assert a necessity of their water-regeneration but onely of Christs spiritual regeneration and the insufficiency of the other by it self which is so much the more probable because I finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is and for but Motth 11. 19. 12. 39. Acts 10. 28. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 26. 29. seems to answer to not onely but also yet because I finde not a place every way parallel I onely propound it to be examined But 3. it being granted that it is meant of Christs water-baptism yet Papists themselves make not such a necessity of it as is without limitation and exception and therefore they put in some one some another restriction which Chamier in the place alleged reduceth to four 1. Unless the person be baptized either with the baptism of water or some other thing instead of it as the baptism of bloud and spirit 2. If they may be baptized and they despise it 3. If they be not baptized with that Regeneration which is by water though it may be otherwise also 4. If they be neither baptized in deed nor desire Why may not then this limitation be added Except a man be born again of water that is except such a person of whom baptism is required according to my institution be born of water when he may have it and it s cleared to him to be his duty he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And indeed this and such like speeches Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 18 â—6 c. that require faith as well as baptism are to be understood of persons to whom the Gospel is preached and do or may hear it and speak not of infants whom we finde not that God enters into the Kingdom of Heaven any other way than by his invisible election and operation of his Spirit And it is observable that whereas Iohn 3. 5. our Saviour joyns water and spirit as means of Regeneration yet v. 6. he names onely the spirit omitting water whence may be gathered that water is not of such universal unrestrained necessity that in no case a person is not born again without it nor admissible into the Kingdom of God yet such as is necessary ordinarily to those to whom the Gospel is preached and their duty made known Whence in answer to the Doctors argument I say that his speeches are to be thus limited at least none can enter into the Kingdom of God ordinarily without baptism to wit of those to whom the Gospel is preached their duty made known and Baptism may be had and to his later Argument I answer by denying that children are excluded out of the Kingdom of Heaven by denying them Baptism sith those unbaptized persons onely are excluded who are appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel is preached the duty of Baptism made known and they may have it administred to them which cannot be said of infants Mr. Nathaniel Stephens in his Book intituled A Precept for the Baptism of Infants out of the New Testament having premised some thing about the Text Iohn 3. 5. pag. 18 19 20 21 22. about the necessity of baptism of water and the efficacy of it in which many things are meerly dictated and very slightly handled he would infer pag. 23 c. a Precept for infant-baptism from Iohn 3. 5. because infants are guilty of original sin where the disease is there is need of the remedy when Christ doth press a necessity of washing both by water and the spirit he doth not this so immediately in reference to actual sin as in reference to birth-sin and to the natural pollution in which infants are born The same is the plea of Mr. Thomas Fuller in his Infants Advocate c. 13. Answ. That either baptism of water or Circumcision are made the remedy of original sin is more than I finde in Scripture though it go as currant among many of former and later times It is true our Lord Christ saith Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 5. and he assigns this as a reason thereof v. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh but that either thereby he intended to make baptism as the remedy of sin or of original sin rather than actual is more than appears For though our Lord Christ v. 5. make regeneration to be by Water and Spirit yet I conceive regeneration is by the Spirit onely as the cause by baptism of water onely as the sign whereby the person baptized testifies that he is born again by the Spirit Now a remedy is a cause and not a sign onely no man calls that which is onely a sign of cure a remedy but that which doth operate for healing That baptism of water is not the cause of regeneration appears 1. Because v. 6. our Saviour giving the reason of the necessity of regeneration and the effect of regeneration leaves ouâ— water and mentions onely the Spirit 2. Because the person baptized is supposed to be born again to be a repenting and believing person afore he is baptized But if baptism were the cause it should be before regeneration for the cause is before the effect and so men should be
believers not future But However saith he they may be Disciples who are are not outwardly taught Answ. Who denies it yet they must be learners of Christ in their own persons But then saith he a person may be baptized without personal profession Answ. It is granted when God supplies the absence of it by his revelation otherwise nor is this contrary to the Rule sith that is to baptise known Disciples who are ordinarily known by their personal profession though in this case Gods extraordinary act supplies that want Yet Mr. Cobbets saying is not right that neither extraordinarily nor ordinarily is any thing to be done which is in it self contrary to rule For Abrahams killing his son was in it self contrary to rule yet upon extraordinary command it was to be done And for the third though it might be conceived Christs minde that the children should be instructed though it be not mentioned Luke 18. 16 17. because it was a duty of perpetual equity by virtue of the moral Law yet baptising infants being a meer positive rite that hath no reason or warrant but institution is not to be conceived Christs minde without some declaration which he neither then when he had so fit opportunity nor at any time else expressed There are some more things in Mr. Cobbet censurable as that he makes the infants paterns as well of receiving the kingdom at least externally as of the affection and disposition with which it is to be received whereas â— the words Matth. 18. 3â—4 do plainly make them paterns onely of humility and such good dispositions as are in children fit to be imitated 2. In Mr. Cobbets sense the words of Christ would be false whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little childe externally by an initial seal or some other visible sign as laying on hands c. shall not enter therein For then that Popish Doctrine or rather more rigid than Popish must be maintained that no unbaptized Martyr or other shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven And in like manner it is gratis dictum without proof sayd of such like infants like them in covenant and Church interest in God is his kingdom there being not a word in the Text that leads to this paraphrase and the plain meaning is before expressed That which Mr. Cobbet sayth in answer to the reason of Piscator Why they were not infants because Christ called them I conceive is not an answer For what he sayth that things ascribed to the children are rather to be understood of parents and he instanceth in Levi's paying Tyths in Abraham Heb. 7. is not right For 1. that which is sayd of Levi is to be understood of Levi not of Abraham for it were neither good sense nor to his purpose to say Abraham payd Tyths in Abraham 2. If things done by a parent and related by the Holy Ghost as mysterious passages are imputed to the children yet it is absurd to understand in an historical narration of facts that to be meant as spoken to the parents which was spoken to the children Other things I let pass which oppose not my dispute but others and what things he speaks in answer to my Objections and what concerns the answering the imaginary absurdities arising from our Doctrine in that chapter I refer to another place This is sufficient in answer to what he sayth in opposition to me about that passage Luke 18. 16 17. Dr. Homes in his Animad on my Exercit. pag. 57 58. argues thus To whom indefinitely as such Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs to them as such the seal of converance and confirmation of Heaven and that blessing belongs For if the Land be mine the Deeds and Seals of Conveyance are mine But Heaven and the blessing of and for Heaven belongs indefinitely to such little children more whiles little children so the Text here expresly To them belong or which is all one of such is the kingdom of Heaven and he took them in his arms and blessed them Therefore to little children indefinitely belongs the Seal of Conveyance or Confirmation of Heaven and the blessing of Heaven which in the New Testament according to the time Christ spake is baptism Answ. Neither is it true That baptism is the seal of conveyance of heaven and the blessing for it that I finde in Scripture but the Spirit Ephos. 4. 30. Ephes. 1. 13. 2 Cor. 1. 22. Nor is it true That heaven and the blessing of heaven belong to little children indefinitely as such that is as little children For then it should belong to all little children nor to them as children of believing parents for it should belong to all children of believing parents but as they are elect And to these I grant baptism belongs when they are called and believe not before as a conveyance may be made to a childe yet he is not to have it in his hands till he come to understand it and is fit to make use of it So that the major may be denied if the belonging of the seal be meant in respect of present use or possession And the minor is to be denied if as such be meant as little children or children of believers and the inference on the conclusion is denied the seal belongs to them Ergo baptism Other arguments of Dr. Homes are answered in my Apology pag. 102. though briefly yet sufficiently Nor hath Mr. Geree in his Vâ—ndiciae Vindiciarum ch 10. brought any thing worth rejoyning in reply to my answer to his sixth argument in my Apology pag. 101 102. It is false which he saith in admitting to ordinances we proceed not upon judgment of certainty but charity nor is a judgment of charity grounded upon hope of what a person may be any rule to us in admitting to baptism For if so then hope of a profane persons amendment were enough to baptize him Mr. Bailleâ—'s reasoning in his Anabaptism pag. 149. since imposition of hands a seal of Christs grace and blessing and of the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to infants that therefore baptism a seal of that same kinde when once the Lord had solemnely at his ascension appointed it to be the ordinary seal of initiation into his Church ought not to be denied to them is but dictates 1. He says baptism is a seal of the same kinde with Christs laying on hands which he saith without proof nor is it true For. 1. Christs laying on hands was an act extraordinary done by Christ himself as the great Prophet but baptism was an act of ordinary ministration not done by Christ himself but his Disciples John 4. 1 2. 2. Baptism was the duty of the baptized Acts 2. 38. not onely the baptizers but not so laying on hands by Christ. 3. If baptism be a seal of the same kinde with laying on of hands then laying on hands is a seal and a Sacrament of the same kind with baptism which is counted a point of Popery 2. To
the flesh that is being the childe of a believer by natural generation but that he deduceth their casting out of the Church from it and that the birth after the flesh is taken in the worser part as that which bringeth bondage not Church estate or Christian liberty nor doth birth after the flesh respect the descent from a believer but the bond-woman and that this birth is in the Antitype allegoâ—ical and yet the Adverbs then and now are Adverbs of time and a history is related in both parts of the 29. v. of Gal. 4. Generally interpreters take the words even so it is now as meant of the Jews which cannot be true literally for they were not born after the flesh that is of bond-women but of free-women which were true Israelites or daughters of Abraham as Mr. B. here confesseth Mr. Bl. proceeds Secondly he sayth that I say such are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth they persecute the Church and are cast out I desire the Reader to consider if this had any truth in it whether it hold with greater strength for me or him They are cast out and therefore they were in is my Argument they are cast out and therefore were never in sayth Mr. T. 2. The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out Ishmael was in the family when he persecuted though afterwards he was cast out of the family these are in the Church though in case they continue persecution they shall in fine be cast out now in present they have a being in it Answ. It is true that this was my second Exception against his gross perverting of the Apostles words even so it is now as if the meaning were that by virtue of being born after the flesh some infants to wit those that are born of a believing parent are in the bosom of the Church when the Apostle sayth 1. They persecute which cannot be meant of infants 2. In that they are born after the flesh they persecute the Church therefore he ascribes no privilege to them as accruing to them by the birth after the flesh but a cursed practice 3. That they persecute the Church therefore while born after the flesh they were not in the bosom of the Church that is the Church Christian visible 4. That they are cast out therefore not in the Church To the two first of these nothing is answered the consequence of the third is denied he supposeth they did persecute the Church and yet remained in which is most palpably false For this being apparently meant of the unbelieving Jews that sought righteousness by the Law and acknowledged so by Interpreters it is notoriously false that they were in the bosom of the Christian Church while they did persecute the Church yea Saul himself was not after his conversion taken in presently to communion with the Disciples at Jerusalem till they knew that he ceased to be a persecutor Acts 9. 26. so that the words even so it is now expounded as Mr. Bls. words intimate even so now by virtue of being born after the flesh that is by natural generation born of a believing parent there are some even infants that are in the bosom of the Christian visible Church as members of it and remaining in it do persecute the Church are so false and the Exposition so unsavoury that it is a wonder to me that neither Mr. Bl. nor the Prefacers to his Book take care to have it left out That which Mr. Bl. answers to the fourth thing in this exception is of like stamp 1. He sayth It follows not they were cast out therefore never in But my Argument is this they were by reason of their being born after the flesh cast out therefore not for this reason in the bosom of the Church 2. That it follows they are cast out therefore they were in which consequence I deny being understood of the Church Christian visible and the particular persons who are sayd to be cast out for they are sayd to be cast out not from what they had but from what they might have had or others had as Matth. 8. 12. it is sayd The children of the Kingdom shall be east out of the Kingdom of Heaven v. 11. in which others were and they not into outer darkness He sayth also The Apostle sayth no such thing that they are cast out but mentions a command of casting them out To which I replied As if Gods dictum were not factum if they were not cast out why doth the Apostle allege that Text My meaning was Gods speech of the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael was not a bare command but such as included a sentence and decree of God which he took course to execute and that the Apostle allegeth the Text not to prove a duty but to shew an event or fact of God For as the Apostle allegeth it the casting out is of the legal covenant and the children of it those that desired to be under the Law and their casting out is their rejecting from the inheritance of righteousness and being Gods people now this could not be any mans duty but Gods act determining and accordingly accomplishing this sentence that righteousness shall not be by the Law nor Justitiaries his people and therefore it is most absurd in Mr. Bl. to determine that some by virtue of being born after the flesh have a right to be in the bosom of the Church Christian when the Apostle determines they are for this reason rejected or cast out I had thirdly excepted against Mr. Bl. as making those that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed wherein he joyns with Arminius in calling them Abrahams seed who sought justice in the Law Mr. Bl. Vindic. Foed cap. 40. sayth I joyn with Arminius and that he follows Mr. Bayne For sayth he I interpret it of a natural seed that inherit outward privileges and never reach the birth of the spirit so Mr. Baines interprets it the children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham Baines on Ephes. 1. pag. 140. quarto Answ. It is true Mr. Bayne hath those words but yet he excepteth pag. 139. against Arminius as I do for calling legal justitiaries who are meant by they that are born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. Abrahams seed For there he thus speaks Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken It is true that Mr. Baines so interprets the term children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bl. hath cited him which place he meant by here but not the teâ—m he that is born after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. yea pag. 138. he saith For though children of the flesh in some other Scripture meaning Gal. 4. 29. doth note out justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here Rom. 9. 8. the literal