were prohibited to be circumcised it being limitted to the males on the 8. day Mr. M. addes I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours that it had been a sin for a child to have been circumcised after the eight day was past and try how you will reconcile this with another opinion of yours delivered elsewhere viz. That Circumcision might be administred oftner then once surely those other times must be after the 8. day Answ. Where I deliver this that Circumcision might be administred oftner than once I remember not except in my Examen page 118. However I conceive no necessity of Circumcision or baptism above once yet I profess my self unsatisfyed in this that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised or a person once onely baptized And my reason of the speech is from hence 1 Cor. 7.18 the Apostle saith Is one called circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him not be drawn up that is let him not draw up his foreskin we translate it Let him not become uncircumcised Whence it may be perceived that some Jews had an art to draw up their fore-skin Now in such a case while the Law stood in force I conceive he was bound to be circumcised again because it was to abide in his flesh Gen. 17.13 Nor do my words at all contradict this when I say more fully then Mr. M. recites them It had been a sin for a child to be circumcised afore or after the eigth day in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God where I make the sin not to be the doing of it on the eighth day and then doing it again though I deny not but unnecessarily to do it after the eight day had been sin that day being determined for it but not doing it that day which God appointed by those that altered or swerved from that appointment unnecessarily which in the case mentioned and any other of the like might be done after the eighth day But M. M. will confirm his proofs that the women were circumcised in the men My first saith he to me was that the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised You answer that by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all but the Major part But Sir do you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfyed with this answer when you know well enough that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised that is all the rest of the World who were not the people of God When Peter was to go to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel does not circumcision include the women Jews as much as the men in opposition to Gentiles as well as the word Gentiles includes women Gentiles as well as the men to whom Paul was sent Gal. 2.8 9. Surely it must needs be granted that not only the Major or nobler part but the whole nation of the Jews both men and women are there meant by circumcision which could not have been if in some sense they were not to be accounted circumcised Answ. My Answer might satisfie any judicious Reader specially if the texts had been fairly set down by Mr. M. wherein I shew all Israel and all the house of Israel must be understood Synecdochically 1 Sam. 7.3 Acts 2.36 Acts 13.24 And if in the term circumcision be not a Synecdoche of the whole for the part not onely every individual in Israel must be in some sense accounted circumcised but be actually circumcised also in their own persons Nor against such a Synecdoche doth it make that circumcision stands in opposition to the uncircumcised which is meant of every individual For neither is it true when the uncircumcised are mentioned it is meant of every individual there being many of those nations that were circumcised and if it were true yet the opposition doth not prove every individual Jew circumcised any more then when they are called the holy Nation in opposition to the Gentiles as when it was said Israel was holiness to the Lord Jerem. 2.3 every Israelite or Jew must be counted holy in some sense but the terms are attributed Synecdochically And for the other instance I grant circumcision must include Gal. 2.8 women as well as men because Peter was to go to them but this proves not that women were in some sense accounted circumcised in the males but that they are part of the nation which were called the Circumcision Synecdochically because of the males And for the term Gentiles there must be in like manner a Synecdoche conceived of the whole for a part else he should be sent to preach to infant males as well as women of years Secondly saith Mr. M. I argued thus no uncircumcised might eat the Passoever Ergo their women might not have eaten it if in some sense they had not been circumcised Your answer is This is to be limitted pro subjecta maâ—eria none that ought to be circumcised might eat the Passeover unless they were circumcised But this answer is altogether insufficient For where is this distinction of yours found or founded in the word of God other Distinctions about eating the Passeover are cleerly found the clean might eat it the unclean might not eat it the circumcised might the uncircumcised might not But of your limitation there is altum silentium Answ. Mr. Ms. conclusion is That in some sense women were circumcised and before in some sense they were counted circumcised neither of which is the same with this they were circumcised virtually in the males or the males were circumcised in their stead as their Proxy or Atturney 2. My answer was right and to his Demand where it is found in the word of God I answer by another demand where is his limitation found in Gods word that women might eat the Passeover because they were in some sense accounted circumcised Sure the words are Exod. 12.48 No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof not as Mr. M. none but those that are counted in some sense circumcised may eat thereof If there be in Scripture that which doth necessitate to a limitation of that speech my limitation is as well in Scripture as his is yea my limitation is plain and easie whereas his limitation is liable to this objection that when Gods Law requires persons to be circumcised that they might eat the Passeover if Mr Ms. limitation or explication be good it should require no more but this that persons in some sense should be accounted circumcised For so Mr. M. understands the Law and then though the males were not actually circumcised but virtually in some sense so accounted they might eat it without breach of the Law which absurdity doth not follow on my limitation but follows inevitably on Mr. Ms. 2. Saith Mr. M. I demand further where is there any command or institution for women to eat the Passeover
there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant If it be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose Answer It is true I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon pag. 9 10. in these words That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families the one called the Kingdom City Houshold of God to which all who own the way of life were to joyn themselves and thâ—se were called the children of God the sons of Abraham the children of the Kingdom all the rest of the world the Kingdom of the Devil the seed of the Serpent strangers from the covenant of grace without God in the world c. The substance of this covenant of grace on Gods part was to be Abraham's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life Gen. 17.1 c. Gal. 3.15 Rom. 4.3 John 8.56 On Abraham's part the substance of the covenant was to believe the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Gal. 3.16 Gen. 17.1 18.19 Gal. 3.17 19. In which passage I did conceive that Mr. M. meant by the substance of the covenant of grace the promise as it is purely evangelical which I conceived to be the same with the new covenant mentioned Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. 10.16 17. And this I was sure was not made with all Abrahams natural posterity much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such but onely so many of either as are elect and believe as Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.29 is determined and so none of a believing Gentiles children are in this covenant but they that are believers or elected to faith in Christ. But then this would not serve Mr. Ms. turn And therefore notwithstanding those words in his Sermon yet in his Defence pag. 90. he saith The covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church-privileges but in what sense he means it contains them he declares not That which is contained in a covenant is either the promise or the condition The seal writing writer pen and such like adjuncts are never called the covenant nor contained in it though they be instrumental to hold forth the covenant Now where any promise is of outward ordinances and Church-privileges or how they should be a condition of the promises I understand not He distinguisheth pag 106. of the covenant of grace thus The covenant of grace is sometimes taken strictly sometimes largely as it is considered strictly it is a covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justifi-fication regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly as the covenant of grace is taken largely it comprehends all evangelical administrations which do wholly depend upon the free and gracious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in types shadows and other legal ordinances this covenant of administration God said Zachary 11.10 he did break with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration we live under where also he rejected the Jews or broke them off from being his people in covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branch and broken off as your self pag. 65. do with Beza rightly express it But herein Mr. M. confounds what in his Sermon he distinguished the covenant of grace and the administration of it He saith The covenant of grace largely taken comprehends all evangelical administrations and saith This administration is fulfilled By the evangelical administrations he means the old legal ordinances afore Christs death and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lords Supper pag. 120. he saith Our Divines own the outward administration of the covenant under the notion of foedus externum the outward covenant Now if there be sense in these passages I must needs charge my self with dulness who cannot discern it Is it sense to call that a covenant without a Trope which is neither a promise nor a condition of a covenant to say that the covenant contains or comprehends evangelical administrations and yet to call it the administration it self to say this administration was administred and not something by the administration administred But let us considee what others make of this distinction of covenant strictly and largely taken or which is all one the inward and outward covenant I have met with none that speaks more distinctly than Mr. Anthony Burges in his Book entituled Spiritual Refining Sect. 8. Serm. 64. pag. 393. who was one of the Assembly The external covenant is that whereby in an outward visible manner God doth own a people add they externally profess their owning of him but yet in their hearts and souls they do not stedfastly cleave unto God and faithfully keep this covenant in the conditions thereof The internal or inward covenant is that whereby God doth in a spiritual powerfull manner take a people to him working in their hearts all those gifts and graces promised in the covenant as regeneration remission of sins adoption and the like And in this sense onely the truly godly are in the covenant and they are onely Gods people and he their God This distinction of a covenant into outward and inward is not a distinction of a genus into its species so much as a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it In this passage there is want of clearness as well as in M. Marshals He tels us negatively that it is not a distinction of a genus into its species yet with some mincing of the matter so much as if it might be the distinction of a genus into its species though not so much which is an expression of a man who would say somewhat but cannot well tell what to say But if it be not a distinction of a genus into its species what distinction is
yet more advantagious 3. But how ever it be of the title to glory or eternity it 's most certain that according to the very law of nature infants were to have been Churchmembers if man had stood The first text therefore that I cite for infants Churchmembership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitfull and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nâ—ture infants were to have been born in Gods image and in innocency and so Churchmembers And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their owne estate to bee as the parents were even in Gods image Answ. 1. If this prove their Churchmembership it proves not their visible Churchmembership of which onely is the question 2. If it prove a law or ordinance yet it proves not such a law or ordinance as is in question which is not a law or ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be or they shall be so accounted For such a law or ordinance of their visible Churchmembership onely can infer their admission as visible Churchmembers they being to be actually visible Churchmembers afore admission according to Mr. Bs. own dictates and therefore not de jure onely such 3. If it did prove such a law or ordinance yet it proves it not to be by such a promise and precept as Mr. B asserts 4. If it did yet it onely proves it of the Church by nature which hath a great difference from the Church by grace this being onely by election and calling not by birth 5. If this law or ordinance be unrepealed then it is in force and according to the law of nature invariable that man be born without sin For man is born according to the law of procreation Gen. 1.28 and if this were the law of nature that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their own estate to be as the parents were even in Gods image then still the law of nature continues and so there is no original sin or it is repealed and so it is not such a law as Mr. B. asserts 6. The words God created blessed do note onely a transeunt fact and therefore what ever Divines imagine about Gods Covenant with man this passage onely tells what God did but mentions no such law or ordinance by promise or precept as Mr. B. conceives and therefore it is manifestly impertinent to his purpose Let 's view the next and main Text. The next institution saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership was at the first proclamation of grace to faln man or in the first promise of redemption to sinners in Gen. 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers And to this end let us first consider what the words expresly contain and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them It being a known rule that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise 1. That the Devil having played the enemy to mankind and brought them into this sin and misery God would not leave them remediless nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he â—â—ght have done But in grace 〈◊〉 undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him in which they that conâ—uered should bruise his head 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ the principal seed is promised to be our General whose perfect nature should contain and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan and who should make a perfect coâ—quest over him 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womâ—ns seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age So that here an infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army and Head of the Church This is most evident By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation For the first promise is of an infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church and growing up to maturity to do the works of a Head Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an infant Where note 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church and in things which he was capable oâ— he did that first in his own body which he would after do in theirs 2. That the Head is a Member even the principal Member one of the two parts which constitute the whole As the pars impâ—rans and pars subdita do constitute each Commonwealth So that it an infant must be a member eminently so called then infants are not excluded from membership but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature If an infant may be Soveraign no doubt he may be a Subject If an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples If you still harp on the old strâ—ng and say They are no Disciples that learn not you may as well say He is no Prophet that teacheth not And if you will openly deny Christ in infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion as soon as I know you own it The promise then of an infant Head doth declare Gods mind that he will have infants members because the head is the principal member Answ. The thing to be proved by Mr. B. is that there is a law or ordinance of God unrepealed that not onely in the Church Jewish but in the Christian properly so called the infants of believers by vertue of Gods promise to be the God of the faithfull and their seed and a precept to parents to accept of the mercy offered and re-engage them to God should be and be taken to be visible members But that he takes upon him to prove is that it is the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church that he excluded not the infant state from the visible Church that it is his mind that he will have infant members all which we might
and therefore it is enough for me to deny it as being false concerning abortives still-born infant children elect and others 10. Saith he If Christ have promised his presence to his Church to the end of the world and to walk among his golden canâ—lesticks and take pleasure in her but not so to those without the Church then it is better being withâ—n though but as the Jews then without But the former is true therefore the latter Did I not resolve on breviâ—y it were easier to cite multitudes of texts for all these Answ. Mr. B. should prove his minor that Christ hath promised these things to infants in the visible Church Jewish and not to infants of believers who are not visible churchmembers Christian for which though he talk of multitudes of texts yet I shall not believe he hath any till he produce them He adds But upon this much I say to the contrary minded as Joshua in another case choose you of what society you will be of but as for me and my houshold we will be of the Church of God Answ. And so say I if I can prevail with them or for them Mr. B. adds And had I children I should be loth God should shut thâ—m out Answ. So sâ—y I. Again Mr. B. For without are dogs extortioners liars c. Even Christ calls the woman of Canaan that was without a dog though when he had admitted her into his Church she became a daughter Answ. The words Revel 22.15 without are dogs the verse foregoing shews to be meant of being without the city where the blessed enter and it being compared with Rev. 21.8 thence appears that they that are without are cast into the lake burning with fire and brimstone which is the second death which if he say as his words intimate of all that are not visible churchmembers he pronounceth a bloudy sentence against millions that are in heaven and must be a hundred times more uncomfortable to parents concerning their abortive still-born children then any thing I ever held And his abuse of Christs words Matth. 15.26 Mark 7 27. is yet more gross in alledging them after that Rev 22.15 as if dogs Matth. 15.26 were of the same sense with dogs in the other whereas Rev. 12.15 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth note such as rend them that give holy things to them Matth. 7.6 but Matth. 15.26 Mark 7.27 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 little dogs and doth not note persons so called from their profane â—ischievous impious behaviour but in opposition to children that is Jews such as were of Gâ—â—tile discent and therefore accounted unclean And the application of them is as bad as if the not maâ—ing infants Christian visible churchmembers made them dogs in either sense Whereas to make theâ— dogs as Rev. 22.15 is meant is not onely to make them non-visible churchmembers but also of most wicked manners and damned wretches and the term dogs as used Matth. 15 26. might be applied as well to visible church-members not Jewish such as Cornelius Acts 10.2 as to those out of it Nor doth it appear that our Lord Christ either admitted the woman of Canaan into his Church or termed her daughter as Mr. Bs. words intimate but woman after her manifestation of faith So that Mr. B. as his wont is doth prophanely abuse the Scripture to make his adversaries teneâ— appear odious without cause What he adds I say therefore as Peter whither shall we go if we forsake the Church It is good for us to be here those that will needs think it better to be out of the Church then in it let them go they need no Anathema nor excommunication seeing they think it such a mercy to bee without the Church I will not say of it as Paul of his ship except ye abide in it ye cannot â—ee saved and so I conclude Christ did not come to believers hurt by unchurching their children doth but shew his malignant disposition to spit as much venome as hee can against his antagonists and their doctrine calumniating it as tending to forsaking the Church thinking it better to be out of the Church then in it thinking it a mercy to bee without the Church Christ did come to believers hurt by unchurching their children none of which followes from my tenet but the charging of them on it shewing Mr. Bs. spightfulness towards mee and the truth which the Lord forgive him In the same vein of scribling Mr. B. proceeds thus ch 15. My 10th arg is this from Heb. 8.6 Jesus is the mediator of a better Covenant established on better promises Heb. 7.22 And the Author of a better testament Rom. 5.14 15 20. Where sin abounded grace much more abounded Ephes. 3.19 20. That ye may comprehend the height and breadth and length and depth and know the love of Christ which passeth knowledg with a hundred the like places from whence I argue thus If the Church of Christ be not in a worse state now in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comfort therein then it was before Christs comming then our children ought to bee Churchmembers and consequently that ordinance and merciful gift is not repealed But all the said texts and many more shew that the Church of Christ is not in a worse condition now then it was then but unconceivably better therefore our children ought to bee Churchmembers as well as theirs was then I have before proved that it is worse to bee out of ehe Church then in it and then nothing else can bee said against this argument that I know of Answ. That Mr. B. hath not proved any thing he should have proved in contradiction to my tenet is before shewed To the argument here made I answer 1. by denying the syllogâ—sm to be right in form for want of putting in the minor those words in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comâ—ort therein and adding in the minor those words but unconceivably better which were not in the major whereby the syllogisâ— is monstrous consisting of â—our or five terms 2. Letting that pass I deny the consequence of the major and aver that though our infants be not visible Churchmembers now yet the Church of Christ is not in a worse state now in regard of their childrens happiness and their parents comforts therein then it was before Christs comâ—ing but unconceivably better in regard of the comming of Christ in the flesh the gift of the spirit the preaching of the gospel c. 3. That none of the texts speak any thing for Mr. Bs. purpose but rather against it In the first it is said the Covenant of which Christ is mediator is better then that of which Moses or Aaron were mediators and that it is established on better promises the former containing for the most part promises of earâ—hly blessings in Canaan and that promise which was of righteousness was upon the condition of keeping the Law without promise of the
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
pretence we are unbaptized to which end they must coin a new baptism or else they are at a loss And their arguing with 〈◊〉 will be much like the Papists in the point of Transubstantiation which requireth that men renounce their sense and say that they see not that which they seâ— and feel not or tast not that which indeed they feel and tast and then they may come to be in the right and so we must beleeve that we see none baptized in our Churches nor hear it nor know of any such thing and then we may come to be a Church As if the arguing were that there is nothing which Paedobaptists call baptism in their Churches not there is nothing that may bee truely called Christian baptism according to Christs institution and then p. 300. after his fashion when he wants arguments he adds Oh if it were the will of God that we could have as clear light in some other weighty points as we have in Scripture for the baptism of the children of beleevers how much would it do to quiet the understandings of many that are willing to know I dare not say it is a wonder to me to finde such passages in Mr. Baxter but having examined his book of baptism his ten reasons for his practise of Infant baptism delivered in Bewdley Chappel May 4. 1656. His Letters to me 1655. set down here sect 53 c. I cannot but bemoan the sad condition first of Ministers and people who are carried away with such shallow disputings and confident speeches as Mr. Baxter hath used in these writings 2. Of my self and all who go about to cleer truth that they be necessiâ—ated to stir up such a nest of Wasps and Hornets as these have shewed themselves to be who have opposed me if thâ—y do never so brotherly and fairly and regularly declare their judgments contrary to the common received tenents Yet I must confess two things have somewhat refreshed mee against the hard censures of those whom Mr. Blake mentions and the rest the one that His Highness and Council and the Parliament since as I am informed confirming the Ordinance for approbation of publique Preachers seem to have better thoughâ—s of me in putting that trust on me thâ— other that to mention no other two of the ablest acutest and well read Divines and accurate Dispuâ—anâ—s which I have known the University of Oxford in my time to have bred and who have been thought sit for the Divinity Chair have had far other conceits of my writings then these have had the one not long after the publishing of my Examen expressing his rejoycing to see so accurate and scholastical a discussing of the point which he found not in the Assembly wishing he had known of it afore the publishing of it that he might have prefixed an Epistle yet wishing it had been written in Latin as foreseeing that the publishing it in English was likely to beget me more trouble then it would have done if printed in Latin the other who since that wrote thus to me I am a friend to your person whom I have known though not known to you this 31. years and to your opinion too as to the main of it for I beleeve and know that there is neither precept nor practise in Scripture for Paedobaptism nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ. The first who bears witness to Infant baptism prastised in the Church is Tertullian but so as he expresâ—â—d slikâ—s and condemnes it as an unwarrantable and irrational customâ— and Naxianzen a good while after him in his Oration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dislikes it too and would not have infants brought to baptism till they were of some age and able to answer for themselves Sure I am that in the Primitive times they were first to be Catechumini â—f then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminati or baptizati and that not onely children 〈◊〉 Pagans or Pagans converted but children of Christian parents Naâ—ianzen though a Bishops son being not baptized till he was about 30. years of age as appears in his life and the like is evident of some others· The truth is I beleeve Pâ—dobaptism did how or by whom I know not come in in the 2d Century and in the 3d. and 4th began to be practised though not generally and defended as lawfull from that text grosly misunderstood Jo. 3.5 Vpon the like gross mistake of Jo. 6.53 they did for many Centuries both in the Greek and Latin Church communicate infants and give them the Lords Supper and I confess they might do both as well as either But although they baptized some infants and thought it lawfull so to do yet Augustin was the first that ever said it was necessary inde durus pater infantum I have read what my learned and worthy friend Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and others say in defence of it and I confess I wonder not a little that men of such great parts should say so much to so little purpose for I have not yet seen any thing like an argument for it Nor is it a small case to me that I finde after all Mr. Baxters shamefull and vain arguings against the truth and injurious dealings with me and the baptized Christians with whom I hold Communion that yet at last though quite besides his intentions he hath so befriended our cause as to lend us twenty good arguments against Infant baptism in his 2d disputation of right to Sacraments in the close of the 16th saying thus p. 156. I conclude that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention onely the administration of it to the professors of saving faith and the precepts give us no other direction And I provoke Mr. Blake as far as is seemly for me to do to name one precept for baptizing any other and make it good if he can I know what he will pretend that he intended thâ—s onely against Mr. Blakes opinion of baptizing upon a dogmatical faith and he means what he argues onely in the case of adult persons But that doth not avoid his own arguments against himself though he otherwise intended nor will his evasion serve till he prove that there is a different precept or example for baptizing Infants from that of baptizing adult persons or that any are to be accounted beleevers or disciples by their parents oâ— as his term is proparents profession which will never be done by him I will not say as Mr. Blake saith some have said of me that it is not possible but he goes against the dictates of his own conscience But this I dare boldly say that Mr. Baxter hath strongly disputed against Infâ—nt Baptism in the place forenamed pag. 53. asserting and proving Arg. 1. We must not baptize any who profess not true repentance pag. 62. Arg. 2. We must baptize no man that first professeth not to belâ—eve in God â— 68. Argum. 3. It 's the very nature or appointed use of the external
differences about the title to it between Papists and Protestants and the ablest Protestants themselves 14. How they can make good the regularity of Church-constiâ—ution and the ordination of Elders who have no other baptism but that in infancy 15. How they can be free from the guilt of hardening souls in deadly presumption who avouch the Christianity of infants by natural birth and Infant baptism which is the great plea of ignorant and profane persons on which they rest 16. Whether it be not a signe of injustice and want of love to truth or adherence to a party in them that will read and hear what one party saith for Infant baptism and refuse to read or heâ—r what the opposâ—â—s say though they bring the plain institution of Christ and his Apostles practise for them 17. Whether it be not an unrighteous course to charge the miscariages of persons either dead or strangers on that doctrine or practise which countenanceth not them or to persons who are no way abettors of them becaus of agreement in one opinion 18. Whether division or Schism is not chiefly to be imputed to those who violently oppose inveigh against their Brethren for holding practising that which they conceive themselves bound to do by the plain command of Christ which their opposites do acknowledge 19. Whether such as impose Infan baptism on their Brethren who hold the faith and baptism confessâ—d to be from Christ and deal rigorously with them for not owning iâ— do not as the Papists who impose with cruelty their own addiâ—ions oâ— those who otherwise are not denied to hold thâ— true faith aâ—d practâ—sâ— 20. Whether such pretencâ—s as are made for Infant baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a sufficient plea for baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a suâ—fâ—cient plea for any truly godly person to neglect that baptism which Christ hath so strictly commanded Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 the Apostles constantly practised And sith Mr. Baxter hath with so much earnestness ministred so many interrogatories to me I shall take the boldness to advise him to consider his own ways 1. In giving such a title to his book of Plâ—in Scripture proof of Infants baptism when there is not one text in all his Book which speaks plainly or obscurely for it yea it 's confessed by himself that it is not plainly determined in Scripture p. 3. and is so dark in Scripture that the controversie is become hard p. 301. 2. In his abusing so many texts of Scripture as he haâ—h done chiefly the institution of Bapâ—ism Matth. 28 19. for infant Baptism as if they were disciples appointed there to be baptized which is sufficiently refuted by himself in many places of Baptism p. 299 300. of the right to Sacraments from p. 91 to 96. 3. In coyning a new title to Baptism by the profession of parents or pro parents of which the Scripture is altogether silent 4. In his devising â—n ordinancâ— of infants visible membership in the Christian Church of which there is no foot step in all the Bible 5. In his many years clamorous abuses and some kind of violent persecutions of my self and others of my judgement for not acknowledging these figments of his but promoting reformation of Baptism according to our duty 6. In his unbrotherly printing my answers I made in the dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. without so much as acquainting me with it though living near him 7. In blazing it abroad that he had driven me to gross absurdities which yet he hath not in his answer to the 17. sect of of my praecursor or elsewhere shewed to be so 8. In his light passing over my urging his own words against infant baptism about Christs institution Mat. 28.19 in my praecurs p. 66. in his Praefest morat sect 16. which is noted in the 2d Part of the Review p. 66 67. which sure being from Christs institution deserved better consideration 9. In condemning our rejection of infant Baptism though but an humane tradition on no better grounds then Papists build many of their ceremonies which he condemns in asserting the Covenant of grace to the faithfull and their seed which in disputes against Arminians is commonly denied by Contraremonstrants 10 In his many false accusations of me as a sect master disturber of the Church which he cannot prove in his scornfull expressions in the dispute and his books in his injurious insinuations of me as if I were blinded or hardened occasioned the rise of Quakerism and other errours thereby indirectly creating odium to me and to the truth and which is worst of all weakning my hands in the work of Christ and particularly in taking off my quondam hearers at Bewdley from hearing me or permitting me there to preach in publike None of which nor any of the rest of his evil suggestions of me or the people baptized there or elsewhere I pray God may be laid to his charge I have no more to add but to commend the reading of this and the other parts of the Review to thy care hoping that as the differences between the Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan Israelites and Peter and the circumcised Christians were composed by right inâ—elligence of their actions so it may be in this and that God will awaken the eyes of those who have opposed the truth I assert with devices of an anti-Evangelical Covenant of grace to Believers and their seed a Law and Ordâ—nance of infants visible Church membership no where extant of baptizing infants according to the Jewish pattern of baptizing Proselytes of an additional promise of casting elect children on elect parents ordinarily of a command in force now Gen. 17.9 of Baptisms succession to Circumcision and fetching a rule from it of baptisms conferâ—ing Grace c. will discern their errour and embrace that light which they have hitherto shut out and laying aside their vain disputes about the baptizing of Infants of not Churchmembers profane excommunicate parents or proparents and such like endeavour to restore that one Baptism which with that one faith once delivered to the Saints may bring the Churches of God to a right constitution and holy unity and order and without which a right reformation covenanted will not be and that goâ—ly paâ—ents of tender consciences will take heed of bringing infants to baptism whereby it is profaned and discern that it is their own duty to be baptized in the name of Christ and that the use of baptism is as Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 68 Of right to Sacraments yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized which shâ—ws infants are not baptized sith thâ—y do not that which is essential to baptism and that which is essential must be in all and not to look upon it as their childrens priviledge but as it was by Christ appointed by it engage themselves to follow the Lord JESUS which is the prayer of Thy loving Brother and real
intimating such a command we are not bound to do the like in the one as we do in the other As for the sixth Argument That nothing can be soundly collected from the scriptures against infant-baptism the contrary hath appeared above in the second part of this Review Sect 5. c. what he grants that it may be soundly gathered that all of riper years should be discipled before baptism from the commission Matth. 28.19 doth also prove that they had no Commission to baptize any but discipled persons and so none but those of riper years not infants unless there be shewed some other Commission which is not to be found in the Scripture but only in corrupt tradition of antiquity and the Jewish arguings of latter Divines and is not yet found any other then will-worship To all which Mr. Church further brings answer is made before the vindicating of my objections will most fitly come in the reply to Masters Marshalls Defence to which I shall hasten after the dispatch of some few other Authors SECT XII Doctor Featley his argument for Infant-baptism from the Covenant is examined MR. Rutherford is another of the Authors whose writing Mr. Baxter tells yet remains to be answered But I know not any writing of his in which he doth directly dispute against Anti-paedobaptists I confess I have met with a dispute against those of the Congregational way of Discipline in his Peaceable and temperate Plea c. 12. q. 12. for denying baptism to those infants whose next parent is not a known believer in some gathered Church who yet do hold and practise baptism of such infants whose next parent is a Church-member But that dispute going only against them and upon his grounds denied and refuted by me elsewhere it were out of my way to answer what he saith there If there be any other writing of his I presume some one or other of the Antagonists I refute have the strength of it yet I intend if such a one do occurre to me to give account of it as I shall find meet Mr. Robert Baillee is another to whose writing Mr. B. points me But his first Argument I have already enervated in the Addition to my Apology in my letter to him and answering his three first criminations especially the third and have shewed sect 1. that he doth but calumniate when he charges us to affirm That no infants have any place in the Covenant of grace or any Gospel promises till they be called by the word and by an actual faith have embraced the Gospel What other arguments he brings are answered either in answering Others that bring the same or it s intended shall be answered in fit place There are many others who have written of this argument in the English tongue each of which forms his Argument from the Covenant to the initial seal from infant circumcision to infant-baptism with some difference in terms or phrasifying though in effect all of them are reduced into the three forms in the 1 2 3. sect of my Exercitation and rest on these false principles that interest in the Covenant of grace was the adequate reason of a persons title to circumcision and is the adequate reason of a persons title to baptism and that there is the like reason of baptizing infants of believers as of circumcising infants of Abraham by virtue of the like interest in the Covenant though there be not the like command for the one as for the other nevertheless that it may not be said I have neglected any thing conceived worth answering or to have slighted any of their labours I shall briefly answer the Arguments of such as have come to my hands and then more largely answer Mr. Geree Mr. Marshall Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter who have opposed my writings taking in others by the way as I see fit Dr. Featley is one that hath been a Leader of the Prelatical party and is judged by them to have proved Paedobaptism learnedly His dispute is in his Dipper dâ—pt p. 46. arg 5. thus All they who are comprized within the Covenant and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to receive it But children are comprized within the Covenant of faith whereof circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 and now baptism is Ergo children may and ought to receive Baptism Of the Major or first Proposition there can be no doubt for it is unjust to deprive a Man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right or title And for the Minor or Assumption it is as cleer for so are the words of the Covenant Gen. 17.17 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee Against which I except first That the Syllogism is many waies faulty 1. That he puts in the Conclusion children as all one with infants 2. That in the Conclusion there is this term not exprest in the Major may and ought to receive baptism for that which is in the Major may and ought to receive the seal of the Covenant is not all one with may and ought to receive baptism baptism and seal of the Covenant being not equipollent besides Circumcision passeover Lords Supper the Ephesians are said to be sealed with the holy spirit of promise Ephes. 1.13 nor is the term seal of the Covenant applyed to Sacraments any other than a novel expression neither used in Scripture nor the Antients Rom. 4.11 doth not term circumcision much less other Sacraments as they are called a seal of the Covenant of faith as the Doctor misallegeth it but a seal of the Righteousness of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Whence it appears that it was a Seal of what he had not of a covenant concerning what he was to have and this is said onely of Abrahams circumcision with such an observing of particularizing circumstances as shew it to be appropriated to Abrahams circumcision what ever is said of circumcisions being a seal of the righteousness of faith however Divines dictate to the contrary and therefore what the Doctor addes in the Minor which multiplies the terms in the Syllogism and now baptism is asserting thereby baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of faith is said without proof though I should not stick to grant it in this sense that to the true believer his baptism assures righteousness according to Gods Covenant and the true believer by baptism gives testimony or assurance of his faith according to his Covenant as being unwilling to wrangle about terms if we agree in the meaning But in the sense Paedobaptists use it as containing the nature of a Sacrament I shall reject it in that which followes 3. Against the Doctors omission of some words in the Minor and are no where prohibited to receive the seal therof which were in the Major 4. That the term and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof is ambiguous For it may be understood either of an express
are only to the elect for to the Heirs of promise Gods counsell is shewed to be immutable for their salvation Heb. 6.17 But so it is onely to the elect Ergo. 9. Those promises by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature are made onely to the elect But such are the promises of saving benefits 2 Pet. 1.4 Ergo. 10. The promise of that Covenant is made onely to the elect of which Christ is surety for Christs suretiâ—hip engageth him to perform it and he performs it onely to the elect therefore he is surety of the covenant onely for the elect But the promise of saving benefits is of that covenant of which Christ is surety Heb. 7.22 Ergo. 11. That covenant which is confirmed by Christs blood is made onely with the elect for it was shed for them onely But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Matth 26 28. Ergo. 12. That covenant which is different from the first covenant in that it is not an occasion of complaint in that it was broken and they continued not in it is made onely to the elect But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.7 8 9. Ergo. 13. The covenant which ingageth God to write his lawes in the hearts of those to whom it is made â—s made onely to the elect for God doth this onely to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 10.16 Ergo. 14. The covenant of which Christ is Mediator is made onely to the elect for he is mediator for them onely sith he prayes for them onely John 17.9 And he is Mediator of the new covenant that by means of death they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance Heb. 9.15 But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 12.24 Ergo. 15. That covenant which is an everlasting Covenant is made onely to the elect for the covenant with reprobates is not everlasting But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 13.20 Ergo 16 That in which are given the sure mercies of David is made onely to the elect for no other have them given to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Isa. 55.3 Ergo. 17. That covenant which engageth God to give to them to whom it is made deliverance from all enemies and to serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of their life without fear is made onely to the elect for to them onely God performs it But such is the covenant of grace Luke 1.73 74 75. Ergo That covenant which assures perseverance to them to whom it was made is made onely to the elect for they onely persevere But such is the new covenant of grace Isa. 54 9 10. Jer. 32 40. Ergo. 19. If the covenant of grace be made with other than the elect then it is the absolute or condiâ—ionall covenant as Mr B. distinguisheth but neither Not the first as Mr B. confesseâ—h nor the conditionall for it is made onely with believers and they are onely the elect I grant it is propounded as Dr Twisse speaks Animad in Corinth Defens pag. 235 or as others say offered or tendered to others but made with the elect Ergo. If the covenant of grace be made to any other than to the elect then with all which seems to be Mr. Bs opinion when he saith Plain Scripture Proof c. pag 316 The new Covenant is conditionall and universall But it is not made withall That covenant which was made with all had Adam for the common head but the new covenant was not made with Adam as the common head but with Christ who is given for a covenant of the people Isai. 49.8 and therefore rhe promise was that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 which Mr B most corruptly interprets Of the whole seed of the woman infants as well as others Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. Chap. 24. pag. 69 but it is true primarily or onely of Christ Heb. 2.14 But Christ is not a common head to all but onely to the elect who are chosen in him Eph. 1.3 4. Ergo I omit the Arguments which Doctor Twisse urgeth in his Animadversions on Corinus pag. 346. Answer to M. Hoard pag. 283.286 Doctor Kendall Vindic. part 3. ch 18 pag. 14 15 and hasten to consider what Mr B. saith further against me And he saith in his Examen and Apology that Mr M. speakes like Corinus and the Arminians in his asserting the conditional sealing and when he talks of the Covenant Christs suretiship c. To which I answer A great many hotspurs of this age do make any thing Arminianism which is but contradictory to Antinomianism I will not say Mr T. is an Antinomian for I think he is not but this opinion that the covenant of grace which baptism sealeth is onely to the elect and is not conditionall is one of the two Master-pillars in the Antinomian Fabrick Answer 1. If any Antinomian or Antipaedobaptist hath been in this age a verier hot-spur than Mr B. let him be disciplin'd at Bedlem For my part I know none that hath in his Writings shewed so much heat call it fury or zeal as you please with so much confidence and peremptoriness and so many mistakes against Antinomians Antipaedobaptists and others as he haâ—h don And surely they want not considerate men that fear lest the esteem he â—aâ—h gotten by his practical Writings and for infant-baptism and the Ministery may occasion the swallowing down of some things he vents about universâ—ll redemption universall covenant of grace uncertainty of perseverance and salvation the condition of justification which withâ—ut more than a grain of salt will turn to Aâ—minianiâ—m and Popery if received by such understandings as are not of good concoction Nor do I know any man who under so great a shew of seâ—king truth and peace in the Church hath more hindred both For thaâ— whâ—ch he saith That this opinion that the covenant of grace is onely to elect and is nâ—t conditionall is one of the pillars of Antinomianism I have made some search into my books and made use of my memory and though I find that in the Synod at New Town in New England August 30 1637 this is made the 81 Error of the Antinomians That where faith is held forth by the Ministery as the condition of the â—ovenant of grace on mans part as also evidencing justification by sanctification and the activity of faith in that Church there is not sufficienâ— bread And in other books they are charged wiâ—h error in holding the covenant of grace absolute so as if by it men were exempted from duty they were justified without faith c. Yet I never to my remembrance heard thâ—s charged with Antinomianism that the covenant of grace is made onely to the elect but find it avouched by many of their best Antagonists and the covenant
Which if Mr. B. hold as his words import I may well say he stands on pitifull ground a very quagmire however men judge of my proof from Gal. 4.1 c. of the repeal of the pretended ordinance of infants Church-membership Mr. B. proceeds But one Text more was named and that is my Text Matth. 28.19 20. Go disciple all nations c. Is not this brave proving the repeal before mentioned What saith this Text to any such matter Answ. The first question hath so much insolent folly that I think fit to give no answer to it To the second I say 1. This Text compared with Mark 16.15 proves that Christ appointed after his resurrection that his Church should be gathered in all nations by preaching the Gospel and baptizing and no otherwise and consequently the Church not gathered this way is not agreeable to Christs institution The forepart of the antecedent is plain For as Pareus rightly paraphraseth the words Com. in Mat. 28.19 Christs words have this sense Make to me Disciples gather to me a Church among all nations by your preaching bringing them to the faith of the Gospel And Piscat observ Matth. 28.19 By the coherence of the sentences it is signified first by the doctrine of the Gospel the nations were to be brought into the Church then to be baptized when they should enter into the Church and profess the faith And that neither the institution of Christ nor practise of the N. T. allows any other way of gathering the Church is proved in the 2d Part of this Review sect 5. c. 2. I say this Text excludes infants from being baptized as is proved in the same place and consequently from being visible members of the Christian Church The antecedent is confirmed from Mr. Bs. words Plain Scrip. proof c. against Mr Bed pag. 299 300. where he proves from Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.16 c. That in the institution and every example of Baptism through all the Bible the first grace is pre-requisite as a condition which he makes to be faith included in the term Disciple The consequence is also proved from Mr. Bs. assertion Plain Scrip. proof c. Par. 1. ch 5. pag. 24 25. and elsewhere proved from Mat. 28.19 All visible Châ—rch members are to be baptized Whence I infer All visible members of the Christian Church are to be baptized No infant is to be baptized Therefore no infant is a visible member of the Christian Church Now if no infants are now visible members of the Christian Church and the Church which is gathered without making Disciples by preaching the Gospel first to them and then baptizing them is not agreeable to Christs institution then Christ hath repealed the gift and ordinance of visible Church-membership of infants I expect now some brave answer from Mr. B. to these plain arguments without any bravery But what do I meet with Nay saith he I am confident the contrary will be proved from this Text also For if it be nations that must be discipled and baptized certainly all infants can never be excluded but must needs some of them at least be included I do not believe that men were to be made Disciples by force nor that all were Disciples when the King or greater part were so But that the Apostles commission was to disciple nations this is their work which they should endeavour to accomplish and therefore this was a thing both possible and desirable therefore when the parents are by teaching made Disciples the children are thereby discipled also As if a woman escape drowning the child in her body escapes thereby yet this is not by any natural cause but by force of Gods grant or Covenant Answ. Though Mr. Bs. confidence and his foolish admirations and exclamations have taken much with the shallow and heedless both Ministers and people of this age yet they appear ridiculous to me His speeches in this place are but dictates that if nations be to be discipled infants cannot be excluded that because they were to endeavour the discipling all nations therefore infants that when the parents are by teaching made Disciples the children are discipled also all which I deny and have demonstrated to be false so fully in the 2d Part of this Review sect 5. c. that I shall as soon expect the snow be proved black as any of them proved by Mr. B. or any other His similitude is frivolous no child being included in the parent in respect of discipling as the child in the womb is in respect of drowning If it were then also in respect of baptizing so that if the mother with child be baptized the child also is baptized as wel as discipled and then baptism of such infants after would be rebaptization Such a grant or Covenant by force of which infants are made Disciples is a meer figment If infants were made Disciples by a Covenant it must be of God to them wherein he promiseth it to them upon their parents beiâ—g discipled and if so then they are discipled ere they be born and consequently not made Disciples by the Apostles and so no part of the nation to be discipled by them nor they to endeavour their discipling unless they should actum agere do what is already done whence it will follow that they had no commission to disciple or baptize infants for they had no commission to disciple by Gods Covenant or to baptize such Disciples but those who were made by their preaching Disciples and as Mr Collings saith truly in his Provoc provoc ch 5. pag. 54. The Apostles notwithstanding that precept Matth. 28.19 10. did not think themselves obliged to baptize any but such as believed and confessed their sins Mr. B. adds When all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron were turned to the Lord the whole cities infants and all were discipled Answ. Though our last translation read Acts 9.35 And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him and turned to the Lord yet in the Greek and agreeably the vulgar Beza c. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him who turned to the Lord which seems to import that all they who turned to the Lord saw him and so they that saw him is limited by them turned to the Lord which is not to be said of infants But were the reading retained as it is in our last translation yet it is a gross conceit of Mr. B. to apply this to infants For it is said of these 1. That they saw Aeneas cure 2. That they were converted to the Lord. 3. That by seeing the cure of Aeneas they were moved to turn to the Loâ—d as Piscator in his Schâ—lie saith to wit moved by tâ—e miraculous healing of Aeneas by Peter Now to affirm these thingâ— of infants is in my apprehension however it be in Mr. Bs. against common sense Besides me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant that freâ—uently in the Scripture such expressions wherein the word all is used
is not this as great a mercy to the poor off cast Jews They are put out of the carnal Churchstate too But did God give so many admirable Elogies of the Jews Church and can Mr. T. yet think that it is better to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs Answ. I alledge the more spiritual Churchstate as one reason of Gods changing of churchmembership by birth into churchmembership by faith and as a mercy to the catholick Church For thereby they are free from the bondage they were in under carnal ordinances which infants are partakers of in actual possession and capable of the spirit though they be not actually visible churchmembers and therefore it is not true that by my doctrine they are kept out of the spiritual church-state And Mr. B. doth much mistake as if the carnal churchstate the Jew had when Christ was come was a priviledge or benefit For though many admirable Elogies were given by God of the Jews Church yet none of them were given of it in Christs time they were a rebebellious and gainsaying peoâ—le a generation of vipers denied the holy one and the just and desired a murtherer made the temple a den of theeves c. And therefore I verily think it was better then to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs As for the Jews who believed not they were justly put out of Gods favour their temple was destroyed and they cast out of their land for denying Christ Yet they were not put out of their carnal churchstate actually for they adhere to it unto this day and it is their curse 4. Saith Mr. B. And where did Mr. T. learn in Scripture to call the Jews churchstate carnal Answ. From 1 Cor. 10.18 where the nation of the Jews are called Israel after the flesh in contradistinctâ—on to the Israel of God or in the Spirit Rom. 9.6 Gal. 6.16 From Rom. 2.28 29. where there is distinction of the Jew outwardly from the Jew inwardly of Circumcision which is outward in the flesh from Circumcision that is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter From Gal. 4.25 26 23 29. where Hierusalem that then was is contradistingued to Hierusalem above and the former is in bondage with her children the later free the children of the former born after the flesh the later after the spirit From Gal. 3.3 where to be of faith is to begin in the spirit to be of the works of the law is to be perfect by the flesh From Ephes. 2.11 where their circumcision is termed circumcision in the flesh made by hands From Philip. 3.3 4 5. where Hebrew discent and churchmembership thereby are termed the flesh From Heb. 9.10 where their ordinances are termed carnal ordinances I had thought this had been so well known to Mr. B. that it needed not proof But he further demands Or what doth he mean by churchstate whether the essential nature of the Church it self or any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it Is not this word churchstate like his former of church call devised terms to darken the matter with ambiguities and signifying what pleaseth the speaker Answ. Neither the term Church state nor Church call were devised by me but are terms ordinary in the writings of Divines I have shewed the use of the later before and proved that the Church hath its denomination and definition from it and that according to Mr. B. himself And for the former me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant of it who its likely knows a Book of learned Dr. Usher intituled De visibilis Ecclesiae successient statu And to imagine it to be devised to darken the matter with ambiguities is one of Mr. Bs. evil surmises when the word is as apposite for its use as any term I think Mr. B. can give in stead of it and if it signifie what pleases the speaker it is so much the better for that is the use of words and this later accusation acquits it from darkening the matter with ambiguities if it signifie for that which signifies the speakers mind doth give light and not darken with ambiguities So ridiculous is Mr. Bs. accusation that his later words cross his former And to help Mr. Bs. understanding if I can I tell him I mean by it neither the essential nature of the Church it self nor any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it but the manner of being or qualification incident to it from providence whereby it is denominated flourishing or decaying numerous or small rich in knowledge or poor carnal or spiritual by reason of the way of entry into it as natural descent or faith more or less of the spirit the promises ministery rites c. it hath Which term state comprehends innumerable terms such as are rich and poor noble or ignoble fat or lean and many more which whether they are to be reduced to the predicaments of quality relation or passion or to be called modi entis I leave it to Logicians to determine I hope this will serve to indoctrinate Mr. B. in the meaning of my speech But Mr. B. is resolved to follow me with more questions which he must not expect I will answer as I have done after this bout 5. Saith he And how long might I wait before Mr. T. would prove from Scripture that it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have all infants put out or unchurched These are the men that make their followers believe that we have no Scripture for our cause when themselves give us but their magisteâ—ial dictates But I wonder whence he should fetch such a Dream What are infants such â—â—ads or Vipers in comparison of men of years that it is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church to have them cast out Are not the aged worse then they And were we not once all infants Answ. I say not that all infants are put out of the catholick Church and so need not prove it nor had I asserted it was it either in the Dispute or Sermon my work to prove what I said by way of answer but for Mr. B. to disprove it Yet what I assert is distinctly before set down not without some proof from Scripture and I may wait long afore either I shall finde his pretended ordinance of infant visible Churchmembership unrepealed proved from Scripture or my assertions disproved by any solid arguments without idle questions and vain exclamations which I resolve to neglect And of the former sort are the questions here which insinuate as if I conceived it were a mercy to the catholick Church that infants are not in the visible Church Christian as members because they are Toads Vipers worse then the aged whereas I onely say that the dissolving of the Jewish Church national in which and by reason of which infants were visible Churchmembers and no otherwise was in mercy to the catholick Church Which is the very doctrine of the Apostle
age keep Covenant or die in infancy before they break it And we have certain ground to conclude that this salvation belongeth to some infants and visible Churchmembership to all the seed of the faithfull And I think this is more then Mr. T. doth acknowledge them Answ. It is indeed finding the argumenâ—s frivolous which Mr. B. hath brought for the visible Churchmembership of infants though I acknowledge salvation belongeth to some infants It is before shewed how the promises may be verified according to the sense of the words if any sort of mercy be given to any children of the faithfull Nor is it true that in the promises brought by Mr. B. the persons are determined to be all the seed of the faithfull and how the contrary is determined by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. according to Mr. B. himself is shewed before and what reason there is to understand Exod. 20.6 of temporal mercies is shewed above so that here is nothing new to be answered He adds If that Matth. 18.10 be well considered it may make another argument full to the point If little ones have their Angels beholding the face of God in heaven they shall be saved For that is a mercy proper to the people of God And that the Text speaks of infants others have fully proved Answ. I grant the conclusion and argument but deny that it is at all to the point in question between us and that any one hath proved that by little ones Matth. 18.10 are meant infants Though the contrary be proved concerning Matth. 18.5 6. in the second part of this Review sect 15. where Mr. Bl. and Mr. C. are answered Yet to shew the frovolousness of Mr. Bs. talk I add 1. that Matth. 18.10 cannot be expounded one of these little infants for such a speech would shew that then there were more little infants before them But it appears from v. 2 4. there was but one set before them 2. From v. 14 11. the little ones were such as Christ came to save and that it was Gods will none should perish But this is true onely of the elect and true believers not simply of infants as such 3. The words following v. 15 c. shew they are meant of a sinning brother ergo not of infants Mr. B. adds That though he dare not say there is a full certainty of the savation of all believers infants so dying yet he professeth to think it better grounded then mine who he saith shut them out of the Church But this I take to be and effect of that antipathy he hath against me who still chooseth that opinion which is most opposite to me and prefers it as p. 141. the opinion of the old and new Socinians who take away an ordinance and whom he censures pag. 24. as above obedience and so Gods and the opinion of baptizers in infancy and at age too pag. 143. and professeth he would have nothing to do with me when I offered assistancce to him in another point as if he were like Maldovat the Jesuite that could have liked an interpretation had it not been Calvins But I leave him to the Lord to judge him and me and do not despair but that he may yet live to see his errour and perhaps wish he had been better advised then so disdainfully to have rejected a friends offer He saith He would urge another argument here from the universality of redemption Christ dying for all for every man for the sins of the whole world as the Scripture speaketh but that it would require more time to explain himself in it then he could then spare However he thinks no man should deny that Christ died for every sort of men and every age and so for some infants To which I reply Did he ever hear me deny it And if he did not why doth he talk of proving it here where he disputes against me But he is willing to pick what quarrels he can with me However when he intends to urge this argument I hope I shall be provided to answer it if it oppose my thesis That the Scripture saith Christ died for every man for the sins of the whole world is more then I find If I mistake him not his Universal redemption he holds is conditional onely which I think to be a fiction redemption and election in Scripture being absolute in respect of persons â—nd commensurate redemption being as well from impenitency and unbelief as damnation Yet were it granted him that he should thence infer not the salvation of all but of believers infants so dying and never performing the condition is yet a Riddle to me and I cannot yet imagine it to be any better then a sick-mans dream in Mr. B. Ch. 28. He urgeth his 23d arg from Christs being head of the visible Church in infancy that infants may be members whiâ—h I deny not Nor is it the thing in question what they may be but what they are But this argument is answered before sect 57. And what he saith here out of Irenaeus proves not what he would infer That Irenaeus took them for visible Churchmembers because he saith Christ by the example of his age sanctifieth them For every one sanctified by Christ is not a visible Churchmember Mr. B. saith before pag. 78. we read of some that have been sanctified from the womb were they visible Churchmembers in the womb I know no absurdity in it to assert that Christ was head of the Church when an infant and worshipped as such and yet no infants should be visible Churchmembers Mr. Bs. perswasion that they know not Gods will that think otherwise then he doth is but an effect of his fond affection to his own brats And yet when he himself saith pag. 62. I confess it is disputable whether Christ were ever a Churchmember properly he should not be very confident in asserting Christ in infancy to have been head of the visible Church And for Irenaeus his speech it is so false that were not Mr. B. willing to catch at any shadow for his purpose he would have concealed it Mr. Bs. 29th ch and 24th argument is answered at large in the first part of this Review sect 22 c. Ch. 30. He tels us that his 25 th arg is probable at least that the Scripture doth frequently and plainly tell us of the ceasing of Circumcision but never speaks one word of the ceasing of infants visible Churchmembership therefore we are not to judge that it is ceased That the antecedent or minor in this argument is false is proved at large sect 50 51 52. The consequence is shewed to be invalid in that other things of which the cessation is certain as the freeing of servants the dedication of the first born are ceased and yet not expressed so much in Scripture as that of Churchmembership To this saith Mr. B. The year of Jubile was one of their Sabbaths and so a type Col. 2.17 But I reply Though the year of Jubile
to be delivered by the Apostle Col. 2.17 and by the general consent of Divines Much more vain is that which he adds So as if that priviledge be denied unto infants that which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant is rejected as he saith Gen. 17. The uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant For neither if Mr. Cs. sense of the promise Gen. 22.18 Gen. 12.2 3. be rejected is there any thing which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant rejected nor had the denying of Circumcision to infants necessarily inferred the rejecting of that which was given in Abrahams Covenant nor do the words Gen. 17.14 import that by not circumcising the person omitting it had rejected that which was given in Abrahams Covenant for so Moses not circumcising his son had rejected the Covenant but the breaking the Covenant was onely meant of breaking the command of that which was the token of the Covenant Much less is this true of those that deny infant Baptism that they reject the spiritual blessings given in Abrahams Covenant Baptism being not by Christs institution a seal of Gods Covenant or promise to us unless by consequence much less the mixt Covenant of Abraham as it contained domestical benefits proper to Abrahams house much more less the new conceited promise of Mr. C. Nor was infant Baptism ever commanded by God but invented by men in a fond imitation of Jewish Circumcision and as long as we keep close to the institution Matth. 28.19 and baptize and are baptized upon believing in testimony of our union with Christ and his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 we may securely flight Mr. Cs. doom of being cut off from Gods people which after Mr. Cotton refuted by me in the second part of this Review sect 11. he hath vainly here renewed to affright silly people with Mr. C. adds That Abraham was called father of believers 1. from believing this additional promise given in order to the increase of his spiritual seed which he proves from Rom. 4.18 Gen. 15.5 2. From his receiving the seal of that promise Rom. 4.11 From which place we may observe 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith 2. That because it was a seal of that righteousness which he had before he was circumcised he therefore became the Father of all that believe whether circumcised or not Now had not this seal been given him that he might be the Father of believers his receiving it at this or that time whether before or after his believing to righteousness had made nothing for the universality of his relation as a Father of all believers Answ. I grant that Abrahams believing the promise Gen. 15.5 and his receiving Circumcision a seal of that righteousness of faith he had in uncircumcision was the reason of his title of Father of believers And I grant that Abrahams personal Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers circumcised or uncircumcised and therefore he had it afore his Circumcision that it might not be judged as proper to the circumcised But 1. I deny That the promise was Gen. 15.5 as Mr. Cs. additional promise is that Every believer should be a blessing to his family and posterity so as that God should ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents but that Abraham though then childless should have innumerable children by natural generation though he were and his wife aged and more by believing as he did 2. The Scripture doth not say that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the promise Gen. 15.5 but a seal of the rightiousness of faith he had Gen. 15.6 it was not a seal of a promise of a thing future but of a benefit obtained many years before 3 I find not any ones Circumcision but the Circumcision which Abraham had in his own person stiled the seal of the righteousness of faith nor to any but him that believes as he did 4. That his receiving the seal is not made the reason of Abrahams relation of Father of all believers but justification by faith afore he received Circumcision Nor do I find that any of Mr. Cs. assertions is proved from Rom. 4.11 18. that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or of Mr. Cs. additional promise or that the application to infants was part of the seal or that by it Mr. Cs. imagined promise was confirmed and therefore this Text is impertinently alledged also Mr. C. adds That it was not Abrahams faith onely nor his degree of faith above others which gave him that title appeareth 1. because others were as eminent believers as he before him 2. There was something given which believers had not at least in such a way had not before in reference to which he was so called therefore it was not for his faith onely nor the eminency thereof 3. There is nothing in faith or the eminency thereof that could occasion that his name to be given to him but it was in reference to something which he was to have as a Father this additional promise and the seal thereof he was the first Father that received this blessing which was a blessing upon parents and their children and because at least in a great part by vertue thereof the holy seed was to be propagated and encreased And believers are said to be his seed because that promise and Covenant made to Abraham concerning the Lords blessing and multiplying his seed is so much a cause of their being brought forth unto Christ his ordering his election so as to bestow his blessing thus by families and nations being that which makes the Kingdome of Heaven like leaven one believer ordinarily being the means of the conversion of another Answ. The title Father of believers is a relative with which Abraham was denominated from his Fatherhood as the form denominating and this form denominating was from his begetting justified believers as the foundation this begetting justified believers I know not how otherwise it should be then by his exemplary faith and Gods declaration of his justification by it which the Apostle doth plainly intimate Rom. 4.11 by expressing Abrahams children in this phrase walking in the steps of his faith The object indeed of this faith was the promise Gen. 15.5 not Mr. Cs. imagined promise to other believers and so the promise was the occasion and in some sort the cause of the title as the object may be said to be the cause of the act in somewhat an abusive expression His personal Circumcision was a sign or seal of that whence the title came the righteousness of faith and a token of that Covenant wherein God declared it Gen. 17.4 5 But Circumcision did not make him such he was such afore Circumcision was instituted Gen. 17.4 5. Nor is it said Rom. 4.11 that his receiving Circumcision was that he might be the Father of the faithfull but his having righteousness by faith before Circumcision made him the Father of
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
Circumcision to prove noâ— the duety yet the lawfulness of infanâ— Baptism 2. The sacrifice which was required at the initiating a Proselyte was a burnt offering of a beast or two Turtle Doves or two young Pigeons both of them for a burnt offering so Maimonides tit Isuri â—iâ— c. 13. as Ainsworth annot on Gen. 17.12 Selden de syned l. 1. c. 3. â—ite him but that is not prayer nor is it any more agreeable to the Jewish custome to use prayer without it then to use circumcision of the heart Col. 2.11 without the outward or the answer of a good conscience towards God without baptism with water and yet the rubrick of the Common Prayer Book in private Baptism allowed if time did not suffer it to be done without so much as saying the Lords Prayer The Dr. adds So parallel to the Court of three Israelites by the confession or profession of whom saith Maimonides the infant was baptized we have now not onely the whole Church in the presence of whom â—tis publikely administred and when more privately yet in the presence of some Christians who are afterwards if there be any doubt to testifie their knowledge to the Church but more particularly the Godfathers and Godmothers being themselâ—es formerly baptized do represent the Church and the Minister commissionated thereto by the Bishop represents the Church also meaning the Governors thereof Answ. Though Baptism by women and others not commissionated by a Bishop have heretofore been tollerated and been taken for currant Baptism and the terming the Governours of the Church the Church be language not like the Scripture but the Canon law and the use of Gossips be a vain device and the Minister commissionated by the Bishop with the Gossips sometimes so ignorant of the knowledge of Christ that they are not fit to bee among Christians nor to be taken to represent a Church of Christ nor do they stand under that notion at the usual baby sprinkling but as sureties or proxies to the child and in private Baptism there 's none of these sometimes yet were all the Dr. saith yeilded this is not according to the Jewish custome which required a kinde of court of three Israelites skilfull in Law to approve it or else it is voâ—d and so as Judges of the Baptism of which sort the other are not The Dr. adds But I shall not proceed to such superfluous considerations and so I have no need of adding one word more of reply to his 24. Chapter as far as I am concerned in it unless it bee to tell him that the Bishopâ— Canons are not the rule by which I undertake to define wherein the Jewish custome must be the pattern wherein not but as he cannot but know if he had read the resolution of the 4th Quaere the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known unto us to which as I have reason to yeild all authority so I finde the Canons and rituals as of this so of all other Churches in the world no one excepted to bâ—ar perfect accordancâ— therewith in this particular of infant Baptism though in other lesser particulars they differ many among themselvs and all from the Jewish pattern And this I hope is a competent ground of my action and such as may justifiâ— it to any Christian Artist to bee according to rules of right reason of meekness and sound doctrine and no work of passion or prejudice or singularity or as Mr. T. suggests of the Drs. own pleasure as if that were the mutable principle of all these variations from the Jewish pattern Answ. 1. To call Cyprian Augustine c. Fathers of the Church which is elsewhere stiled their mother is scarce consistent 2. To yeeld all authority to the practise of the Apostles of Christ by the testifications of the Fathers of the Church made known to us there is no reason this is due onely to the holy Scripture they testifie sundry things as the Apostle practise which was not so they speak sometimes in these things confidently upon false reports this would be an inlet to many superstitions the Canons of Councils and Rituals of Churches are so full of weakness and blemishes as that they would be counted most useless writings â—o direct in faith or worship did not their age make some men dote on them Tâ—at all Churches accord in infant Baptism cannot be true The Common Prayer book is not justifiable in the allowing that which is termed privat baptism in the use of sureties their mimical or fals answers saying they desire to be baptized when it is not so The Drs. exposition Letter of resol q 4 § 116. I believe i. e. this child stands bound by by thâ—se presents to believe c. is so ridiculous and Augustines tom 2. Ep. 28 ad â—oniâ—acium is like it as that did not prejudice oâ— preingagemâ—nt or some other like reason prevail with Dr. H. he would never defend it That which the Dr. makes a competent ground of his action doth not justifie his tenet of infant Baptism to be according to rules of reason and sound doctrine whether he vary or not in his determinations from that which hee makes the paâ—tern as hee pleaseth or the Bishops Canons order let the Reader juâ—ge by what is said and that which followes Of this score saith he 't is somewhat strange which he thinks fit to add concerning the form of Baptism in the name of the Father and the â—on and the Holy Ghost In â—his one thing saith he which Christ did noâ— prescribe nor did the Apostles that we finde so conceive it yet saith the Dr. Christs prescription must be indispensably used In reply to this I shall not sâ—end much time to evidence this form to bee Christs prescription if the express words aâ— his parting from the world Matth. 28. â—o ye theâ—â—fore and â—ach or receive â—o discipleshâ—p all naâ—â—ons baptizing them in the nâ—me of the Father and the Son and the Holy â—host be not a prescription oâ— Christs and if the universal doctrine and continual practise of the whole Church through all times be not testimâ—ny sufficient of the Apostles conceiving it 〈◊〉 and a competent ground of the indispensable continuing the use of it I shall not hope to perswade with him onely I shall minde him of the words of S. Athanasius in his Epistle to Sâ—rapion tom p. 204. He that is noâ— baptized into the name of all three receives nothing remains empty and imperfect For perfection is in the Trinity no Baptism perâ—â—â— iâ— seems but that And if â—his will not yet suffice I shall then onely demand whether he can prodâ—ce â—o express grounds from Christ or the Apostles or the univâ—rsal Church of God through all agâ—â— or from any one ancient Father for his denying Baptism to infanâ—s Answ What grounds we can produce â—rom Christ and Apostles for denying infant Baptâ—sm may be seâ—n in 〈◊〉 Part of this Review
sine Baptismo compeâ—ere salutem ex illa maximè pronuntiatione Domini qui ait nisi natus ex aqua quis erit non habet vitam c. However Ambrose and Augustine determine of the salvation of grown persons without Baptism if they believe desire to be baptized be Martyrs yet both they and many more held both Baptism and the Lords Supper to be necessary for infants unto salvation by an Apostolick tradition as M. Perkins Demonst. of the probleme in the point of Baptism proves though perhaps they could not reasonably grant the one and deny the other That Calvin was a mâ—n well versed in Antiquity for his time it 's not denied nor that he was a man well acquainted in the Scriptures yet that in neither he was in this point in the right is so fully demonstrated before that I may safely say Calvin was not therein Calvin as he is in his opposition of the Papists And if Mr. M. or his friend think it not meet to be tied to Calvins judgâ—ment in the point of the Sabbath and Lords day and Usury notwithstanding his skill in Antiquity and Scripture the same in equity is to be allowed to us about the point of Baptism I like Mr. Ms. acknowledgement with Riveâ— that tradition is in most points uncertain and therefore he that will build sure must build on the Scripture and therefore we must necessarily come to arguments from the Scriptures which if they evince not the thing we shall in vain call to Tradition If Mr. M. had not fiâ—st in his Sermon forestalâ—ed his hearers and readers with the pretence oâ— the Churches possession for 1500. years and upwards and Dr. Hammond resolved all his proof of infant Baptism into his exposition of 1 â—or 7.14 which he had no way to make good but by Tertullian and some of the Ancienâ—s I had spared this labour of shewing tâ—eir and and the Ancienâ—s mistakes Thaâ— Doctrine and practise of Baptism of Infants â—hich Austin saith to be according to the sentence of the Gospel is rejectâ—d by Proâ—estants who iâ— they would in this as in other things they have done 〈◊〉 according to Scripture and all their own principles must baptize no infants till they be made believers till then they do but prevaricate and profane the holy Ordinance of Baptism SECT XCIX Mr. Crs. objections about my 9 untruths his discourse about re-baptizing are refelled I Return now to Mr. Cragg Part 1. sect 6. he chargeth me with 9 untruths outvying the number of the lines in which he is a false accuser In the first he misâ—recites my words which were not that the Epistle affirms that the baptising of believers had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork but thus As false it is thâ—t the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism had its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and others there named which were true For though it was not in those words said by me that the Epistle did so affirm yet it is true 1. That Paedobaptists call the baptizing believers which Nicholas Stork and others practised Anabaptism me thinks he should not be so impudent as to deny that those whom they baptized were believers or that they baptized them or that that Baptism is called Anabaptism by them 2. The very words of the Epistle are the spring and rise of Anabaptism had its beginning after truth and saith the first Author thereof was Nicholas Stork then Phipher c. there you have the spring and rise of it and therefore in my words there is no untruth but Mr. Cr. doth falsely insinuate as if there were folshood and inconsequence in my speech and slâ—nderously make me one of the great disturbers of the late reformation and the first â—uthor of the disturbance or Anabaptism and cunningly altering the subject of the Question from Anabaptists to baptizers of believers The 2d thing he chargeth on me as untruth was not expressed as Mr. Cr. inâ—inuates that Paedobaptists call the baptizers of belivers Anabaptists but thus the baptizing of believers called by these Anabaptism which cannot be denied to be true unless he deny that the baptizing used was not baptizing or the baptized no believers or that they call it not Anabaptism It is also false that he saith of me that my judgement and practise is that all that will be saved must be baptized again when they become actual believers and this I put in execution by making as many Proselytes by rebaptising as I can The 3d. untruth as he calls it is that baptising of believers without infants or excluding infants had not its spring and rise from Nicholas Stork and he notes that the Epistle affirmed Anabaptism which is another thing had its spring thence But he neither shews what other thing Anabaptism is nor doth he prove it to be an untruth but by rendring my own instances against it invâ—lid But therein he dâ—tâ— buâ— abuâ—e me who alledged not the instances he brings to prove that proposition he terms an untruth nor is there any thing said by him but what he hath from Mr. Ms. Defence and is aâ—swered before here sectâ—â— â—â— 98. The 4th untruth he châ—rgeth me with is that infants Baptism was not commanded by Christ and he thâ—â—ks to â—vince the contrary from Mat. 28.19 But he saith â—othing but whâ—t is â—â—â—ully refuted before Review part 2. sect 5 c. part 3. sect 97. and elsewhere so that I neeâ— say no more here to it The 5th untruth he imagines is that infant Baptism was not practised by the Apostles which being denied by the Anâ—ipaedobaptists the proof lies upon them But by his â—â—ave the proof lies upon the Paedobaptists to prove they did baptize infants sith they claim a right to it which muâ—â— be proved by precepâ— oâ— example of the doing it validityâ—o â—o shâ—w infant Baptism not to be according to Gods will sith in meer positive instituted worship wherein â—od hath set down what he will have done he will have it so done and no otherwise It is proâ—ed bâ—fore Review part 2. sect 5. c. part 3. sect 52 that the Apostles baptized not infants Mr. Crs. imagined reasons why they might baptize none but of ripe age de facto are vain there being no intimation of any such reasonâ— in the History of the Apostles Acts Yea the story is against his surmises for the converted and baptized did not travel far to hear the Apostles but the Apostles travelled far to preach to them in their own Cities and in them they went from house to house Acts 16.15 34. 20.20 Hierusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan are said to go out to John Baptist to be baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins which cannot be meant of infants Though infants be a parâ— of a Nation yet Mat. â—8 19 Is. 2.2 by nations no infant is meant nor Luk 19.19 is inâ—ant Baptism intimated The Baptism of infants is not proved from Act.
are limited to a greater part and those of years the matter so requiring it as Matth. 2.3 3.5 Acts 8.10 c. Mr. B. adds How can Christ bid them Go and disciple all Nations if infants and so all the Nation are utterly uncapable of being disciples or how will Mr. T. expound the word all nations Answ. Had Mr. B. heeded the words of the 13. Section of the first part of my Examen or the 14th section of the Postscript to my Apology in answer to Mr. Bl. he might have found answer to these questions But I conceive upon very probable signes Mr. B. never studied my writings but lightly read them and I finde he hath dealt with me in like manner concerning my answers in the dispute at Bewdley and such passages as he excepts against which fell from me in private conference and that this is the reason of these and many more unnecessary questions he puts me to answer But if the Reader please to read the 2d part of tâ—is Review sect 5 c. he may see a full answer to these questions the sum whereof is this that Christ bids them Go and by preaching the Gospel Mark. 16.15 make disciples of or out of all nations and then baptize them who by believing the Gospel became disciples Mark 16.16 which may and must be understood with exclusion of infants as when he bids them preach the Gospel to every creature Mark. 16.15 Col 1.23 it was preached to every creature under heaven yet no infant meant And by way of retortion I do sâ—riously ask Mr. B. how he will expound the word all nations and how Christ can bid them disciple infants without making Christ a fool and a tyrant in commanding that which is ridiculous and impossible Mr B saith of me further He oft saith It is here one and there one out of a city or nation that God will call I shall say more to the shame of this speech afterwards yet let me say this much at present If it bee but some few or here and there one yea or but the most that Christ commandeth to disciple then we must endeavour to make but those few or most disciples for our endeavour must not go beyond our command and commission But this is most horrid Doctrine and notoriously false that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavour the discipling of all but of some For Paul oft professeth his longing and endeavour to the contrary therefore it is as false that the command is not for the discipling all Answ. What Mr. B. hath said to the shame of my speech plain Scripture proof c. pag. 279 280. which is I think the place hee means is to the shame of so impudent an affronting of plain Scripture proof refelled in my Praecursor sect 22. which shame is not at all covered by hiâ— reply in his praefestinis morator sect 22. in which he doth not at all answer my proof out of Scripture for my speech but onely seeks to acquit himself from that which I charge him with as not rightly setting down my words which is his frequent fault Two parts of my speech he excepts against 1. that God will not call nor ever did a whole nation so as that every individual should be within the visible Church Against this he refers to his Addition pag. 339.340 and there he turns me over to Mr. Hudson and refers me to the answering of him when I answer the 20th Chapter of the first part of his plain Script c. But many of the texts and consequently the rest are shewed to bee impertinently alledged in the 2d part of this Review sect 9. where pag. 129. I was mistaken in what I said I know not what is in Mr. Bs. addition pag. 339 340. thinking then it had been some addition which was not in his first edition which now I finde otherwise and therefore if I say no more of that the Reader will not want an answer to the allegations in his addition pag. 339 340. 2. He excepts against what he conceives I say that Apostles and Ministers ought not to endeavour the discipling of all but of some which he terms horrid doctrine and notoriously false On the otherside if my meaning be rightly understood to wit of persons that have not the use of reason such as inâ—ants natural fools c. I aver the contrary doctrine to be horrid and notoriously false for the reasons fore-given If he charge me with it that because I say God will not call a whole nation which I mean of effectuall call alluding to 1 Cor. 1.26 27 c. therefore I mean that we should endeavour to disciple none but such his charge is but a calumny No words of mine either in pulpit wâ—iting or private speech tended to such a sense As for what he saith Paul oft professeth his longing endeavour to the contrary if he mean contrary to my assertion it is most false He no where professeth his longing and endeavour to disciple the whole of a nation even the infants The profession he makes Philip. 1.8 is the fullest and likeliest to be meant by Mr. B. that comes to my thoughts which it were ridiculous to apply to infants they all being the same to whom he wrote entituled Saints in Christ v. 1. with whom he had fellowship in the Gospel v. 5. in whom God had begun a good work v. 6. who in his bonds and in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel were partakers of his grace v. 7. whose love he mentions v. 9. Thus much for the proof of which Mr. B. was confident To his words If this my alleaging Gal. 4.1 c. Matth. â—8 19 as before be not to feign God to say what we would have him yea contrary to what he doth say then I am quite mistaken I answer I grant it and add that I do not call to minde that ever I found a man of so much fame and confidence so fouly mistaken as Mr. B. is in this point I proceed as fast as I can after M. B. who hath made the way foul by his scribling SECT LI. The arguments from the altering of the Jewish Church constitution and call the ceasing of the High Priest c. to prove Infants now no visible Church-members are made good against Mr. Bs. 5th Ch. plain c. part 1. BUt let us hear saith he whether his arguments be any clearer then these texts for him The sum of all his arguments that I can hear is this If the Church constitution whereof they were members be taken down then their membership is taken down but the Church c. therefore c. To prove the antecedent this is added If their Church call be altered then their Church constitution is altered but their Church call iâ— altered therefore c. To prove the minor he shews the different calls then and now 1. Then they were called by Moses or Abraham â—he Magistrate but now by Ministers 2. Then