be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we For though God should reveal that this or that person were elect and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future yet he were not to be baptized till God revealed that he were a believer or disciple For if so than if God did reveal concerning any as he did of Isaac and Jacob that he were a child of the promise though yet unborn in the Mothers womb he were to be baptized which is absurd None are to be baptized afore born therefore any principle whatsoever in Scripture demonstrating a person to be in the Gospel covenant is not sufficient to intitle to baptism much less such an uncertain doubtful guess called charitable presumption that he is in the Covenant as is without any particular declaration of Scripture or other revelation from God concerning the person or any shew of his that he is Gods child which yet Mr Geree makes a sufficient warrant to baptize nor is his reason of any force for we might in like manner say They have the election of God which is the greater who can inhibit the sign which is the less It is not whether that which they have is greater much less that which is conjectured or hoped they have which is the rule to baptize but the manifest having of that qualification of faith or discipleship which is prerequired to baptism according to the institution and primitive practice of it But Mr. Geree hath more to prove his Major Besides saith he we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed whom God had thereby separated then to be his church and evidenced it by an outward seal there was so near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation whereby men were externally separated from the world that circumcision was called the covenant and the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. to shew us how the seal did follow the Covenant and therefore when any were aggregated into the Jewish Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision To which I answer letting pass his Phraseology this reason goes upon these suppositions 1. That by Circumcision God had administred his Covenant to Abraham and his seed and separated them to be his Church and evidenced it by Circumcision and that the seal did follow the Covenant when any were taken into Covenant they were circumcised and therefore it must be so in baptism But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcised he administred the covenant of grace which sense alone serves his turn it is not true Ishmael was circumcised yet the Covenant not administred to him nor he separated to be of his Church not this evidenced by an outward seal but the contrary declared concerning him afore his Circumcision Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. and he in the event cast out and so the seal did not follow so the Covenant but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made and not imparted to them to whom it did belong as v. g to the females nor were the Prosâ—lytes all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Israel nor 〈◊〉 the calling circumcision the covenant or a token of the Covenant which are all one Gen. 17.10 11. prove that all that were circumcised had the Covenant made to them but this that Circumcision was a memorial that such a covenant was made with Abraham and God would perform it 2. That it must be in baptism as it was in circumcision But for proof of that there 's not a word brought by Mr. G. and what others bring is examined in its place M. G. goes on thus Now for your exceptions against the connexion which we put between the Gospel-covenant and the Sacrament of initiation annext to it in any administration they will cleerly be wiped away for what though as you say the Covenant made with Abraham were not a pure Gospel covenant but had some external additaments yet a Gospel covenant it was and for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached before to Abraham and as circumcision was the seal of initiation under that administration so is baptism under the Christian administration neither is the Gospel covenant now so pure as to exclude all temporal promises For godliness even under the Gosspel hath the promises of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 Answ. The distinction of a pure and a mixt covenant was brought in by me to shew that Paedobaptists do but mislead people when in their writings and sermons they express themselves as if they would have men conceive that the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. is all one with the Covenant of grace and so that there is the same reason of baptizing infants because of the Gospel covenant as there was of circumcising infants because of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Now how doth Mr. Geree wipe this away He tells his Reader That I say the covenant made with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant but had some external additaments But neither do I so speak in my Exercit. pag. 2. nor Exam. part 3. s. 2. nor any where else I know I say the promises were mixt Exercit. pag. 2. Exam. part 3. s. 2. now promises are not external additaments to the covenant but integral parts the covenant being nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises yea I prove that the peculiar promise to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting of the Land of Canaan c. is frequently called by the name of the Covenant Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 c. And for what he saith That the covenant made with Abraham was a Gospel covenant this is true according to the more infolded and hidden sense of the spirit but not according to the outward face and obvious construction of the words which in the first meaning spake of things proper to Abrahams natural posterity though the Holy Ghost had a further aim in those expressions And whereas he saith The covenant made with Abraham was for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 Though that promise mentioned Gal. 3.8 be no in the Covenant Gen. 17. to which Circumcision was annexed but that Gent 12.3 and the term substance be ambiguous yet I grant the Covenant made with Abraham according to those Gospel promises which in the hidden meaning declared justification by faith as the new covenant sealed with Christs blood doth is the same in substance meaning by it the intent purport and meaning of the Holy Ghost though not in words or expressions yet I deny that it was every way or in every respect in substance the same For the promise according to that sense in which they contain domestique or civil
been made good wheresoever they had inhabited or sojourned the promise of Canaan is over and above added to it The reason given by M. T. for his dislike of Chamier 's expression calling it an Appendix to the Covenant is little to purpose Psalm 105.10 15. The gift of the Land of Canaan is called a Covenant and therefore not an appendant to it By the same reason Circumcision must be the Covenant and not a seal appendant to it seeing Circumcision is called a Covenant Gen. 17 10. Mr. T. is not ignorant of thâ—se Scripture Metonymies Answ. I finde Chamier lib. de baptis cap. 10. Sect. 23. saying That the promise of Canaan is not the Covenant but an Appendix to the Covenant But I finde not that he produceth any warrant from the Text Gen. 17.7 8. to call it so nor that he doth any other way go about to prove it but that the words Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and of thy seed Which he calls the covenant is ill explained of earthly happiness either as the chief or onely happiness there meant which he proves from Matth 22.32 Nor is there any force in this Reason The promise of Canaan is added v. 8. over and above the promise v. 7. therefore it was an appendix and not the covenant For if this reason be good it might be said The promise v. 7. is not the covenant but an appendix to it cause it is added over and above the promise v. 4. Add as for me behold my covenant is with thee and thou shalt be a father of many Nations which is termed Gods covenant with him Gen. 18.8 yea me thinks the argument is good to the contrary the promise Gen. 17.8 was added over and above the promise v. 7. and closed with this Epiphoneme And I will be their God therefore it was a part of the covenant yea a main part of it Nor because the promise v. 7. might have been made good wheresoever they had inhabited or sojourned Doth it follow that the promise v. 8. was not a part of the covenant for by the same reason neither the promise v. 4. that Abraham should be a father of many Nations had been a part of the covenant sith the promise v. 7. might have been made good though he had been father of one Nation onely Mr. Blake doth not rightly form my Reason from Psalm 105.8 9 10 11. thus The gift of the Land of Canaan is called a covenant and therefore not an appendant to it but thus it is in my Examen part 3. Sect. 2. the Psalmist calls the promise of Canaan the covenant made with Abraham Psalm 105.8 9 10 11. therefore it is a part of the covenant and not onely an appendix Nor doth it follow that then circumcision must be the covenant for it is confessedly called the covenant Gen. 17.10 by a Metonimy and v. 11. shews it where it is said And it shall be the token of the covenant between me and you But it cannor be expounded by a Metonimy Psalm 105.8 9 10 11. For 1. The gift of the Land of Canaan was not a sign of the covenant nor can with any good sense be called the covenant according to any other sort of Metonimy besides that of the thing signified for the sign 2. If it could yet the phrases used shew it cannot be understood Metonimically For it is called as well the word which he commanded to a thousand generations the covenant which he made with Abraham the oath unto Isaac which he confirmed to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant and when it is recited the Psalmist prefixeth v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translation reade saying Junius Piscator dicendo which doth directly tell us wherein it was that the covenant he made did formally consist which he is said to remember v. 8. which thing is so clearly expressed Nehem. 9.8 Gen. 26.3 28.3 4 13 14 c. that I should wonder Mr. Bl. should persist in this wrangling course to question a thing so plain but that I see him tenacious of absurdities he vents though never so gross as from his exposition and inference from Gal. 4.29 and other passages hath been made appear Mr. Bl. adds 3. As his proof is weak to make the covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant but mixt so in the third place he is not constant to himself pointing that out which he makes pure Gospel Gen. 17.5 Gen. 12.3 Gen. 18 18. illustrated by some New Testament Scriptures Rom. 4.17 18. Gal. 3 8 9 16. Acts 3.25 he observes yea it is to be noted that those promises which were Evangelical according to the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost do point at the privileges of Abrahams house in the outward face of the words and thereupon raises a doubt whether any covenant made with Abraham be simply Evangelical And so he can finde out Evangelical promises in the inwards of that covenant which is non-evangelical in the outward face so Bellarmine with whom he so much to speak in his own language symbolizeth can finde out spiritual Evangelical promises in that which he concluded to be of another nature denying that the promise made to Abraham in the letter was any promise of forgiveness of sins but of special protection and government and earthly happiness yet confesseth that in a mystical sense they were spiritual promises both of pardon of sin and life eternal and that they belong to us Bellar. de Sacram. Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. whereof Chamier observes that which is promised mystically God in covenant doth promise but Heaven is here promised mystically therefore in this covenant here is a promise of Heaven so the inward and outward face will be all Evangelical Answ. Mr. Bl. mis-recites my words 1. in saying That I point out in the Texts Gen. 17.5 15.5 12.3 18.18 that which I make pure Gospel for my words are that was Evangelical which we reade Gen. 17.5 c. not that it was pure Gospel 2. That I raise a doubt whether any covenant made with Abraham be simply Evangelical whereas my words are whence it may be well doubted whether this covenant made with Abraham may be called simply Evangelical not whether any which is the same with that speech forecited Sect 25. of Mr. Allâ—n This covenant was not simply and oneâ—y the covenant of grace But what inconstancy to my self giving and taking not knowing what to determine is in those speeches or in that other which he most excepts against yea it is to be noted c. I am yet to learn Do I eiâ—her by saying that the promises were Evangelical say that they were purely Evâ—ngelical not mixt or by doubting whether they may be called simply Evanglical revoke what I said that they were Evangelical I think Mr. Blakâ— will as soon extract water out of a Flint as such inferences from my words Young Legicians do know that to argue a dicto secundum quid
the Covenant and Seals in generall are the root of his error about baptism or at least much strengthen it and there he takes upon him to refute them Since that time Mr. Bl hath renewed his exceptions Vindic grat ch 7. to which as touching upon Mr B. about the thing sealed and manner of sealing Mr B. hath replied in his Apologie against Mr. Blakes Exceptions Sect. 60 c. pag. 115. Because of Mr Bs censure I have received the passages in Mr Blakes answer to my Letter ch 15. in my Postscript Sect. 21. and leaving Mr. B. who is no competent judge of my Writings by reason of his prejudice against me and the cause I maintain and others to conceive of my books as they please I am not ashamed to profess 1. That I discern no such true worth in Mr Blakes mentioned passages which open the nature of the covenant but rather sundry that darken it the shewing of which now would be but a digression 2. That there is not one of the three positions set down by Mr Blake which doth contradict anything I said in my Examen part 4. Sect 5. For I said not the Sacraments are Seals absolute not conditionall but that God seals not upon condition persons agnize the covenant as Mr M. said in his Sermon pag. 49 nor did I deny that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of iâ— is common to elect and reprobate but that Gods covenant of grace or as I said before his promise in the covenant of grace is common to the elect and reprobates and this was it which I termed symbolizing with Arminians not that which Mr. Blake sets down 3. That I do not find that I have need to make any further reply to Mr. Blake therein nor to the six arguments he brings Vindic. Foed ch 7. to prove Sacraments sealing conditionally And for the flings Mr Blake hath at some speâ—ches of mine I shall briefly return answer Those words of mine I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall Seal for that which seals doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not contend Mr. Bl. leaving out the later words thus opposeâ—h Then our Lawyers have a long time decived us who have given us presidents as they call them for obligations under seal to run in these words The condition of this obligation is such and after an indication of the condition to conclude and close up all then this present obligation to be void and of none effect or else to stand in full force and vertue Seals we see leave the condition to me doubtfull Whereto I reply Neither I nor the Lawyers do deceive Mr Blake but he deceives himself the words of the president do intimate that the validity of the obligation is conditionall and is left doubtfull not that the seal is conditionall which doth absolutely assure or testifie the obligation or as the Lawyers speak the act and deed of him that seals which is not future but present and so not conditionall Mr Baxter Apol. against Mr Blake Sect. 77. I never heard of nor knew a conditionall sealing in the world though I have oft heard of the effects of obligation and collation of right to be conditionall which are not onely separate from the terminus proximus of sealing but also are directly the effects of the covenant promise testament c. onely and but remotely of the seals inasmuch as that seal is a full owning of the testament of conveyance yet such a thing as a conditionall sealing may be imagined In a word a conditionall engagement or obligation is one thing and frequent a conditionall seal or sealing is another thing but unknown There are other things at me as calumniating Mr. M. concerning his words as symbolizing with the Arminians which I shall acquiâ— my self from in answering Mr B. and that Mr Bs questionist and my self are both of one pitch both for knowledge and ignorance and stand equally affected to Mr. Bl. both in respect of his person and opinions which intimate as if he were perswaded I were that questionist whom I profess to be unknown to me and were disaffected to Mr. Blakes person though I knew not wherein I have shewed any disaffection to him and for my knowledge or ignorance be it more or lesse I hope it will appear in the conclusion that God hath given me so much knowledge as to shew the vanity of Mr Blakes and Mr Bs pleas for Infant-baptism And for his flirt or scoff at the wide standing open of the door in my night Sacraments I think my actions justifiable in celebrating the Lords Supper at night as Christ did with such notes as the Apostle made thereon in calling it the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 and relating it so distinctly v. 23 25. My admitting none but bapâ—â—zed persons after profession of faith is justified by Mr Blakes own words though somewhat misrepresenting my tenent Vindic. Foed ch 23. nor do I admit any one other profession to baptism than was done in the first times by men who had the Spirit of God to guide them and if any be baptized in the night it 's justifiable by Pauls action Acts 16.33 His flings also which he hath Vindic. Foed ch 17. p. 126. shew the same Satyricall vein when he saith I establish a new conditionall covenant against the New Testament light which I shall shew I establish in that sense I do it according to plain New Testament light and censures these words the not teaching one another spoken of Heb. 8 11. is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law Apol. pag. 154. said somewhat Magisterially after my manner whereas neither could I well dilate then being straitned in time and the exposition of that place there was but on the by and enough was said by me in those words answerably to the occasion and I conceived understanding men would gather the reason of my interpretation from those few words which is that the new covenant being there declared coÌ„tradistinct to that in Horeb as the writing the laws in the heart is mentioned to distinguish it from the writing in stone so the teaching is mentioned to distinguish it fâ—oÌ„ that obscure teaching which was under the Law which I said not magisterially nor any thing else as Mr. Bl. mis-censures me This is enough if not too much to answer these flirts of Mr. Bl. Fourthly I add That I find sundry passages in Mr. Bl. which seem to me to speak to the same purpose with my words as Answer to my Letter pag. 99. that Baptism assures actually when men doe believe pag. 102. out of Mr. Ball They that be truly in covenant obtained the highest blessings p. 106. This covenant of Jeremies is no more than that promise Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed that thou
might have known whether he takes it in the same notion which I do whose Examen Mr. Cotton in his letter to me certified me that he was to examine A covenant in the proper acception is a promise single or mutuall the covenant of grace is Gods covenant or promise of grace a term not used in Scripture though agreeably enough to it Every covenant of God may be well enough termed A covenant of grace It was of his grace that is free favour that God made any covenant with man in innocency that he entred into covenant with the Israelites at the giving the Law at Mount Sinai yet commonly Divines oppose the covenant of grace to either of these covenants It is true there are who make the covenant at Mount Sinai the covenant of grace with a different administration which to be a mistake is shewed in that which follows Usually difference is made between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works or of the Law which is agreeable to the Apostles expressions Gal. 3.17 4.24 The one promiseth justification by keeping the Law the other by believing in Christ. I for my part take the covenant of grace for Gods promise of Evangelicall saving grace to wit regeneration justification by Christ c. according to the doctrine of the Author to the Hebrews chap. 8 9 10 1â— 12. 10 16 17. which our Lord Christ calls The New Testament Matth. 26.28 I acknowledge also that Gen. 17.7 and elsewhere this covenant was made to Abraham under câ—vert expressions which in their first and most obvious sense held forth other things But I am put to ghesse what Mr Cobbet means by the covenant of grace and in which words Gen. 17. and in what sense he placeth the covenant of grace there He speaks of a visible politicall Church-covenant and conceives the covenant of grace Gen. 17. to be invested with it either explici or implicit The visible poliâ—icall Church-covenant as I conceive from sundry writings of the New England Elders is that promise of members in a particular Church gathered in a Congregationall way wherein over and besides the promise they make of faith in God and in the Lord Christ they explicitly or implicitly promise to each other to walk in holy communion of Gods Ordinances and subjection to those that are over them with the members of the congregation to which they adj in themseâ—ves as members Mr. C. supposeth this covenant as elsewhere so here Gen. 17. to be included I wiâ—h many others see no clear ground for such a covenant there or elswhere Besides what he means by the covenant of grace considered as invested with a visible politicall Church-covenant if not explicit yet implicit is obscure Invested is as much as clothed and it is used as a term of Law as in the great question about investures into Bishopricks in former ages and so it notes a legall admission But in what sense the covenant of grace is said to be invested is somewhat dark This I conceive is the meaning That the covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 is made to Abraham and his seed considered as joyned by a visible politicall Church-covenant But I conceive such a position neiâ—her true nor safe Not true for no mention either explicit or implicit of such a Church covenant is here or in any of the places he cites None â—here For though God made the promise in reference to the Church which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac v. 18 19 20 21 yet that Church might be joyned by common profession of the same God without a promise explicit or implicit of walking togeâ—her in communion under an eternall politie God ordained Circumcision as a sign of the Covenant made with Abraham But in what words or fâ—ct there 's any implied way of restâ—pulation confession or promise to God I am yet to seek much mâ—re wherein they did bind themselves in a nearer religiousâ—ie one to another For though God intended by Circumcision to bind them to leave sin and keep his precepts and to direct them to look for the Messiâ—h yet that they by any word or act of theirs did promise to do so I find not there nor is it likely that Ishmael did make any such profession or promise to God or to others of the family considering his after carriage to Isaac and his expulsion from Abrahams house As for the other texts Deut. 29.12 13 there 's mention of entring into covenant with the Lord not a word of entring into covenant one with another much less of submitting to any outward Ecclesiastical governors or government The same may be said of the Covenant 2 Chron. 15.12 13. 2 Chron. 34 31 32. there 's a covenant to God mentioned but not a Covenant to each other called a Church-covenant 2 Chron. 30 There 's no mention of any covenant but of keeping the Passover Nehem. 10.29 30. it is said They clave to their brethren their Nobles and entred into an Oath to walk in Gods Law but that they entred into a covenant one with another I find not If the words They clave to their brethren their Nobles be meant of a promise to them yet a promise of subjection to them as Ecclesiasticall superiors of holding communion with them in ordinances for admission to Church-membership I find not there but an engagement with them to reâ—orm certain abuses And then Ordinances not a Covenant were made to charge themselves with for the service of the Lord Ezek. 16.8 There 's no mention of mans promise to God or to one another but the promise of God to them that he sware to Israel and entred into covenant with them and they became his Nor is the position safe that the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 is made to Abraham and his seed considered as joyned by a visible politicall Church-covenant for then should not the proselytes of the gate as for instance Cornelius the Centurion be included in the promise of being a God to him because it is certain he was not jâ—yned by a visible politicall Church-covenant to the Jewish Church sith he was uncircumcised and counted unclean insomuch as that Peters going in to him Aâ—ts 11.3 was conceived as unwarrantable for that reason And what can be the issue of this doctrine if received but perplexing superstitious fears of their salvation in some if they be not in Church-covenant for without the promise of being God to a person no man is sâ—ved and injurious censures of those not in Church-covenant as out of the way of salvation which will make it like the grand Imposture â—s Dr. Morton calls it of the Romish â—hurch That out of communion with it is no salvation I do not make such a Church-covenant unlawfull for what we are bound to do we may lawfully promise to do nor do I deny its expediency and usefulness especiâ—lly if it be not in too strict and intangling a form But I think there 's no sufficiâ—nt proof that
statuâ—es which were written in that very book of the law v. 10. which Moses delivered and it was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it Which cannot be meant thus Who shall ascend into heaven to bring Christ from above or who shall descend into the deep that is to bring Christ again from the dead that we may hear Christ thus brought down and up and do it it were not good sense nor any way congruous to the speech of Moses And to Mr. Bs. reply 1. I say it is not spoken of the promise for that is not a thing for us to hear and do but for God 2. Though the command may be a part of the Covenant in a large sense as it includes all that pertains to a Covenant yet in strict and exact sense a Covenanâ— being an aggregate of promises the command is not part of the Covenant 3. However it is no part of the Covenant and Oath which God swâ—re Deut. 29.13 For what God sware was that which he would do not what he appointed them to do and consequently no part of the Covenant of grace for that is of what God will do for us our faith though it be the condition of the thing promised yet iâ— it not the Covenant oâ— grace 4. The word Deut. 30.14 cannot be meant of the Covenant of grace sith the condition is the hearing and doing of all the law of Moses that they might keep Gods commandments and his statutes and his judgements which reach to judicial and câ—remonial precepts as well as moral that thou mayest live and multiply and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it Locus ille indubitanteâ— de obedienâ—ia totius legis loquitur David Pareus castig Bellarm. tom 4. degrat lib. arb l. 5. c. 6. 2. Saith Mr. B. You answer it is frequent with the Apostle to accommodate words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they were taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them as Rom. 10.18 Answ. A man would think here you plainly mean that it is frequent with the Apostle to wrest and pervert the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense and you can mean no better except you mean that he alludeth to the words making use of the meer phrase without the sense and indeed that is usual in common speech and such is that Rom. 10.18 But that he doth not barely allude to this in Deut. 30. is left undeniable â— He bringeth it in v 6. as Gods description of the righteousness of faith c. having before said Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law c. 2. He addeth the very exposition to every sentence who shall ascend into heaven that is saith he to bring Christ down from above And who shall descend into the deep that is to bring Christ again from the dead 3. He fully expresseth it v. 8. But what saith it The word is nigh thee c. that is the word of faith which we preach that if thou confess with thy mouth c. Is not here a full discovery that the Apostle expoundeth and not onely alludeth to these words Name mee one place in the New Testament that more evidently speaks in an expository way of any Text in the Old Answ. As much is said by the most godly and learned Protestant interpreters of this place as by me and therefore if I be chargeable with accusing the Apostle of wresting and perverting the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense they are likewise so chargeable Beza annot ad Rom. 10.8 By this term the word Moses understandeth the law which God by his voyce published all his people bearing so that they might pretend no ignorance when they had the tables of it described and so might every one recite it out of their mouth and might have it within as it were engraven in their knowledge and mind But what Moses spake of the law all that Paul accommodates to the Goppel by allusion that at length by the Gospel he may teach us to enjoy that indeed which the law promiseth and be fâ—eed from that which it threatneth Diodati annoâ— on Rom. 10.6 St. Paul maketh use of this passage though spoken in another sense The new Annot. on Rom. 10.8 â—y the word Deut. 30.14 Moses understood the law which the Lord published with his own voice and Paul applies it to the preaching of the Gospel which was the perfection of the Law On v. 18. This place is taken out of Psal. 19.4 and is properly meant of that knowledge of God which all men may have by contemplation of the heavens and the câ—eatures therein yet it is by the Apostle very fitly applied to the sound of the word preached by the Apostles â—rapp on Rom. 10.8 Moses meant it of the Law but it more fitly agreeth to the Gospel Piscater analys Paulus alludiâ— ad verba Mosis Deut. 30.14 Willet on Rom. 10. qu. 10. Some think that Moses in that place Deut. 30.12 directly speaketh of the law according to the literal sense and St Paul by a certain allusion applieth that unto faith which Moses uttereth of the law So Theodoret Chrysostome Occumenius Likewise Tostatus upon the place Paul by a certain agreeâ—ent hath translated this place and applied it unto faith Vatablus also saith that Paul followeth not Moses sense but some words Yet Pareus inclineth to think St. Paul here useth but an allusion to that place of Moses dub 6. Daniel Heinsius Exercit. sacr in Rom 10.6 7. E Rom. 10.18 patet rerum esse quod non semel alibi â—â—nuimus sed a magnis observatum Theologis in epistolam praesertim ad Hebraos meninimus novi faderis scriptores verba veteris eleganter venust non semel aliò tranâ—ferre Quod tam usitatum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut viâ— ullus fiâ— Homeri versus cuâ—us verba non mutato sensu usurpentur In his autem quod Matthaeus c. 2. v. 18. â— Jerem. 31.15 quod B. Hieronymus vult usurpavit neque pauca sunt in psalmis quae pro instituto suo Paulus maxima cum venustate usurpat Quâ—d nec mirum est cum utrobique idem spiritus qui tanquam propria ac sua ante dicta usurpavit And yet none of these Authors did conceive Paul to have wrested and perverted the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense nor doth my speech infer any such accusation Nor do I mean that Paul alludeth to the words making use of the meer phrase without the sense but that he accommodates words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them which is no wresting of them To the reason of Mr. B. I answer To the first that I do not find that the Apostle v. 6. brings it in as Gods description of the righteousness of
state out of which they were once cast but they were not cast out of the Church invisible not out of election and justification but out of a visible Churchstate and fellowship Breaking off as Mr. T. well saith is the same as casting away and reconciliation the same as ingraffing Their reconciliation or ingraffing is then into that condition from which they were broken out of which they were cast now they were cast out of the Church visible not out of the Church invisible when they were in a Churchstate they were nigh unto God Deut. 4.7 Psal. 148.14 Ephes. 2.17 Their reconciliation brings them into the same Churchstate which is a reconciliation gradual not total Answ. The casting away v. 15. is the same with the casting away v. 1 2. which is opposite to Gods fore-knowledge v. 2. to the election of grace v. 5. which obtained and the castaway were hardned or blinded v. 7 8 9 10. which he that understands of any other casting away then from the grace of election and effectual calling and the invisible Church seems to me to pervert the Apostles meaning very grosly Nor do I conceive it any absurdity to say that the Jewish people in Pauls time were broken off or cast away from that election and state in the invisible Church which they never had in their own persons but their ancestors had and they in course had obtained but for their unbelief As for the reconciliation in all places where he mentions it in his Epistles hee means it of that reconciliation which is by effectual conversion and justification through Christs death on which followes salvation Rom. 5.10 11. 2 Cor. 5.18 19 20. Col. 1.22 and not of Mr. Bls. gradual reconciliation of which hee hath not brought one instance for the use of the word in his sense nor is his example any thing like to the business in hand For it was not a reconciliation so as to bring them to the priviledges of a visible Churchstate but so to pardon the sin of worshipping the golden Calf as not utterly to destroy that people though the sinners fell in the Wilderness which was onely an abatement of punishment not an estating in priviledges as Mr. B. would have it But Mr. Bl. to my urging any one to shew mee in Scripture or any approved Protestant Writer such use of the word reconciliation as his is and my alledging Protestant approved Writers for my exposition thus saith 1. When Mr. T. pleaseth hee can heap up phrases which are onely once used in a select sense in Scripture and that to uphold his interpretation of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 when the context clearly evinces the contrary But that this is false and that the text clearly evinceth my interpretation is fully proved in the first part of this Review Section 22 c. Secondly saiâ—h hee Master T when hee pleases dare undertake the defence of an opinion held unanimously by all Papists and as unanimously opposed by Protestants as in that of Covenant holiness But this also is another of Master Bls. calumnies and unbrotherly taunts which hee frequently useth instead of answers and if there had been in him any candour of minde towards mee he had been satisfied with my answer in my postscript Sect. 13. But sith hee writes against me in a Cynical humour I pass by his snarlings and leave the cause to the Lord. Thirdly saith he Gomarus Tâ—m 1. p. 111. observes that world is taken in thaâ— sense in Rom. 11.12 15. as in no other Scripture But I think this is not true it is taken in the same sense 1 Tim. 3.16 and I think 2 Cor. 5.18 19. 1 Joh. 2.2 Fourthly saith he if recontiliation in no other place be so used yet little is gained seeing as wee have seen there are paralel phrases that hold out the same thing to us Answ. 1. Those paralel phrases were never yet seen by me 2. The thing is gained which is here contended for if reconciliation still signifie total reconciliation in the Scripture when it speakes of Gospel reconciliation and there is no cogent reason to move us to recede from that sense here and reconciliation be the same with ingraffing surely ingraffing is by giving faith according to election and the Church into which the ingraffing is is the invisible Mr. Bl. produceth a speech of Ravanelius which I have not for his sense But the words as hee produceth thâ—m seem not to mee to have that sense which Mr. Bl. alledgeth them for but rather my sense and a passage in the Annotations and another in Dr. Featley the Author of them on those Epistles But in neither doth Dr. Featley say by the reconciliation to God Rom. 11.15 is meant bare vouchsafing a visible Churchstate and by câ—sting away and breaking off a loss of visible priviledges nor do Peter Martyr or Eucâ—r say so And however I finde Protestant Writers do expound the ingraffing and breaking off in many of their writings of the visible Church yet those speeches which I alledged out of Mr. Ball and Dr. Ames are full to prove the reconciliation Rom. 11.15 to be saving and they that understand by breaking off there more then the loss of visible priviledges may notwithstanding Mr. Bls. censure without any shift in that point be acquitted from Arminianism My third arg was from v. 20. ingraffing must be by giving faith because it is by faith that the branch stands in the tree To this Mr. S. and Bl. both answer by granting the conclusion that it is by giving faith But this faith Mr. S. makes profession of faith Mr. Bl. a faith of profession To which I reply 1. If it were faith professed by which the branches stand in the tree yet infants are excluded from being of the branches for they stand not by faith professed 2. That it is not profession of faith or faith barely dogmatical which is meant Rom. 11.20 I prove 1. thus That standing which is a perseverance unto salvation is not by bare profession of faith but true justifying faith But the standing Rom. 11.20 is that standâ—ng which is a perseverance unto salvation ergo The major is manifest for it is not a bare profession of faith whereby a man perseveres to salvation but that which is justifying The minor is plain from the text The standing which is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity is standing by perseverance unto salvation This I presume will be yeilded direct opposite termes being according to Logick rules to bee understood in a direct opposite sense But the standing Rom. 1â— 20 is opposed to falling in which God shews his severity vers 2â— Ergo. 2. The standing which was to bee prevented by beeing not high minded but fearing and the losing of which was to bee feared is not a bare standing in the visible Church nor by bare profession of faith But the loss of the standing was to be feared and to be prevented by not being high minded but fearing
God Angels Saints and their highest graces and workings and to things raised above common use dedicated to God and his service but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holiness How much will the phrase of holiness and sanctification be debased and made common if that sense should be admitted contrary to the Scripture use of the word But that is a weak cause that puts men to such extraordinary shifts to maintain Answ. It 's the property of some persons like Thersites in Homer to speak much and to performe little and so it befals Mr. S. here He saith 1. I alledge 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. as the main place for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawfull whereas I alledge it not as Mr. S. saith but to shew that it is not true which Mr. M. said that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses 2. Though I say Mr. Ms. answer to be but a shift yet I shall see it demonstrative if I observe the phrases in the Text and the nature of sanctification But if all should be yeelded that 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. holiness were but a part of the new creation that chastity in heathens is never called sanctification yet this were but a shift to avoid the proof against Mr. Ms. assertion that holiness is always taken in a sacred sense for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses for the chastity of regenerate persons confessed to be termâ—d holiness and a part of sanctification is not taken in a sacred sense for separation from common to sacred uses But of this more may be seen in the first part of this Review sect 12. pag. 108. And as for Mr. Ss. reasoning it is far from demonstrative it being indeed against himself For if v. 1 2. be an exhortation to please God in general and v 3. express one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin and no other sin be named but fornication he doth particularly term abstaining from fornication holiness which is more fuâ—ly confirmed v. 4. where chastity is termed possessing our vessel in holiness and honour opposite to possessing our vessel that is our body in the lust of concupiscence as the Gentiles among whom fornication was frequent and this is v. 7. termed uncleanness and the opposite to it holiness that is chastity And for the other thing that chastity in it self as in the heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification and that sanctity is ascribed to the highest things it is but frivolous For though it be no part of true sanctification yet it may be termed holiness as there be many called Gods who are not the true and everliving God to whom though the term God do properly belong onely yet Magistrates and Angels are sometimes termed Gods without any debasement and though I would not in my pulpit without distinction term Magistrates Angels Gods or call an unlawfull assembly of Idolaters a Church yet who knows not the term Elohim and Ecclesia or Church to be applied to them So that however Mr. S. prattle of his demonstration and of the weakness of my cause and extraordinary shifts yet this is but frivolous talk without any performance He adds But to go on a little further The same word is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints or holy ones at Rome at Corinth Galatia Ephesus c. which when appropriated to persons always signifies a visible Saint So here when he calls children of believing parents holy he cannot but mean they are to be accounted as visible Saints until they do profess the contrary and I know no reason can be given why the meaning of the Apostle in his Epistles when he writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints should not be as well understood written onely to the legitimate and those that are not bastards aâ— Rome Corinth c. as well as for them to interpret the same word so in this place For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when applied to grown men must signifie visible and Evangelical holiness and must be translated Saints but when applied to children it must onely signifie legitimacy that they are not bastards when all men know that magis minus non variant speciem and the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament Answ. It is not true that the same term is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches it is not used in the Epistles to the Galatians and Thessalonians and in the titles where it is appropriated to persons signifies a Saint called sanctified in Christ Jesus faithfull which rather note an invisible then a visible Saint and if they do note a visible Saint they note one by calling sanctified in Christ believer in profession none of which are to be ascribed to infants of believers as such nor can be meant 1 Cor. 7.14 where children are termed holy by birth not by calling and are not said to be holy in Christ but in respect of their parents Whence apparent reason is given why the term holy in the titles of the Epistles cannot be translated legitimate in opposition to bastardy but Saints or men who are set apart for God by the love of God and therefore termed beloved of God Rom. 1.7 and the sanctification of the spirit by the Gospel and on the other side why holy 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be translated Saints or visible Saints not for that frivolous conceit of Mr. S. as if they might not be termed Saints 1 Cor. 7.14 for want of age whose gross application of a Logick rule shews he was but a smatterer therein For if visible saintship had been given to elder persons in respect of grown age and denied to infants yet there had been no variation of kind from more or less growth saintship being not the species or kind of such persons but humanity And what he saith that the word is of the same import in every place of the New Testament it is so false a speech and so ill becoâ—ming him that said p. 53. he had compared all the places in the New Testament where the word is used that no other excuse but of heedlesness or forgetfulness can acquit him from deceit For besides the places alledged Luke 2.23 2 Pet. 1.18 c. and his own distinctions of federal and inherent holiness together with the holiness intentional meant Rom. 11.16 shew it to be false What he adds By the same reason we account grown men holy we may account infants of believers for these that make a profession may have no inward and inherent holiness and a bare profession is not holiness we onely account them holy by a judicious charity and we are often deceived and
standard properly but metaphorically and therefore it follows upon Mr. Crs grant that the application of that one phrase of bringing their sons in their arms and daughters on shoulders according to the proper sense of the words is not right Nor is his endeavour to fit the metaphor to infant Baptism any better though in the Low Countries it were true that the eldest son of a Commission Captain being born there whilest his father is in the service of the State is by the courtesie of the Camp enrolled in the souldiers List on his birth-day and by the allowance of the State receives pay from the time of his nativity as he scribbles out of Fullers frivolous Treatise termed Infants Advocate p. 99. For 1. if infants be listed yet no standard is set up or hand lifted up to the people to bring them nor are they brought in their arms or bosoms in the Low Countries 2. Nor was any such usage among the Jews or Gentiles in Isaiahs time to whiâ—h he might bee conceived to allude and it is too ridiculous to go about as Mr. Cr. doth to explain a metaphor alluding to an use in Isaiahs time by an use no where shewed to be but in the Low Countries in our time That Mr. Gataker in the cause of infant Baptism interprets innumerable places against me â—s an untruth Though Esther were a â—ew yet a Queen of the Gentiles and â—â—ese things foretold Isa 49.22 23. were fulfilled in Cyrus time and iâ— Ahasuerus Artaxerxes and Darius time also yea and aâ—ter tâ—em in Alexander the Great and some of his successors and their Queens as Grotius conceives in his Annotations who also and Mr. Gataker shew how the prediction of bowing down and licking the dust of the Jews feet was fulfilled though not in Esthers time as I said the prophesie of Queens being a nursing mother to the Jews was yet in the times after afore Christs incarnation And for Mr. Crs. argument from v. 1 6 7 8 20 21. let him form it as strong as he can yet he will never prove that Isa. â—9 22 is a prophesie of infants visible Churchmembership in the times of the Gospel or their bringing to Baptism nor was I by any argument of Mr. Cr. forced to surrender up this hold that Isa. 49.22 23. is a prophesie of the return of the Jewes from the Babylonish captivity and their prosperity in Judea after their return aâ—ore Christs inearnation and yet were it understood of the times of the Gospel I shewed how it might be understood of grown men perswaded by the preaching of the Gospel as Junius in his Annotations which Mr. Cr. abusively puts into an argument as if it were alledged thus Junius says so thâ—reâ—ore it is so and denies the antecedent and conseâ—uent But neither was the consequent mine nor the antecedent as Mr. Cr. sets it down But this Janius saith that the standard Isa. 49.22 is the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth Rom. 1.16 and therefore it is meant of perswading grown men by the preaching of the Gospel and that all those things are allegorically spoken of the amplitude of Christs spiritual Kingdome and therefore not of bringing infants to baptism And for Cornelius a Lapide Hierome Cyril Haymo if they held it fulfilled in Gospel times and extended the words to grown men though they were for infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism yet they overthrow Mr. Crs. argument from thence which is of no force unless the words be understood onely of Gospel times and of infants being brought to some visible Ordinance as Baptism the contrary whereof his own Authors shew and himself grants and therefore I take all Mr. Crs. reasoning in the Dispute and this Reply from Isa. 49.22 to be meâ—r cavilling and still think it meet to refer the Reader for the discerning of my interpretation whether right or no and my yeelding that the words may be accommodated to the calling of the Gentiles without any oppositeness to my interpretation or appositeness to Mr. Crs. inference whether true or not to Mr. Gatakers Annotations which for no other reason but because however otherwise he differ from me I take to be the exactest and the most incomparable learned on that part of Scripture of any I know To Mr. Crs. defence Sect. 12. of his alleging thus Isa. 65.20 There shall be no more an infant of dayes that is infants shall noâ— be uncapable of the seal against my answer impliedly denyâ—ng the consequence and saying it hath no proof but his dictate which is thus To which it were sufficient reply to say it hath no disproof but his dictate which is without all shew of prohability there being not a word of any such thing as oâ—tward peace increase possession and long life to the Jews unless in the type aâ—d that scarce probable but of the glorious estate of the times of the Gospel held out in outward ordinances as shall appear I oppose 1. that I needed bring no other disproof but denial being a respondent but it is necessary hee should make good his sense if hee will inferre his conclusion thence 2. My disproof was right for v. 18 â—9 speaks of the outward peace of Jerusalem and her people their long life increase building planting possession opposite to their former troubles v. 16. are expressed v. 20.21 22 23. not a word of outward ordinances Against this saith Mr. Cr. And in Isa. 65.20 there is need of such an interpretation for as v. 17. the new heavenâ— and new earth and 18 19. creation and Jerusâ—lem were analogical and not proper so the 20. v. is wholly tropâ—cal and mystical There shall be no more thence an infant of days How can thiâ— be understood litterally did not infants after as well as unâ—er the captivity make up their weeke of dayes months of weeks c. It must needs relate to some thing under the Jewish Paedagogy and nothing so probably as that of theirs that nothing was clean till a Sabbath had gone over it and therefore according to Divine institution Circumcision was not tiâ—l the 8th day Mr. T. might have done well to have imparted us either his own or Mr. Gatakers descant on these wordâ— but because they could devise nothing that like the ears under the Lions skin would not discover the whoâ—e imposture ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem Answ. That Jerusalem is analogical is not proved nor doth it follow v. 17. is tropical therefore also v. 20. any more then Isa. 11 6 7 8. is allegorical therefore also v. 2 3 4 5 9. Mr. Gatakers sense is plainly â—et down without any imposture in his Annotations which is this There shall be no more thence brought to burial by reason of untimely ends as formerly a child that hath not fulfilled hiâ— dayes but shall live and attain to his just growth and full 〈◊〉 oâ— years This sense is noâ— infringed by any thing Mr. Cr. saâ—th yea
promise Acts 2.39 must be understood so as to be made good to Abrahams seed afore Christ But if so it were false in his sense for all Abrahams seed had not the birth priviledge of the first seale not the females any of them nor any of the males till the eight day 2. He saith it cannot be true of extraoâ—dinary gifts sith then all believing Jews must have those gifts which they had not and all believers might pray for them To which I say if the promise be so understood you shall all have sueh gifts I acknowledg it were not true Exam. part 3. Sect 6. But in this sense it may be true even of those gifts the promise of sending the spirit in extraordinary gifts is fulfilled to you and your children and all that are afarr off even as many as the Lord our God shall call that is for their and your benefit in that by those gifts the Apostles were inabled to publish and propagate the Gospel which is a benefit to all that are called The Second exception is that the words as many as the Lord our God shall call expound the Apostle meaning which is this their children should receive the promise if the Lord called them To it he answers 1. that this particle even with that which follows whom the Lord our God shall call has relation to the next foregoing sentence viz. those that are afarr off for the explanation of that not unto this sentence to you and your children so that the Apostle speaks thus The promise is made to you and your children for the present and when the Lord shall call those that are a far off and strangers to the Covenant of promise they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as you and your children are now To which I reply M. Drew gives no reason why the limitation should be ment onely of those afar off and not also of them and their children 2. nor doth he answer the reason given to the contrary that the speech were not true if it be so expounded as that the sense be that God would be a God to those Jews he then spake to though they were not called to the knowledge and belief of Christ and so salvation by another then Christ contrary to the same Apostles words Acts 4 12. To me saith M. Gataker discept debapt Inf. viz. and eâ—fic pag. 253. the Covenant of grace Act· 2.39 seems onely to be with them that have embraced the Gospel Now if the words as many as the Lord our God shall call must limit the words to you and all that are afar off it is incongruous to the use of speaking not to apply it to your children in the middle Yea without the limitation it would not be true that God hath promised to be a God to their or any others children For God is not a God to any but those he calls either outwardly or inwardly at least 3. His Paraphrase when the Lord our God shall call those that are afar off they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as your children are now is an intolerable abuse of adding that of which there is not a word in the text which doth not mention at all the children of them that are afar off though called 2. saith M. Drew if the Appostle had meant to apply the promise onely to those who should be called of God to believe then it had been needless to have made any mention at all of children To which I reply there was great reason why he should mention their children with them because they had wished Matth. 27.25 Christs blood on them and their children To take away the horrour of soule and fear of the curse on them and their children caused by the conscience of their crucifying Christ and imprecation to them and their children and not to assure them of such a poor empty Eclesiastical outward priviledge as paedobaptists imagine to belong to believers infants was that speech of the Apostle intended in like fort as Joseph did in the like Gen. 45.3 4. c. Gen. 50.20 For this end was sutable to the occasion of their question Ver. 36.37 and to the Apostles answer and it seems probable tthe Apostle saith to you and your children but not to all that are afar off and their children because those afar off had not wished Christs blood on them and theirs as the other had done 3. Saith M. Drew it utterly overthrows the Apostles scope which is to shew the Jews shall be bettered rather then worsted by believing in Christ which they would hardly believe should he have left their children who were alwayes till now reckoned in Covenant with them in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world which had been a bad argument to bring in the Jews cold comfort to hear that their children should be made as much aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel by their Fathes embracing the Gospel as the very Pagans Surely this would stave off the Jews from Christ rather then bring them on To which I reply The Apostles scope is plain to direct them what to do being oppressed with the horrour of their sin in crucifying Christ and wishing his blood on them and their children and Ver. 39. is a notice to them to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ. To imagine the Jews then either thought of a priviledge for their children answerable to circumcision or that Peters scope was to satisfy them about it is such a toy as is fit for children rather then men of understanding It had been alike comfort unto the Jews at that time to tell them of their Infants right to baptism as for a man to tell an arraigned malefactor expecting to be condemned and hanged that his little child had a new Coat given him vain words and bug-bears fit to affright children with of a childs being out of the Covenant for defect of tittle to baptism of being in worse case then the Jews in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel debarred a priviledge the deprivation of which would have staved off the Jews from Christ. Children may be in covenant as much as the Jews no whit worsted in their condition in a better condition then barbarious heathen infidels though title to baptism be not aserted to their infants If by the commonwealth of Israel the Jewish civil or Eclesiastical estate be understood those that Peter spake to must expect to be alienated from it if they would be Christians They knew Christ was cast out and might know he had told them it would be so with his disciples If by the Common-wealth of Israel be meant the true Christian Church the defect of Infant-baptism neither expressly nor by consequence made them aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel Such conceits arise from paedobaptists mistaken suppositions Nor can I imagine but that
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
the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant and they are capable of the seal and there is no special bar put in against them by God himself Ergo They should be sealed Or thus All who since Abrahams time are foederati or Covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation All infants of believers since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God neither uncapable of the seal nor exempted by a particular dispensation Ergo all infants of believers since Abrahams time must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant To which I answer Mr. M. tells me I must needs state thus the general Proposition But it is a pretty art he hath as elsewhere to call that my Minor which was his own not mine so here to say I must needs state the general Proposition thus which is of his own framing However he is not wronged that it is thus framed Let us then view it and try whether except in that of circumcision there be any truth sense or consideratenesse in it As for circumcision if it be meant onely of it then the Conclusion can be of it only and as the truth is his argument concludes only that infants of believers are to be circumcised 1. I had in my Examen noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon in that his Conclusion was of a sign of the Covenant indefinite and not of baptism only whereas the Lords Supper is also a sign of the Covenant which he would not have delivered to infants And to it he answers That he clearly in his Sermon shewed this Proposition to be only meant of the initial sign and not of the other But this doth not excuse his fault who taking upon him to prove infant-baptism concludes another thing in the argument though he might perhaps some pages of where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument limit his speech to the initial seal And for what he tells me he is sure that I who durst baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate durst not give the other Sacrament to it there being self examination and ability to discern the Lords body prerequired to the one not to the other I told him in my Apology s. 10. I durst do the one as I durst do the other and that self examination and ability to discern the Lords body is as well required to baptism as the Lords Supper Acts 2.38 8.37 Rom. 6.3 4. But were it that I durst not do the one as the other yet this would not help Mr. M. who would prove the title to the initial seal by that proof of interest in the Covenant which will conclude as well title to the after as the initial seal For the proof is usually the seal must follow the covenant which if true then not only the initial but also the after-seal must follow it But waving this is the fault mended in his Defence doth he conclude definitely of baptism here nay notwithstanding he was warned yet chorda semper oberrat eadem he still runs into the same fault concluding in both forms of an initial seal indefinitely not definitely of baptism and therefore may be interpreted to conclude of circumcision as well as of baptism yea rather his assertion if there be any good sense of it is of the circumcising then baptizing of infants sith all his proof is about the initial sign of circumcision and the limitations he puts into the Major are that it may be true of circumcision But this is not all the fault in his new forms notwithstanding I complained in my Examen sect 3. of his ambiguities which I shewed in my Apology s. 9 10. and Postscript s. 6. yet as if either he could not or would not speak distinctly he retains the same fault in his Defence Whereas I conceive the covenant of grace now contains only the promise of saving grace he saith p 90. The Covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church privileges but shews not where nor in which covenant of grace there are promises of the administration of saving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges It is true circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.13 by a Metonymia as Mr. M. confesseth page 32 but not because it was contained in the Covenant it is not Metonymia continentis pro contento but signati pro signo now that the sign should be said to be contained in the covenant is scarse good sense sure it is not meet to be used in disputes And therefore whoever useth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of saving grace or saith it contains any other than promises of saving grace seems to affect ambiguities unmeet for dispute as not willing to be understood Again page 92. he expresseth the covenant of grace he means to be that Gen. 17.7 and he cannot but know it to have diverse meanings one that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed which he confesseth pag. 102. to be the elect when he saith Secondly by the word seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9.8 and in this sense it is denyed by him that God hath made a promise of saving grace to the natural seed of believers and so they are not in this covenant in this sense Yet the Directory when it speaks of baptism as the seal of the covenant means it in this sense as the words before recited shew for what else can be meant when they distinguish between interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and the ouâ—ward privileges of the Church under the Gospel And Rom. 4.11 is alleged in the Confession of Faith for the proof of this that it is the seal of the Covenant of grace now that text speaks of being a seal of the righteousness of faith which is a saving grace and in the Confession of faith ch 7. art 3. and in the greater Catechism they make the Covenant of grace to offer life and salvation by Christ to promise faith and to be made with Christ and in him with all the elect as his seed and so the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal must mean it thus or else it is frivolous For if the Seal must follow the Covenant it must follow the Covenant which is sealed by it which is only the promise of saving grace there being no shew of consequence in it infants of believers have not the covenant of saving grace but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges therefore they are to be sealed with that seal which seals only saving graces And yet methinks they should not have avouched as the Directory doth that the posterity
of the faithful have by their birth interest in that Covenant considering how the Apâ—stle determines Rom. 9.8 the children of the flesh may not be the children of God nor the seed nor children of the promise Another ense of the promise Gen. 17.7 is I will be a God to Abraham and his natural seed by Isaac and Jacob But in this sense it is proper only to the Jewes and the argument is as frivolous God promised to be a God to the Jews therefore infant-Gentiles who have nothing to do with that promise must have baptism which is no seal or token of that promise at all If Mr. M. would have done something to his purpose he should have shewed not as he doth p. 106 107 c. in many words quite besides the business how the Covenant is taken strictly and largely and how they may be said to be in covenant in some sense who have a visible right without saving grace but have shewed in which words there is any promise that may infer right to Gentile-believers infants to be baptized Gen. 17.7 or how he can prove what he saith page 103. That baptism seals that promise in which God engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed I would fain know in what words in respect of what blessings and gifts and in what manner or upon what terms God thus engageth himself The Apostle saith Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his seed were the promises made I no where find they were made to a Gentile believer and his seed The like playing with ambiguities is in the use of the phrases foederate in Covenant being under the Covenant being in Covenant Covenanters When he saith Infants of believers are foederati or Covenanters with God or enter into Covenant according to the plain meaning of the word they should be asserted to be such as make a promise to God For what is a Covenanter but one that makes a promise how do men enter into covenant but by some act testifying assent to a promise now in this sense I should grant his Major and deny his Minor which in this sense is against sense For when did any hear or see or otherwise perceive an infant of a believer make a promise to God or by any act of his shew his assent to own God for his God In the other form he saith All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed and that expression seems to have this sense That God by his act of promise as his words are page 103. engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed which his words import page 92. where having said All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed to prove it he allegeth Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee c. So that the sense of his argument should be thus All they who are in covenant that is to whom God hath promised to be their God they should be sealed c. But all infants of believing even Gentile parents are in Covenant that is God hath promised to be their God Ergo. Of which I would deny both Major and Minor the minor being expresly contrary to Ro. 9.8 though it were understood of true believers and most certainly false of believers only in profession to whom especially thâ—se of the Gâ—ntiles God never promised to be God much less to their natural seed yet the minor must be true of them or else this argument proves not they are to be baptized which is their practise But seeing the Argument for infant-baptism will not hold in these senses of the promise Gen. 17.7 though the first sense be that which they give of that promise when they dispute against Arminians and apply it to the elect onely as the words of many shew cited in my Examen part 3. S. 4. in my Praecursor S. 10. Mr. M. himself so expounds it with Mr. Bayn pag. 102. of his Defence therefore Mr. M. hath another sense to which he flies He talks of an outward and an inward Covenant page 120. and page 112. he tells us That he means all the infants of believers are in the outward Covenant that is they are to be reputed as in the Covenant in respect of the outward administration outward Ordinances and Church-privileges which when it comes to application is meant of no other than baptism now and circumcision heretofore and therefore as I shew in my Apology S. 10. the Major proposition is meerly nugatory in this sense All that are in the Covenant that is that are to have the initial seal should be sealed with the initial seal which were true but ridiculous And in truth I may how ever it be censured apply to the discourse in this argument be it Mr. Ms. or the Assemblies the Poets words Parturiunt montes nascâ—tur ridiculus mus And yet there is more shuffling in this thing Mr. M. to make some shew of answering my instances of women and males under eight daies old not being circumcised though in covenant limits his Major in the first form thus supposing them onely capable of the seal and no special bar put in against them in the other form thus unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by particular dispensation By the Bar he means Gods prohibition as these words page 93. shew God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old But a prohibition and a dispensation are not all one a Prohibition is of a thing that may not be done a dispensation supposeth the thing is to be done yet frees the person from doing it in some cases for some time But letting pass this exception against the expressions I would know how God put a bar or forbad infants under eight daies old to be circumcised I know no other but this that God appointed the eighth day for them to be circumcised Now if this be a forbidding to circumcise before as I acknowledge it is and so do many Protestant Divines as Parcus Comment in Gen. 17.11 Errant masculi in foedere abjutero c. anticipare vero signum nec licebat nec opus erat then that is forbidden which is otherwise than God appointed and sith our Lord Christ hath not appointed any to be baptized till they be disciples he hath prohibited any to be baptized till they be disciples and so what ever the London Ministers say in their words above recited there is just ground even a prohibition against baptizing infants And so the Minor of Mr. Ms. argument is not true Upon all this debate I profess I find so much inconsiderateness or confusedness or non-sense or untruth or trifling if not juggling in Mr. Ms. arguing that I must vary my answer as I find his meaning sometimes denying the Syllogism as being tautological and not having three terms
Abraham 2. That Abraham should be considered rather as a pattern to fathers then as a particular person is said without any proof nor is it true 1. Because it is understood in Scripture as meant of Abraham as a particular person Gal. 3.16 c. 2. Because if he were considered as a pattern the promise should be to others as to him Gen. 17 7. but that is not true the promise is made to none besides as to Abraham Gen. 17.7 And whereas Master Cobbet observes that the promise to them and their children cannot be meant of the children as their children after the Spirit because they could not be such spiritual fathers to any children of theirs themselves being not yet such relates as believing fathers nor having such correlates as children after the Spirit this doth plainly shew that the promise to them and their children is not all one with a promise to believers and their children and the mention of the children Acts 2.39 is not to intimate any priviledge arising to the child from the faith of the parent For as Master Cobbet saith truly as yet they acted not faith and repentance nor doth Peter say The promise is or belongs to you for you have repented and consequently believed As for Master Cobbets inference that if thâ— imprecation of the Jewes Matth. 27.25 were the occasion of Peters words Acts 2.39 then the promise must be also to their babes on whom they wished Christs blood else the plaister were too narrow for their wounds rising from the guilt of bloud wished upon their children including and not excluding their babes it followes not For 1. Though babes be children yet children indefinitely put without any universal sign may be meant of others then babes or infants 2. The wish may be meant of infants and the promise also yet not to take place or to be accomplished on them or to them in their infancy That curse and that promise which is made to a mans children being for present infantâ— is verifyed if it happen to them at twenty years old they being then thâ—â—â—me persons which they were when they were but a day old 3. Will Master Cobbet assert the promise must be as large as the curse If so then the promise must belong to their children elder or younger whether believing or unbelieving pâ—nitent or impenitent for the wish was on all absolutely But Master Cobbet I presume will not assert the promise of remission of sins was in praesenti to all the children of the Jewes to whom Peter spake elder and younger believing and unbelieving penitent and impenitent in respect of external right and administration Therefore he must limit the term your children if he will have his own exposition to hold good and consequently the children Acts 2.39 must be fewer then those the imprecation lighted on Mat. 27.25 Sect. 5. That which Master Cobbet saith that those who say the promise made to Abraham of sending Christ and now fulfilled is to them in effect say as those that expound the promise is to you that is is offered to you is not right For the fulfilling notes something past the offer is of something to be yet done or attained yet it is true that the speech of Peter did contain not onely an offer but also an assurance of remission of sins to the called by vertue of the promise fulfilled in Christs coming Of the sense of the words Acts 3.25 I have spoken somewhat before The terms children of the prophets and of the covenant are appropriated to the Jewes as Rom. 9 4. they being the onely people to whom the prophets were sent as Beza annot in locum id est â—i â—stis quibus peculiariter destinati fuerunt prophetae quibuscum foedus est sancitum ex Hebraeorum idiotismo quâ—m supra aliquoties annotavimus Huc pertinet quod ait Paulus Rom. 9.4 And when he saith they were children of the covenant made with the fathers and not of the fathers with whom the covenant is made the intent is not to shew that it 's meant of Church and federal interest in them as covenant-fathers and dispensers or to shew that the covenant was as seed by vertue whereof they considered as foederally and ecclesiastically priviledged did spring in Master Cobbets sense of outward Church-membership and initiating ordinance but the plain meaning is that they were the people to whom the first exhibition and tender of the Gospel did belong in that they were the posterity of the Fathers with whom the covenant was made and so the Jewes had a priority of not onely external interest in the covenant but also internal though when the Gentiles were called the priviledges of the covenant were equal to the Gentiles with the Jewes and the condition of the promise that is the obtaining remission of sins by the fulfilling of the promise is equally to Jew and Gentile savingly believing Sect. 7. Master Cobbets conceit of the term afar off Acts 2.39 that it is meant of their being strangers from actual interests in the covenants of promise and Common-wealth of Israel or the visible political Church Ephes. 2.11 12 13. supposeth 1. The terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those afar off Acts 2.39 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were sometimes afar off Ephes. 2.13 But the phrases are not the same and it is for reasons formerly given more likely that the remoteness Acts 2.39 is meant of place or descent 2. that the remoteness Ephes. 2.13 was in respect of external Church interest and so in like manner Acts 2.39 But Ephes. 2.13 the remoteness was such as was taken away by the blood of Christ which is more then external Church-interest and the nearness such as you and your children Acts 2.39 had not then attained to but were then afar off from God or as it is v. 18. had not access by one Spirit unto the Father And therefore Master Cobbets sayings that the Jewes and their children Acts 2.39 were not then when Peter spake afar off as the tâ—rm is meant Ephes. 2 13. but rather nigh in that sense and that the promise is to them actually quoad hominem and to the other that is the Genteles afar off intentionally quoad Deum even whilest afar off and uncalled are but conceits arising from the mistakes of Peters speech Acts 2.39 and Pauls Ephes. 2.13 It is true to the Jewes indefinitely that is to that nation or people did the Adoption and promises belong yet not to every particular person of that nation For as it is said Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption and the promises so it is said v. 4 5. To whom pertain the service of God of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came and yet these things not true of every Israelite It is true Moses made a covenant Deut. 29.15 with the unborn which were not actually existent in Church-estate and humane being but that this was a covenant wherein Covenant-grace is expressed
and that it is verified intentionally quoad Deum is besides the text which speaks not of Gods making a covenant but of Moses v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty not expressing covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
come and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition Answer Thess things are manifestly false for though godliness have the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 yet the promises Levit. 26.6 c. are not made to every godly man that he shall ly down and none shall make him afraid that he shall chase his enemies c. but rather assurance is given that he shall be persecuted 2 Tim. 3.12 Mark 10.29 30. Nor have they promises upon the same condition for Exod. 34.24 it is promised that none should desire the Israelites Land while they did appear thrice in the year before the Lord but to us there is not that promise nor upon that condition But saith he earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully heavenly things more generally and sparingly than they are now to us and on the contrary spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us than to them and earthly promises more generally and sparingly Answ. This is not all the difference for I have shewed that to us an earthly rest is not promised at all but the contrary assured to us to wit suffering persecution Mr. M. adds And that these temporal benefits which you mention viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed the bitth of Isaac and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace they were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us These things I not onely asserted â—ut proved in my Sermon If you mean no more than this that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ and were subservient to it or were types and shadows of it you mean no more than what we all grant who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it than there is in that made with us and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration Answer I deny not but that the possession of Canaan birth of Isaac multiplying Abrahams seed were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed by elect Jews and Gentiles according to the mystical hiddenâ—hiddenâ—sense of the words nor do I deny that they were subservient to the promise of Christ whether it be to be said they flowed from the promise of Christ or tended to the fore-signifying of Christ to come the grace of the Gospel and the heavenly inheritance and rest is a doubt Surely they flowed from Gods special love to Israel above any other people Deut. 7.6 7 8. And I grant that Circumcision ratified spiritual blessings chiefly that is as the chief thing promised yet in the sense in which I think Gameron meant it Thesi 78. de triplici foedere primarily that is according to the first and manifest sense of the words it sealed earthly promises peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason to wit the peculiar promises to Abrahams natural posterity nor do I see cause to mislike Grotius his speech Annot. in Luc. 1.59 Infantium autem circumcisio ostendebat foedus esse gentilium And this mixture of the Covenant with Abraham to wit that it contained not onely promises common to all believers but also promises so peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity that all of them were not according to the Law to be made good to any Gentile though a Proselyte circumcised namely the inheritance of the Land of Canaan of which none but the natural progeny of Israel were to be inheritours is so manifest that the denial of it I can hardly impute to any thing but dulness or meer pertinacy Yet why these promises so peculiar to them should be denied to be of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham I see no reason they being integral parts Christ it is true is the substance of the things promised as they were Types yet the things promised in respect of their natural being had a substance besides and in relation to the Covenant were as much the substance or substantial parts of it as the spiritual promises yea sith those spiritual promises if I may so speak did subsist in the expressions of temporal blessings it follows in my apprehension that if the promises of the spiritual blessings were of the substance of the Covenant then surely the promises of temporal blessings which those very promises did express and under the shadow of which they were made should be much more of the substance of the Covenant Nor do I conceive any grosness in it to imagine of God that he should in a Covenant of grace founded in Christ intend in the seal of it to ratifie temporal blessings when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing onely temporal As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture nor is it very handsom sense specially according to Mr. Ms. doctrine who calls Circumcision the old administration of the Covenant and if it were an administration of the promises which were administrations of the Covenant of grace then Circumcision was an administration of an administration But Mr M. speaks to me thus I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made circumcision a seal of Canaan we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith whereby he was justified but I no where reade that it â—ealed the Land of Canaan Answer To gratifie him I tell him that I read Circumcision called a token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 which Covenant was the Covenant mentioned before in that chapter and in that v. 8. the promise of the Land of Canaan is made and Acts 7.8 Stephen calls it The Covenant of Circumcision which he shews not how it was otherwise fulfilled in that speech but by bringing them out of Egypt and placing them in Canaan in which he fulfilled his promise to Abraham vers 6 7 16. It is true the Apostle calls Abrahams Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4.11 But I finde not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams surely it cannot be said truly of any ones Circumcision but a believers As for what he saith That we have now carnal promises and therefore our covenant may be as well mixt as that with Abraham I answer it is true We have promise of the life that now is and that which is to come and so our Covenant is in a sort mixt of spiritual and temporal promises but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles not proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting in which sense I called it a mixt Covenant Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant we have outward privileges and ordinances as Baptism and the Lords Supper and that many now are members of
of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children it is apparent to me that he makes the covenant now and then not onely the same for substance but also in respect of administrations contrary to his first conclusion For what are those outward priviledges in respect of which they are the same but outward administrations And if so his speech is in my apprehension professed Judaism opposite to the Apostles determination in the Synod Acts 15. And yet Mr. M. tells me he endevours in all this to speak as clearly as he can possibly which makes me hopeless of any thing but confusedness in his writing when after I had distinctly opened the various senses of his terms yet he wilfully declines making answer in which of those senses I should take his words and when he takes on him to explain his meaning he takes on him to explain other terms then were in his conclusion and yet his explications are as dark as his terms which he would explain and in the upshot his second conclusion can have no other sense consistent with his own Hypothesis but such as asserts Judaism or being coÌ„ceived to be the antecedent of his Enthymeme is the same with the conclusion of it which is meerly to trifle proving the same by the same which course how unfit it is for him who is to dispute I leave it to them to judge who know what belongs to Scolastick exercise Mr. M. next chargeth me with holding no more promises for believers children in reference to the covenant then to the children of Turks And yet page 119. he doth in these words maintain the same which I do I joyn with you that it is an error to say that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the covenant for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people and that experience teacheth us that God uses to continue the Church in their posterity and that Gods election lies more among their seed then others yet neither to Iew nor Gentile was the covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all which is directly to contradict the usuall plea of Pedobaptists that the covenant of grace is made to every believer and his seed and particularly the words of the Directory The pâ—omise is made to believers and their seed seeing the covenant of grace is made to none but those on whom the spirituall part is conferred nor can without wresting the words from the plain meaning according to the Grammar sense the spech of the Directory be understood of any other promise than saving grace Mr. M. and with him Mr. G. Vindic. Paedob pag. 12. charge me that in my judgement believers children are not actually belonging to the Covenant or Kingdom of God but onely in possibility that they belong to the Kingdome of the Devil actually which calumnies are reâ—uâ—ed in my Apologie Sect. 14. Next he speaks thus to me But say you to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church which Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply It overthrowes it not at all for they all include the infants of such professors as the visible Church among the Iewes did include their infants male and female too lest you say that circumcision made them members Answer Though Protestant Divines do hold many of them that infants belong to the visile Church yet they put them not in their definitions There are many definitions cited by me in the first part of this Review Sect. 14. in which infants are not included not in that definition of the Church visible which Baxter plain Scripture proofe page 82 saith Certainly all Divines are agreed That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c Not in that of Dr. Featly Dipper dipped pag. 4. A true particular visible Church is a particular Congregation of men professing the true faith known by the two markes above mentioned the sincere preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments Norton Resp. ad Appollon pag. 10. Immota Thesis Idem illud in professione constituit Ecclâ—siâ—m visibilem quod internâ suâ naturâ constituit Ecclesiam mysticam i. e. Fides usque adeo luculenta est haec veritas ut vel invito Bellarmino lib. de Eccles milit etiam à praecipuorum inter Pontificos calamis excidisse videatur The Assembly Answer to the reasons of the seven dissenting brethren pag. 48. Precog 1. The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. himself in his Sermon at the Spittle April 16 52. pag. 15. Secondly that part of the Church which is upon earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it lye in internall graces which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church But now as the said Church and members doe make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eyes and ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church But the visible is not one Church and the invisible another but meerly the same Church under severall denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them The Church visible of the Jewes consisted of the whole nation and was visible otherwise than the Christian and therefore the definition of the Christian Church visible is different from that of the Jewish Church visible and infants included in the definition of the one are not included in the definition of the other Mr. M. saith I add also Baptisme now as well as circumcision of old is a reâ— all though implicite profession of the Christian faith Answer Baptism of it self I mean dipping in water is no reall explicite or implicite profession of faith but onely when it is done with consent of the baptized to that end Otherwise the Indians driven into the water by the Spaniards against their wills should be profâ—ssors of the Christian faith The like may be said of circumcision Mr M omitting my next reason That to make infants visible Church-members is to make a member of the visible Church to whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree saith thus to me But say you Infants are onely passive and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians I answer Even as much as the infants of the Iewes could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members I reply It is so yet that which made a visible Church member in the Jewish
demand if he plead it to his seed universally that 's false add so of the rest of your inferences look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give and as satisfyingly Answ. Mr Ms paraphrase of Mr. Cottons words is such as no Rule of Crammar will warrant the words being so expresse It the covenant of grace was given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17.7 And in every godly man to his seed where the same covenant of grace not an uncertain promise of any thing whatsoever is said to be given to every godly mans seed which is said to be given to Christ and to every godly man and in every godly man using the same pronounce which was used concerning Christ noâ— is it said that it might be pleaded by every godly man but it was given which in plain construction is meanâ— of the same grant which was made to Christ and to a godly man 2. Nor perhaps would Mr Cotton have owned this explication of his words 3. If he had they had not been true for every godly Gentile now cannot plead the same for his seed now which Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some other Isâ—aelites could then because God made such peculiar promises to them particularly to Abraham Gâ—n 17.4 5 6 7 8. in respect of their seed â—s he hath made to any beâ—ieving Gentiâ—e now For much of that he promised then was out of respect to the future comming of Christ from them which being accomplished the reason of those promises and of circumcision and other rites ceaseth And yet the promises were not then so universally to them and their seed but that God took himself not ingaged to be the God of many of them nor arâ— Gentile-believers seed now Abrahams seed till they believe as he did and therfore in explicâ—tion of Mr. M. there can be no good saâ—iâ—faction so as to verifie Mr Cottons words The other speech of Mr Cotton that God will have some of every godâ—y mans seed stand before him for ever he confesseth is not to be justified if it be meant in reference to election and everlasting life thaâ— every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved nor doth he think Mr Cotton meant so but for his part he thinks he only added to that promise made to Jonadabs children Jerem 35. that God would always beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants according to that promise Exo. 20.5 I wil shew mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandements And that being his scope as he thinks it was I need not to have kept such a stir about it Ans. The words in the plainest sense they bare had that sense which Mr. M. counts unjustifiable nor can they be construed in such an indefinite manner as Mr. M. conceives the good promised being no lesse than standing before God for ever which how ever it allude to Ionadabs promise yet is not to be understood in the sense made to him nor in any other sense now than that of eternall salvation that I know and by his declaration should belong to some of every godly mans seed determinately So that what ever his scope were his words were likely to be a stumbling-block to many who are too much taken with his dictates and the place in which I examined them leading me to it and both Mr. Cottons letter to me acquainting me with his Dialogue of the grounds of Infant-baptism of which the supposed interest in the covenant is the chief and the desire I have to make learned men more cautelous in venting such passages as may occasion error knowing how Luthers unwary speeches were the seed of Antinomianism and other learned mens writings have misled most Divines adhering pertinaciously to leading men provoking me thereto I did and still do think it was necessary I should say what I said about those speeches Mr. M. tells me pag 116 You doe but lose time and waste paper in endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me viz. That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seede that the infants of believers are so within the covenant of grace as to be elected and to have all the spirituall privileges of the covenant belong to them But this he suspects to fasten on him against my own light from which I cleared my self Apolog. Sect. 9. He then interprets his own words of infants being within the covenant of grace as visible professors are quà visible which speech is shewed false before they are to be accounted to belong to God as well as their parents viz. by a visible profession they are made free according to Abrahams Copy viz. in a visible priviledge for their posterity But he leaves out those passages which I alledged saying The covenant of sâ—lvation is comâ— to his hous that in the first coÌ„clusion it 's said The covenant is the same which he means of saving graces and then saith and children belong to IT which can demonstrate no other than the same covenant that is made a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham To which I might add that in his Sermon page 40. he saith The text not onely shewing that they are within the covenant but also that a right to baptism is the consequence of being within the covenant which covenant is made by him the covenant of salvation pag. 16 and in his Defence pag. 88. We are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made and hence infers the salvation of infants of believers dying in infancy which were frivolous if he did not conceive Gen. 17.7 to promise salvation to believers infants and page 98. counts it absurd that in a covenant of grace temporall blessings should be ratified by the seal of it So that either M. M. heeded not his own speeches or confounded things much different or said and unsaid the same thing if that were not his meaning which I conceived And I must still professe that his setting down first distinctly the identity of the covenant consisting in saving graces and then affirming Infants of believers to belong to it and not understanding it of the same Covenant hath the shew of juggling tending to deceive not to instruct the Reader There are more speeches produced by me to shew that if he did speak consonantly to other Writers and sayings he meant as I interpreted his words two of which he chuseth to vindicate one the proposition of the Directory The promise is made to belivers and their seed which how frivolously it is interpreted by Mr. G. and Mr. M. is shewd in my Apol. Sect. 9. in my Addition to my Apol. to Mr. Bailee Sect. 3. To which I add that in the Assemblies Confession of Faith it is said ch 7. art 3 that in the covenant of grace God promiseth to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his holy Spirit ch
quatenùs he may know that Scapula puts quatenùs for the first signification of it What I said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not only a causal particle but also a restrictive is not denied by Mr. C. But he thinks it is not good sense to say according as he is a believer but rather it is to be taken as a reason of the former I confess it would not be good sense to say according that is after the proportion that he is a believer but thus it is good sense to make it to note the reason with restriction and so our Translators do when they render it for so much And this is confirmed in that if it be expounded that salvation did come to his house that is his wife children servants for this only reason or cause because he was a Son of Abraham in that he was a believer it may be gathered thence that a mans whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing To this Mr. C. saith No but as Acts 16.31 upon his believing they shall come in the Gospel-way in the Covenant road and ordinary means of salvation But that this is a false Exposition both places shew That Luke 19.9 must needs be meant otherwise than of the means of salvation with which Zachâ—us might not have been saved For besides that to his being a Son of Abraham not a Son of Abrahams Covenant as Mr. C. speaks though that be true also but a follower of Abrahams Faith salvation is certainly annexed nor had it been so joyous if he had not meant salvation it self it is put out of all doubt that he means salvation it self by verse 10. where he gives this reason why he said salvation was come to him though some murmured at his going in to him for saith he the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost therefore he had both sought and did save Zachaeus who was lost And for the other place it is as frivolous to expound Acts 16.31 of the means of salvation For 1. Pauls Answer is of that of which the Jaylour asked him else he had deluded him by his Answer but the Question was not What may I do to be put in the road ordinary means of salvation the Gospel way But What may I do to escape the wrath due to me 2. That salvation is meant which was consequent on his believing but the ordinary means of salvation was not consequent but antecedent that which followed on his believing in Christ was the certainty of salvation Yea to interpret thus Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved that is thou shalt hear the Word be Baptized c. is so frigid and sapless and interpretation as no considerate man sure no Interpreter besides Mr. C. that I know did ever give a sense of it But Mr. C. tells me Nor is this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self unusuall in Scripture The salvation which Christ and his Apostles preached and those Heb. 2.3 neglected was not barely salvation it self but the promises holding the same forth this was that mercy and riches and salvation also which came to the Gentiles as rejected by the Jewes Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 verses compared So Esay 1 6 8 Gods salvation is his promise or covenant on which their salvation did depend Calvin in locum 2 Sam. 23.5 David speaking of his house or posterity which albeit it were not so orient then yet God had made a covenant with him scil in reference to his house ordered in all things and sure And this scil this covenant with me and my house is all my salvation and all my desire albeit he maketh my house not to grow or flourish in such a sort this covenant then was his salvation objectivè causaliter or instrumentaliter Answ. If this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self were usuall in Scripture yet it could not be the sense Luke 19.9 or Acts 16.31 whether we understand it of the outward means of salvation the Word and Sacraments or of the promise of salvation but must be understood of saving by justification as Tit. 3.5 6 7. For neither is the outward means of salvation nor the promise of salvation consequent upon being a son of Abraham and believing as salvation is in those places 2. Yet in none of the places alleged by Mr C. is salvation put for being in the Gospel way the ordinary means of salvation competent to infants And for the covenant or promise of salvation it self he dares not avoch it to be Gospel that all the infants of inchurched believers have interest in it and therefore if salvation Luke 19.9 were put for the covenant or promise of salvation yet it would not prove that it belongs to every son of Abrahams whole house but Mr C. must limit it to the elect as I do Yet let us consider his Texts that it may appear with how little heed he brings Texts as if he never examined their pertinency but heaped them together whether to the purpose or not They are said to neglect salvation Heb. 2.3 Ergo salvation is taken for the outward means of salvation competent to infants or the covenant of salvation Nay rather salvation is taken for salvation as it was preached and offered not for the means of salvation competent to infants nor for the promise of salvation but for salvation it self neglected in that they did not take hold of it by believing and obeying the doctrine of the Gospel Acts 28.28 salvation is said to be sent to the Gentiles and that they would not hear it But salvation there is the doctrine of salvation not competent to infants who could not hear it Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 is not meant either of the bare outward means of salvation or the covenant of salvation only much less the outward means competent to infants Esâ—y 51.6 8 the term Salvation is not taken for the bare outward means of salvation competent to infants of inchurched believers If Salvation 2 Sam. 23.5 did note outward means of salvation because it is said This covenant is all my salvation desire should note outward means of desire because it is said This covenant is all my desire I grant the convenant is termed his salvation Causaliter or Instrumentaliter and his desire objestivè The covenant everlasting in all things ordered and sure was made with David in reference to his house not in respect of outward covenant interest to the infants of his house it 's a wonder to me that such a man as Mr C. should â—o dote especially after the publishing of Mr Cottons book of the Covenant on that Text but in respect of the great promise of raising Christ out of his loins Acts 2.30 or as it is Luke 1.69 Raising up a Horn of salvation for his people in the house of his servant David and this that is
by a moral or civil action and not by a mere physical action which is unfit to produce such an alien effect and can go no higher then itâ—s own kinde What sense therefore I should put on your words without making them appear unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse I cannot tell For to say It is not a law but legislation is all one as to say It is not the fundamentum but the laying of that foundation that causeth the relation or from which it doth result And to say it is an alien physical act which hath no such thing as right for us subject or terminus is to confound physick and morals and to speak the grossest absurdities as to say that the transient fact of eating drinking going building c. do adopt such an one to be your heir I must needs think therefore till you have better cleared your self that you have here quit your self as ill and forsaken and delivered up your Cause as palpably as ever I knew man do without an express confession that it is naught When men must bee taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that infants Churchmembership needed no revocation forsooth because their Churchmembership was not caused by a law precept promise or covenant but by a transeunt fact then which as you leave it the world hath scarce heard a more incoherent dream But I pray you remember in your reply that you being the affirmer of this must prove it Which I shall expect when you can prove that you can generate a man by spitting or blowing your nose or by plowing and sowing can produce Kings and Emperours Answ. I make not the Jews infants visible Churchmembers by bare legislation or promise-making but by the transeunt fact described in my Letters which was without promise or precept that is promise of it on condition of the parents faith or precept of accepting that offered mercy entering into Covenant and re-ingaging them to God which are the promise and precept Mr. B derives their visible Church-membership from Infants were visible Churchmembers among the Jewes in that they were visibly a part of that people who were Gods Church So that to visible Churchmembership was requisite 1. that God should make that people hâ—s Church this he did by the transeunt fact described 2. That the infants should be visibly a part of that people this he did by their bringing into the world ranking them among his people so as that they were discernable by their birth nursing circumcision habitation genealogy and such other signes to bee part of that Church Their visible Churchmembership imports a state of visibility in the relations 1. of a part to the whole 2. of a people that are Gods that is 1. separated from other people 2. called and taken or brought to God These things are done by various acts which I conceive I did fitly call a transeunt fact A physical and moral cause are thus described by Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. c. 22. tit 13. Topic. c. 3. tit 14. Stierius part Gen Metaph. c. 12. A Physical or natural Cause is that which truly flows into the effect and nextly reacheth it by its activity A Moral Cause is that which doth not flow into the effect so as to reach to it yet so behaves himself that the effect may be imputed to him to praise or dispraise reward or punishment Such are causes applying the agent to the patient counselling commanding perswading exhorting instigating meriting permitting when they might and should binder c. Visible Churchmembership is not as Mr. B. conceives it formally a right to a benefit or a benefit though it may be so consecutively or they may follow on it But it is a complex term noting a state with a douâ—le relation and imports a natural effect or term of action as well if not more then a moral and is from physical as well as moral causes and in infants visible Churchmembership I judge it altogether an effect of a physical cause as not knowing any moral action of God or man that makes them such though to the visible Churchmembership of the people or body of which they are a part acts physical and moral do concur which I shall clear in answering Mr. Bs. exceptions to my last Letter to him As for his outcries of grossest absurdities incoherent dreams unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse contemptible arguing obtuse subtility contradictions palpable forsaking and delivering up my Cause generating a man by spitting or blowing my nose with the rest of his Canine Scoptical Rhetorick I pass by it as being of ill savour hoping Mr. B. will in time come to better consideration of his writings and either shew me my errour or discern his own Mr. B. goes on thus In consideration of the 7th Qu. I shall consider the nature and effect of the transient fact which you here describe And first of the reason of that name You say that you call it transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall be for the future And do you think this the common sense of the word or a fit reason of your application of it to the thing in hand Answ. I do 1. Saith Mr. B. I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts and yet not eternal Answ. Yet all Gods immanent acts of whom I spake are eternal We use saith he to contradistinguish transient acts from immanent and that because they do transire in subjectum extraneum Answ. So do I. But it seems you take them here as distinct from permanent Answ. Yea and immanent too But use your sence as long as we understand it Answ. With your good leave then I may use this term if you understand it if not I must alter it 2. Saith Mr. B. If it be onely past actions which you call transeunt it seems your long fact which was so many hundred years in doing was no transeunt fact till the end of all those years and so did not by your own doctrine make any Churchmembers till the end of those years Answ. It doth but seem so the truth is in this long fact each particular act was a transeunt fact in each year and in each age and space of time in which those acts were done Churchmembers were made by one or more of those and other acts used by God to that end and yet the transeunt fact not so fully accomplished but that there was an addition till that people came to thei◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature in which respect I comprehended all those many acts which I set down under the name of a transeunt fact which I hope when he understands it Mr. B. will give me leave to do 3. Saith he But Sir the question is not Whether it were a transeunt fact
baptism He is a very rare bird that makes any fruitfull use of infant baptism which neither hath institution from God nor promise of blessing and was never known by the infant nor perhaps any person living can tell him there was any such thing Nor is there in this respect the same reason of it and Circumcision for Circumcision makes such an impression on the body as keeps the memory of it but by Baptism there is no print on the body by which it and the obligation by it may be remembred 3. Saith he The law of nature bindeth parents in love to their children to enter them into the most honourable and profitable society if they have but leave so to do But here parents have leave to enter them into the Church which iâ— the most honourable and profitable society Ergo. That they have leave is proved 1. God never forbad any man in the world to do this sincerely the wicked and unbelievers cannot do it sincerely and a not forbidding is to be interpreted as leave in case of such particâ—pation of benefits As all laws of men in doubtfull cases are to be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the most favourable sence So hath Christ taught us to interpret his own when they speak of duty to God they mâ—st be interpreted in the strictest sence When they speak of benefits to man they must be interpreted in the most favourable sence that they will hear Answ. Entering into the Church invisible is Gods onely woâ—k Entering into the Church visible Christian is by Baptiâ—m Plain Scripture proof c. pag. 24. â—e have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of any other way of admitting visible members but onely by Baptism Mr. Bs. minor then here is this that parents have leave to enter which is all one with admission their children into the visible Church by Baptism that is to baptize them But this is false For God hath forbidden parents to bring their infants to baptism in that he hath not appointed baptism for thâ—m as is proved at large in the 2d part of this Review much more to baptize them in their own persons according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses plain Scrip proof c. pag. 2â—1 except they be Ministers A not forbidding is not to be interpreted as leave in this case but a not commanding is a plain forbidding Mr. Collings provoc prov ch 5. No thing is lawfull in the worship of God but what we have precept or president for which who so denies opens a door to all Idolatry and superstition and will worship in the world If the law of nature bind parents to enter their children into the Church then it is a law that speaks of duty to God not of benefit to man for such laws contain grants of something from God not of what man is to do Now if it be a law of duty it must according to Mr. Bs. own rule be interpreted in the strictest sence which is the right sence they are bound to it as God appoints and no otherwise So Mr. B. against Mr. Bl. pag. 80. I take Gods precept to be the ground of Baptism as it is officium a duty both as to the baptizer and the baptized Mr. Ball reply abâ—ut nine positions p. 68. The Sacraments are of God and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained But by the institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithfull to Disciples to them that are called Mr. B. mistakes when he conceives of baptism as a benefit to which a man hath right by promise or Covenant grant For though a benefit do follow to them that rightly do it yet it self is onely a duty and such a one as is onely by institution not by the law of nature nor belongs to paâ—ents for children but to each person for himself But Mr. B. goes on 2. It is the more evident that a not forbidding in such cases is to be taken for leave because God hath put the principle of sell preservation and desiring our own welfare and the welfare of our children so deeply in humane nature that he can no more lay it by then he can cease to be a reasonable creature And therefore he may lawfully actuate or exercise this natural necessary principle of seeking his own or childrens real happiness where-ever God doth not restrain or prohibit him We need no positive command to seek our own or childrens happiness but what is in the law of nature it self and to use this where God forbiddeth not if good be then to be found cannot be unlawfull Answ. 1. Infant baptism tends not to the preservation good welfare real happiness of them but to their hurt 2. It requires a positive command sith it is not of the law of nature 3. It is forbidden in that it is not commanded 4. There can be expected no blessing of God on it sith he hath promised none to it 3. Saith he It is evident from what is said before and elsewhere that it is more then a silent leave of infants Churchmembership that God hath vouchsafed us For in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that so it should be It cannot be denied but there is some hope at least given to them in the first promise and that in the general promise to the seed of the woman they are not excluded there be no excluding term Upon so much encouragement and hâ—pe then it is the duty of parents by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of these hopes and to list them into the Army of Christ. Answ. The point to be proved was that parents have leave to enter their children into the Church but a leave of infaâ—ts Churchmembership vouchsafed of God if there be good sense in the expression is another thing Infants Churchmembership is the infants state not the parents act and leave of it intimates a willingness in the infant to be a Churchmember to which God vouchsafes leave But whether there be sense or not in the expression it is not true that in the forementioned fundamental promise explained more fully in after times God signified his will that infants should be visible Churchmembers nor is it true that upon hope given in the first promise that they are not excluded is it the duty of parents without a positive command by the law of nature to enter their infants into the Covenant and into that society that partake of those hopes and to list them by baptism into the Army of Christ. Hopes of what may be is not a sufficient reason of baptizing a person Nor by these hopes is any more duty put on the parent then an other who hath the same hopes and may do it as viz. a Midwife Yea by this argument Midwives should be bound to baptize not only believeâ—s
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
which is ascribed to God by his sole power with such an Emphasis as implies it unâ—easable but by his omnipotency Mr. Bl. saith that I do vainly make this engraffing to be in their sense no more then baptizing But 1. whether I wrong my Antagonists may be perceived from Mr. Ms. words in his Defâ—nce p. 135. To what I said the Jews infants were graffed in by Circumcision therefore ours are to be ingraffed by Baptism You answer by demanding whether in good sadness I do think the Apostle here means by graffing in baptizing or circumcision or insition by outward ordinances for if that were the meaning then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing To which I reply that in good sober sadness I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership or visible communion with the Church of Christ and that the external seal of their visible graffing in was Circumcision and of ours Baptism And he disputes against the ingraffing into the invisible Chuâ—ch therefore he can understand it of no more then baptizing 2. Nor can Mr. Bl. conformably to his tenet For if the ingraffing be such aâ— is common to infants and parents and it be admission into the visible Church of both and infants are no way else admitted then by baptizing the ingraffing is no other But saith he We understand a discipling of Gentile nations working the heart to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances tendered and assent of heart unto all that is there promised and acknowledge it a work above the power of man and confess it to be solely in the hand of God as Gen. 9.27 Acts. 1.21 We do not speak of the bare admission of one that stands intituled but the working of them to such a title and if an outward profession bee in the power of mans will yet to bring men or nations to such a profession cordially to embrace the Gospel so farre as to assent to the truth of it is above man and a worke of no such ease I reply 1. If it be not bare admission but such a work as he saith then infants are none of the branches ingraffed nor doth the ingraffing belong to them sith they have onely bare admission into the visible Church by Baptism 2. If the profession be onely from fear or carnal hopes this may be wrought by Teachers Orators especially the favour and power of Princes concurring and then it is no act above mans power to ingraff But if the heart be brought to assent cordially and so to profess Christ in sincerity as some of Mr. Bls. words seem to mean then it is by giving faith according to election and the ingraffing into the invisible Church And so Mr. Bl. while he seems to answer my argument doth unawares confirm it through the irrefragable force of the truth Which might have been further cleared from the Text Rom. 11.23 where it is said they also if they abide not in unbelief shall be graffed in for God is able to graff them in again Whence it follows while they abide in unbelief they are not graffed in when they believe they are Ergo God ingraffs by giving faith according to election My second argument was from v. 15 16 17. where the ingraffing is termed reconciliation opposite to casting away To this Mr. Sydenham answers 1. If I mean reconciliation in the strictest sense as it denotes pardon of sins and being made friends with God by Christs atonement and mediatorship then many absurdities may follow 1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles reconciliation unto God 2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off 3. That those which are reconciled and their sins pardoned may be cast off for so were the Jews and the Gentiles threatned with the same misery on the same ground Answ. 1. If by ground be meant cause I deny that to follow on the exposition of reconciliation in the strictest sense if by ground be meant onely occasion I grant it follows but count it no absurdity it being the plain dâ—claration of the Apostle 2. I grant the second 〈◊〉 understood of the fulness or body of the Gentiles and count it no absurdity after the time of Gods separating of Israel to be his people there were onely some proselytes reconciled to God but no full and ample number so as to make any numerous Church of themselves 3. The third I yeeld as no absurdity understanding the casting off of the same people not the same persons from what their ancestors were not themselves But Mr. S. answers 2 ly by distinction of reconciliation into ouâ—ward and inward and he would have it meant of outward reconciliation by bringing them in under the means of the Gospel and the outward dispensation of the Church which is Gods common way to salvation and is to some effectual to inward grace unto others onely to outward privilâ—dges Answ. 1. This reconciliation would exclude infants for they are not so reconciled and consequently not ingraffed and so the argument for their ingraffing hence is evacuated if the reconciliation which is confessed to be the same with the ingraffing be such as agrees not to infants 2. He doth noth not so much as offer to produce one place of Scripture in which reconciliation is so taken nor one approved writer so expounding it 3. Nor can it be expounded so For it is no reconciliation at all which he describes In reconciliation there is still taking away enmity but in the bringing under the meanes of the Gospel there may be no taking away of enmity either from them to God for they may hate him as much yea more then before or from God to them for he may haâ—e them as much or more then before 4. Nor in this place can it be the meaning For the reconciliation of the world v. 15. is v. 1â— the riches of the world of the Gentiles But their riches imports something opposite to their fall diminishing or detriment and their fall must be to damnation for it is v. 11. opposed to salvation their riches must needes therefore bee to salvation so termed vers 11. But saith he The body of the Gentile world which I mean are not so reconciled as by election and saving grace though the sound of the Gospel hath gone through all the world Answ. The body of the Gentiles that is a full ample part of them incomparably greater then the number of the proselytes to the Jewish Church is reconciled and hath been for many ages to God by election and saving grace Mr. Bl. also answers by distinction of reconciliation gradual either to take in or hold a people in visible communion or total to receive them with an everlasting delight in them The former he exemplifies out of Exod. 32.10 11 12 13 14. And thus applies it Reconciliaâ—ion is opposite to casting away The Jews then by reconciliation are brought into that
3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel he might have interpreted as indeed I meant the term effect not strictly or rigourously as Scheibler speaks but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun though it be rather a consequent then an effect after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book Review part 1. sect 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word effect be left out and let the word consequent be put in my argumen hath the same force and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a meer wrangling exception Let 's view what he saith in answer thereto He saith Mr. T. lays all upon God Gods reprobation causes blindness and their breaking off is by blinding here is no hand but Gods in their destruction And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied so that blindness is no effect of reprobation breaking off being not by blinding what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced And Mr. T. should not be ignorant that election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare otherwise as election leads to salvation without any merit of works so reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin which Contraremonstrants unanimously deny though Mr. T. here will have them to affirm having before quoted v. 8. 10. of this chapter he saith from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation and then explains himself what this absolute reprobation in his sense is in the words spoken to And then in opposition to me cites Gomarus denying absolute reprobation in my sense that God absolutely reprobates any man to destruction without subordinate means to wit sin that God doth not effect sin or decree to effect it And Dr. Prideaux that sin follows not on reprobation as an efficient but deficient is a consequent not effect of reprobation And Mr. Ball that Gods decree is not the cause of mans sin Answ. In all this there 's not a word that takes away the force of the argument if that word effect had been left out as it was left out in the first framing of it and consequent had been put in though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used or as it was in the first framing neither used He accuseth me of blasphemy here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation that I lay all upon God no hand but Gods in mens destruction that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8 10. in this sense of all which charges there is not one true so that here is nothing but a fardel oâ— manifest calumnies And as for what he alledgeth that breaking off is not by blinding because blindness was their guilt and casting off their just sentence and the guilt and punishment are not one it doth no whit infringe my argument For these may well stand together that Gods reprobation is executed by blinding and yet blindness their guilt and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence as on the other side election is the cause of Gods enlightening whereby the ingraffed branches believe and through faiâ—h they are by Gods act of grace ingraffed into the invisible Church of true believers And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin Which kind of absolute repâ—obation I never asserted nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants who onely make reprobation absolute in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other but his own will Rom. 9.11 12 13 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of Gods act I never said blindness is the effect of Gods reprobation as Mr. Bl. misreports me nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient but I said blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense as effect is taken for a consequent and that it was by blinding which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alledged by Mr. Bl. And if Gods severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitely no more then what Christ threatned Matth. 21.43 yet my argument holds good For the taking away of Gods Kingdome is not onely the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore and so the breaking off was by blinding and the ingraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election which was to be proved My 6th arg was If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from iniquity taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith But the former is true v. 26 27. Ergo the later Mr. S. saith To which I give a fair answer that doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall bee abundance of more glory brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new heavens and the new earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. litterally And so shall all Israel bee saved But get 1. they shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shal be ingraffed as they were broken off now they were broken off as a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this that the fulness of salvation and the vertues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Answ. 'T is a fair answer but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument there being neither of the premises denied but the minor granted expresly that the vertues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them which if true then none are ingraffed but elect persons and their ingraffing into the invisible Church now the ingraffing of the Gentiles was the same with the re-ingraffing of the Jews if then the Jews re ingraffing were into the invisible Church according to election so is
other disputes against Prelates and Arminians and with thâ—se weapons which M. Bl. disdainfully like a Goliath terms reeds or bulrushes I am no more afraid to assault the Assembly of Divine at Westminster then to assault Bakewel Hussey and such like scriblers To my 9th argument from parallel places Mr. Bl. tels me Mr. Hudson pag. 132. hath not onely affirmed but proved that the Text 1 Cor. 12.13 is meant of the Church as visible Answ. I have viewed the place and find Mr. Hudson speaking thus in answer to the objection But this is meant of the invisible company of believers he saith it is true but it is spoken of them as visible So that Mr. Hudson affirms the same with me that 1 Cor. 12.13 must be understood of the invisible Church yet in respect of that which is there said of them something is spoken of them as visible To my allegation of Ephes. 3.6 that the Gentiles were made fellow-heirs of the same body and co-partakers of the promise of God in the Gospel not by an outward ordinance but by giving of faith according to election Ergo the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 parallel to it is not by an outward ordinance bâ—t by giving faith according to election Mr. Bl. thus in his flirting fashion answers Oh that Mr. T. spake truth then as the Apostle saith of Israel at their restauration all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 All England in statu quo should be saved in the sense that Mr. T. would understand salvation whether we be by descent Brittains Saxons or Normans we are Gentiles and consequently by his Divinity partakers of the Gospel by faith according to election Answ. Not so unless by Gentiles were meant every Gentile which a freâ—h man in the University would correct Mr. Bl. in who knows an indefinite proposition not to be equipollent to an universal incontingent matter It is said Acts 11.18 thâ—n hath God given to the Gentiles repentance unto life yet it follows nor he hath done so to every Gentile Mr. Bl. adds Sure I am this Text is meant of Gospel glory in ordinance dispensed by the Apostles ministery Answ. Sure I am that to be fellow heirs and of the same body and partakers together of his promise in Christ by the Gospel imports more then a meer visible Churchstate even an estate of righteousness union with Christ and inheritance of eternal life And I doubt not but many of his Auditors would correct Mr. Bl. if he taught otherwise at any Lecture of Christians of ordinary understanding Yet he he saith further And as to the Jews appertained the glory and the promises Rom. 9.4 5. so now the glory and promises belong to the Gentiles And as many Jews as fell not off still enjoy this glory with the Gentiles and so both make one new man Ephes 2.15 The visible state of the Jews was a distinct body from the Gentiles Now upon this glorious call they are one new man or new body Answ. The glory and promises meant Rom. 9 4 5. did never belong to the Gentile believers in the Christian Church nor do the believing Jews still enjoy that glory with the Gentiles though both make one new man yet not the meer visible Church is that one man or body but the Church invisible reconciled to God by Christs death as the Text it self shews Ephes. 2.15 16 17 18 19. Mr. Bl tels me The ingraffing is not by giving faith of election nor is it an act of admission into the visible Church by an outward ordinance but it is by Gods giving of faith in and by Gospel ordinances to give assent to Gospel mysteries and make profession of them Answ. I have proved before it is more then the giving of an historical faith however this concession in the close serves my purpose For if this be the ingraffing then they onely that thus do assent and make profession are ingraffed But infants do not thus assent and make profession Ergo they are not ingraffed and consequently the Text Rom. 11.16 17. alledged by the Assembly Mr. G. Mr. M. c. for admission of infants with parents as with the Jews is brought obtorto collo plainly against the meaning of it What Mr. Bl. adds that Gal. 3.14 26 28 29. there is an ingraffing into Christ mentioned but none into the Church is as vain as the rest there being no ingraffing into Christ by faith but it is also into the Church invisible who is Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 The Scriptures I have produced are proved to be meant of the Church invisible because the things said in those Scriptures are such as agree to none other and they appear to be parallel by the indentity of the matter all expressing the state of Gentile believers upon their effectual calâ—ing It is Mr. Bls. false charge that the Reader will hereafter find me reasoning with my full strength against the force of all arguments a pari This calumny is reâ—elled in the 2d part of this Review sect 3. As for my 10th argument whether the faith in the testimonies cited be meant of justifying and the election to eternal life needs no other decision then the very words which I took from Marlorat without searching into the Authors own books because I had them not of my own and I saw it needless to look further If the words be ambiguous the Authors intended to deceive if elsewhere they speak against me they gainsay themselves neither of which Mr. Bl. should charge them with if he regarded their credit In Mr. Bls. arguments sect 3. the first is answered before in vindicating my 4th argument I deny the major of the 2d which is answered in the 2d part of this Review sect 6. pag. 66 67. In the 3d. the minor is false that the priviledge of ingraffing is the priviledge of every member of the visible Church in that which is added to prove it to be the priviledge of ordinances if the major be universal it is false besides the argument may be retorted In the 4th I deny the major and have often answered the inference that then I must maintain falling away from true faith that by my exposition the falling away of particular persons from the true justifying faith they had in their own persons is not maintained but the falling away of the people of one age from that which their predecessors in a former age had In the 5th if the minor be meant of a casting onely out of a visible Churchstate it is denied nor is it proved Matth 21 43. For the Kingdome of God not onely notes the outward Churchstate but also the rule of Christ in their hearts and protection of them by his spirit In the 6th the conclusion is granted That which Mr. Bl. saith that the body of believing Jews and Christian Gentiles called by the Apostle one new man Ephes. 2.15 are capable of no other ingraffing then that which is visible and the body of them entitled new as the Jews
conclusion doth prove that Mr. S. doth here falsely charge mee to say that 1 Tim. 4.5 is meant onely the lawful use of the creature Nor is it true that I fled to this place to make an exception against the taking the word holy in a religious sense For neither did I make use of 1 Tim. 4.5 about the sense of the word holy but the word sanctified nor do I conceive the word sanctified used in any other then a religious sense yea I have often said that sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 is taken for religiously sanctified as 1 Cor. 6.11 as baptised 1 Cor. 10.2 mother Mark 3.35 dead Heb. 11.12 made himself Eunuch Matth. 19.12 son Exod. 2.9 and many more places the words are taken in their proper notion onely they are applied in a limited sense or in some respect by an impropriety or abuse of speech to those to whom absolutely and in propriety or exactness of speech they do not belong and therefore this which Mr. S. here suggests of me is but his calumny which he was willing to take up that through my sides he might wound the truth But Mr. S. adds The Apostle saith first Every creature which God hath made is good in it self and none to be refused that is all may be lawfully used without any legal pollution as formerly But then he goes higher speaking of a religious use of outward things they are sanctified by the Word and Prayer they are all good and lawfull in their use to every man but they are onely sanctified by these holy means the Word and Prayer And he might have as well said that the Word and Prayer are not holy means but onely lawfull to be used as that the sanctification which is by the word and prayer is to make the creatures onely lawfull to be used If a wicked man eaâ— his meat without seeking a blessing on it or giving thanks will any one say that he hath not a lawfull use of the creature but any man may say it 's not sanctified to him The Apostle in these 2 ver goes on gradatim by degrees from a lawfull use to a holy use of the creatures All is good and may be used but they are sanctified by the word and prayer Thus you see the nature of this priviledged place Answ. What word it is which is meant 1 Tim. 4 5. whether the word of Gods power creating them which the words v. 3. which God hath created for receiving seem to lead to or the word of Gods declaration whether by our Lord Christ Mark 7.15 or to Peter Acts 10.15 or promise of blessing it is manifest that the Apostle in that place doth not make any distinction between a sanctified and a lawfull use nor doth he say they are created for any to be received but with thanksgiving of them who believe and know the truth nor doth he make the creature good or not to be refused but being received with thanksgiving nor sanctified but by the word of God and prayer Nor do I find but that interpreters take lawfull use and sanctified for the same So Beza in his Annot. It is made holy to wit in respect of us so as that we may use it with a good conscience as duly received from the hand of God For other men do enjoy it no otherwise then as thieves and sacriledgious persons goods usurped And he lawfully useth goods who acknowledgeth and invocatâ—th the giver of them after his word Piscat anal He minds which is the lawfull and allowed use of meats to wit when we receive them with thanksgiving and prayer proceeding from faith Diodati Dicson and others speak to like purpose Nor is there any thing here that intimates any gradation from a lawfull use v. 3 4. to a sanctified use v. 5. For v. 3 4. to the receiving of them thanksgiving is required of them that believe and know the truth and the creature is not said to be good and nothing to be refused but being taken with thanksgiving which is the same with sanctified by the word and prayer v. 5. and v. 5. is a reason of that which is said v. 4. and therefore no gradation or rising higher as Mr. S. imagines Which I do not produce to shew that I conceive no distinction between a lawful use and a holy use of things which I do acknowledge in the first part of this Review p. 114. and elsewhere but onely to shew how insufficiently Mr. S. opposeth me whom he so severely censures even in that which I spake rightly enough and his own blindness made him to judge hardly of me as left by God to blindness Mr. S. saith further But the main place Mr. T. alledgeth for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful is that 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. Here uncleanness is taken saith he for fornication and holiness for chastity To which I answer with Mr. M. that chastity among the heathens is never called sanctâ—fication but among believers it is being a part of the new creaâ—iâ—n and one branch and part of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God And though Mr. T. saiâ—h this is but a shift yet he shall see it demonstrative if he observe the phrases in the text and the nature of sanctification in the 1 and 2. v. the Apostle beseecheth and exhorteth them to walk as they had received from him how to walk and to please God according to the rules of Jesus Christ and he urgeth it in v. 3 with this It 's the will of God even your sanctification that is that you should walk in all holiness sutable to the blessed rules of the Gospel and as one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin And he instanceth specially in fornication which was the common and reigning sin among the Gentiles so that if you view the place you shall find that 1. He speaks of sanctification in general in it's full latitude v. 3. as sutable to all the will and mind of God This is the will of God even your sanctification that is it is Gods command and Gods delight to see you sanctified then he brings in abstinence from fornication the sin of the times as one part of that holiness God requires For sanctification may be considered as it lies in vivification or in mortification which for distinctions sake we we may call the two parts of sanctification Now chastity in it self as in the heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification some other Epiâ—hite becomes it better would Mr. T. call all the abstinencies and actings of the heathens by the name of sanctifications and speak like a Christian and a Divine Would it be proper to say in his Pulpit when he was speaking of the nature of holiness and chastity sanctified Socrates holy Aristides And can he think the Apostle would express that which is common among heathens in such a high Gospel dialect as sanctification is appropriated always in Scripture to
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are governed by the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the second that the construction by among is very good placing it after given there is no other name given among men i. e. no means of salvation afforded by God and continued among men To the third That Christs being given from above no way prejudges his being given among men both because the benefit of this gift is a common donative distributed among men and also because this gift is dispenc'd in form of humane flesh Christ is become man and to be found and seen among men Answ. 1. That the persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men are governed by the proposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not rightly said by the Dr. First Because the placing of it next after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews it is governed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given Secondly Because if men were not governed of given the participle given were superfluous For he sense would be the same and the speech were as good language if it were left out and the reading onely thus neither is there another name under heaven among men whereby we must be saved â— That name whereby we must be saved should be put for meanes of salvation and not a person distinctly is both besides the usual acception of the term name and the drift of the words which shew that by name is meant person and makes the speech false For the preaching of the Gospel by Prophets and Apostles were means of salvation afforded by God and continued among men besides Christ and his preaching 3. That this gift was dispenc'd in form of humane flesh that Christ was become man and to bee fâ—und and seen among men shews not that he was given among men but to be among men his giving was from above as he often saith that he came down from heaven Joh. 6.38 41 50 51 58.33 given from heaven v. 32. Joh. 8.23 ye are from beneath I am from above Joh. 3.31 He that cometh from above is above all he that cometh from heaven is above all which is contrary to what Peter as the Dr. expounds him speaks here that he was a name under heaven given among men And the other reason because the benefit of this gift is a common donative and distributed among men though it perverts the sense putting for the name which signifies the person the benefit and confounding the person whereby we must be saved with the benefit which is no other then salvation yet it makes for my sense For what is it to be a common donative distributed among men but to be given to men So that in the issue the Dr. notwithstanding his strugling is not able to avoid it but that it serves my purpose of proving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redundant and a signe of the Dative case What the Dr. saith to what I add out of Beza annot on Acts 4.12 the Dr. might have remembred if he ever read it that in my Examen part 1. § 4. I did take notice that Irenaeus was a Greek and wrote in Greek but now onely we have his works in Latin except some few fragments and Beza so great a learned man as had few equals especially in the Greek language it is likely knew so too and therefore the Dr. might have omitted that intimation as if wee were forgetfull thereof And it had been fair if the Dr. had taken notice that Beza alledged first the old interpreter as reading datum hominibus given to men and Irenaeus meaning his translator who is commonly cited as Irenaeus after him and that I added Camerarius which the Dr. saith nothing to but hath a snatch at Beza's alleging Acts 7.44 which I rest not on sith it may be read with or among as well as to which is agreeable with our lâ—st translation Our Fathers had the Tabernacle of witness But I follow the Dr. in his debates which it is indeed pitty the Reader or the Dr. should be exercised with being fit for better undertakings then these which he is detained with upon his own motion as one that is cedere nescius to a plain truth not in obedience to me who never injoyned him this exercise He saith For a 4th instance he again resumes that of Gal. 1.16 2 Pet. 1.5 That Gal. 1. where of God the Apostle saith that he was pleased to reveall his own son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when I had rendred that by or through me to others This exposition saith he makes the Apostle tautologize ineptly This strange undecent expression I wish had been spared for certainly there was little temptation for it why I pray might not the Apostle without incurring either part of that censure say God was pleased through me to reveal his son and by way of explication and withall to denote the designation of that Apostle to his peculiar province as the Apostle of the uncircumcision add that I might preach the Gospel to the Gentiles Certainly every explication of an obscurer or narrower by a clearer or larger phrase is not inept tautology but that which all writers which have desired to speak intelligibly have always been full of And yet 2dly the later part here of his preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles he being peculiarly the Apostle of the Gentiles as Peter and John were of the Jews wheresoever dispersed is more then was pretended to be said by my rendring and paraphrasing the former part of it for in that those others had not been defined who they were or limited to the Gentiles This Mr. T. adverted not in his objection I desire he will now take notice of it Answ. I could not well have spared the expression having temptation for it from Dr. Hammonds mis-interpreting the Apostles speech so as to make it according to the Drs. sense though not according to the Apostles an inept tautology which however strange yet was no undecent expression there being nothing that reflects on the Apostle but on the Dr. tending to shew the absurdity of his interpretation not of the Apostles words From which the Dr. doth not relieve himself by his answer here For the later phrase doth not express the same more clearly there is neither a copulative conjunction nor disâ—junctive expressed or implied nor any other particle which may shew the later phrase to be exegitical of the former but the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth plainly shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Evangelizing or preaching the Gospel to be mâ—ntioned as the end or consequent of the revelation and therefore not the same act Besides the preaching the Gospel by a man is no where termed the revealing of Christ by him to others being known to him before but the making known to the person and revelation is still made Gods Christs or his spirits act and hath a Dative case of the person who is the object to whom
received by every male noâ— onely at their first comming to the Church of the â—ews at their first Proselytism but through all posterities every child of a Proselyte that was not circumcised became straightwayes no Proselyte And then sure this conjunction of Baptism with Circumcision on these terms of equality both of perpetual necessity to all Proselyteâ— must needs extend the Baptism as well as the Circumcision beyond the first Proselytes and their immediate children to all their posterity that shall come from them afterwards for to all those belonged Circumcision So again in the same place And if he be not baptized hee remains a Pagan or Gentile Here I shall ask whether the childe of a Proselyte who had been baptized in his infancy were to be a Fagan for ever I suppose it will be answered no And then by the force of that testimony of Gemara I conclude therefore it must bee supposed that he was baptized for else he would be a Pagan for ever Answ. It were very strange that Mr. Selden should in the same chapter in which he cites those words lib. 1. de Synâ—d c. 3. p. 35. assert p. 28. before and p. 41. after that neither Jews children after the giving the Law nor Proselytes children after their first Baptism should be baptized if the words there did import the contrary And therefore though I want the book to consider it yet I doubt not the sense of the words is plain thus that the Gentile who is not baptized at first as well as circumcised wants for ever not onely a little while the right of a Proselyte and is the very same which both Selden there p. 39. cites out of Maimonides Issuri â—ia c. 13 and Ainsw annot on Gen. 17.12 A stranger that is circumcised and not baptized or baptized and not circumcised he is not a Proselyte till he be both circumcised and baptised So that the sense is not as the Dr. would that no Proselytes child shall have the right of a Proselyte unless that child be as well baptised as circumcised but this that he that at his first Proselytism is onely circumcised and not baptised shall still want the right of a Proselyte as if he were not circumcised at all till he be baptised as well as circumcised And that to be the meaning is plain out of the words that Selden cites from the same Book p. 35. a little after where R. Eliezers opinion being that a person may be a Proselyte if circumcised though not baptised because so were their Fathers and Rabbi Jâ—shuah's that he was a Proselyte who was baptised and not circumcised because so were their mothers it is said that the wise men nevertheless have pronounced that if any have been baptised and not circumcised or circumcised and not baptised he is not a Proselyte till he is as well baptised as circumcised and the same is the sense of the other speech So that those words do not speak of any other then the first Proselytes Baptism of that race not of the posterity nor of the conjunction of Baptism and Circumcision but at the first entrance into the Covenant and therefore to the Drs. question I say the posterity of a Proselyte were Israelites not Pagans though they were not baptised in their own persons by vertue of the parents baptism if they were not born before it The Dr. proceeds thus Besides this two things I farther add to remove all possible force of this suggestion 1. that if it were granted in the full latitude wherein it is proposed that the Jews baptized no other infants of Proselytes but those whom they had at their first conversion yet this would nothing profit Mr. T. For it were then obvious to affirm that Christ who imitated the Jews in that and so baptised the children of Christian Proselytes did make some light change in this and farther then the pattern before him afforded baptized all the posterity that should succeed them and were born in the Church in their infancy also the reason though not the patteâ—n belonging equally to them as to the children of the first Proselytes and the Jewish custome of baptizing their natives infants beeing fully home to it Answ. The Dr. having tried to prove the posterity of the Proseselytes born after their proselytism to have been wonâ— to bee baptized by the Jews but distrusting it's likely it would not hold yet thinks to use another engine though it be as weak as the rest For 1. he supposeth the Jews baptised native Jews infants after the giving the Law which is not true 2. That Christ imitated the Jews in baptising Proselytes children at first proselytism and so baptised the children of Christian Proselytes at their first conversion which is manifestly false 3. That the Iews baptism was the pattern before Christ which is the thing in question 4. That some children are born in the Church Christians which is a mistake 5. That he made some light change in that of not baptising Proselytes posterity and farther then the pattern before him afforded baptised all the posterity that should succeed them and were born in the Church in their infancy also Which is a palpable falshood it being certain that Christ baptized none nor appointed the baptizing of any Christians infants and is against the Dr. For 1. if the custome were changed by Christ then it was not the pattern 2. The same proofs which shew a change in this shew as much a change in the other 3. This change is ill called a light change which made so large a perpetual addition 4. If the pattern did not belong equally to all the Christians posterity as to the children of the first Proselytes then the reason did not belong to them sith the pattern according to the Dr. is all or the main reason basis or foundation of infant Baptism with him 6. It is also false that the reason of baptising the after children of Proselytes or the native Iews infants after the giving of the Law was as before sith the reason of Baptism given by the Rabbins is the uncleanness of the baptized which they deny of native Jews after the giving the Law and of proselytes posterity born after their baptism So that it may be easily perceived that the Dr. hath not avoided the force of my objection against the Jews baptizing being Christs pattern but heaped up many mistakes and some against himself 2dly saith he that it being by all granted that the children which the Proselytes had at their first proselytism were baptized among the Jews this is as evident a confutation of the Antipaedobaptist and so of Mr. T. as it would if all their infants to all posterity were baptized For by that very baptising of the infants at their first Proselytism it appears that infants may be baptized for I hope those Proselytes infants are infants And if any infants may and ought to be baptized then are all their pretensions destroyed whose onely interest it is to
that reason which if it were good the consequent is sound nevertheless What hee adds if the external part under the Gospel belong not to infants the Gospel and that made with Abraham are two distinct Covenants and essentially different and that made with Abraham and his seed carnal as the carnal Anabaptists affirm their portion no better then Turks they made as Calvin observs as beasts whereas the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is everlasting is true thus far that the Covenant Gen. 7.17 so farre as it did assure righteousness to Abrahams spiritual seed by faith was the Gospel Covenant the same with ours made in Christ and everlasting but this is nothing to prove that there was such an external part of outward ordinances belonging to infants in that Covenant But that Covenant is mixt Mr. Cr. himself saith there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings in it though in the main the Covenant were spiritual and that part belonged to the Israelites by nature onely not to our children at all So that Mr. Crags terms of carnal and gross put upon us and Calvins observation are but reproaches and calumnies by Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists devised and used by them wickedly to make us odious but in time their wickedness will return on their own head Sect. 7. Mr. Crs. speeches of infants sad condition without baptism are like the Popish talk of the necessity of baptizing infants that they may enter into Gods kingdome By denying their baptism we deprive them not of Gods Covenant The priviledges Rom. 3.2 9.4 were peculiar to the Jews Did he write with heed he would not say they belong to infants of Gentiles under the Gospel When I say Baptism is not an ordinary meanes of salvation without faith I mean that no ones baptism but the baptism of true believers is an ordinary meanes of salvation which is true though there may be true baptism without true saving faith if it be professed His talk of preaching to infants by presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached without manifesting to the understanding is another of his wild conceits It 's no contradiction to say infants are not saved by ordinary meanes to wit preaching the word c. and yet to say they are saved by election redemption the work of Gods spirit sith by ordinary means I understand and so do others the Word and Sacraments and Christian discipline It is false he saith of me p. 146. that I confess if I knew infants were elected I would baptize them or that here I acknowledge of the species or sort of believers infants that they are not onely elected of God but redeemed of Christ and have the work of his spirit Sect. 8. the major of his Syllogism That which was proposed and entertained with success amongst the Jews which were the natural seed of Abraham was not onely made with the spiritual seed of Abraham p. 147. is denied he is grossely mistaken in conceiving believing Jews were not Abrahams spiritual seed and his arguing that many of the natural seed of Abraham were believers under the Gospel Rom. 4.11 12. to prove it confirms the contrary For all that are true believers not every professour of faith or elect are Abrahams spiritual seed and this I often expressed plainly and Mr. Cr. knew well enough but says I speak ambiguously that he may have some colour for his random roving talk of persons in visible Covenant being children of the promise and Abrahams seed which is much of it non-sense unproved dictates and quite beside the meaning of the texts Rom. 4.11 12 16. 9.8 which make none Abrahams seed and children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelical but true believers or elect persons as is amply before proved Sect. 28 29. The rest of his scribling in that Section runs on these two mistakes 1. That there is now under the Gospel a national Church as the Jews was and that the expression Ephes. 3.6 may be applied to this whole Nation 2. That there is such an outward visible Covenant which God hath made with such a whole visible National Church which is not proved from Deut. 29 10 12. Joh. 1.11 Psal. 50.5 Joh. 15.2 two of which speak not at all of the Gospel Covenant nor of Gods making a Covenant with them but of theirs with God the 2d is expresly meant onely of true believers the 4th of being a branch in Christ which it's true may be meant of a visible professour but not of being in the Gospel Covenant of grace in which none any where are said to be nor is God said any where to make it to any but true believers or elect persons as is proved Sect. 33. There is not any thing Sect. 9. that I need reply to saving that he grants that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 11 12. is made onely to the elect if by the Covenant I mean the end event and success thereof which I confess I do and acknowledge that I abhor any conceit to the contrary as if God should make a Covenant to any which should not have the end event and success answerable to his promise and therefore this Covenant promising things which none in the event have but the elect can bee said to be made by God to none but them unless we will charge God with falshood mutability or impotency Sect. 10. That Isa. 49.21.23 is a prophesie of the reducing the Jews from Babylonish captivity is evinced from v. 19 20 21. in that the description of the places wast and desolate the land of their destruction the place which was too strait are meant of the land of Canaan and Mr. Cr. himself thus v. 20. the place is too strait for me that is the Land of Canaan is too narrow to contain the whole Church and he himself expounds after thou hast lost the other v. 20. of the natural seed of Abraham and the being desolate a captive and removing too and fro off Jerusalem But he will have it meant of the time after the destruction by Titus and the dispersion after it for we never find it verified literally that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity as the words point to contain the Jews But where do the words point that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity to contain the Jewes The words point at the multitude of Jews after the return from the Babylonish captivity at which time according to Zechariah his prophesie ch 8.3 4 5 6 7 8 9. the Jews mightily encreased and prospered and the place desolate confessedly being meant of Canaan and Jerusalem and the Jewes the Captives the sense of v. 22 23. is meant undoubtedly in the first sense of the words of the Jews reduction from captivity which was not true of them after the destruction by Titus therefore of their return from Babylon by Cyrus and other Persian and Grecian Kings and Queens favour The
like may be inferred from v. 24 25. for therein iâ— foretold that they which were taken captive who were the Jews should be delivered But Mr. Cr. saith That one Democritus would not be enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that head that would attempt from hence to draw an argument to prove the fore-going conclusion the words are these even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away from whom From Cyrus Artaâ—â—rxes Darius Abâ—suâ—rus That would imply a contradiction for he confesses that these were nursing fathers that did bring back the Jews from captivity the prey of the terrible shall be delivered children are not preys to their nurses nor are their nurses terrible to their children But we need not make the mighty and terrible the â—ame with the deliverers or nurses The Chaldean Princes were the mighty and terrible to whom the Jews were captives and a prey and Cyrus and others after deliverers and nurses Yet did we make them the same persons there were nothing ridiculous in it sith the Jews were at first their captives and prey and they terrible to them and yet not long after deliverers and nurses So that we may retort Mr. Crs. words thus One Democritus except such a scoffer as Mr. Cr. would not bee enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that Craig that makes such a silly refutation What he adds to disparage Mr. Gattakers notes may be dispelled by reading the notes nor is he alone in the sense hee gives Grotius in his annot agrees in that thing with Mr. Gattaker And for the contents of the Chapter though there is not sufficient reason to ascribe them to the Church of England they being made by one Translator though allowed by others without any Canon or Act of Parliament establishing them yet I see not that they make against my sense but the making the content of v. 24. to be the powerful deliverance out of captivity did in the Dispute and doth still seem to make for my sense of delivery or returning of the â—ews out of the Babylonish captivity which being derided by Mr. Crs. party shewed the levity of their spirits to whom this book shews him to be too like Which is seen in his alleging my words not p. 14. as he cites them but p. 16. against my reason which he makes my interpretation though if hee had added my words and if so it would have appeared that I spake not those words as my interpretation And for his allegation of Gods saying to Moses thy children which thou hast brought out of Egypt I remember not where it is used but thy people Exod. 3â— 7 And for Mr. Crs. reconciliation I do not conceive it may be congruously to speech so paraphrased the Gentiles shall bring thy sons that is the Churches by spiritual succession the Gentiles by natural generation Gods that is mine by adoption It may be accommodated mystically to the conversion of the Gentiles as shadowed out by the reducing of the Jews from captivity and yet make nothing for infants Churchmembership or Baptism For though I yeeld in the litteral sense infants to be comprehended yet in the mystical sense humble persons or mean contemptible persons or new born babes this is believers desiring the word may be meant If the words be mystically meant yet the words are not a prophesie of a prophesie but as many speeches are which have a double meaning as Gen. 15.5 17.4 5. Exod. 12.46 one more open the other covert And Mr. Crags purpose from Isai. 49.22 were not to prove it foretold that infants under the Gospel should be brought to baptism but to prove the propositton in question that God foretold that infants should be Churchmembers under the Gospel whence infant Baptism will follow it seems Mr. Cr. understands not the bringing of children in arms and upon shoulders of bringing infants to baptism and how else in a litteral sense they by bringing in armes and on shoulders become Churchmembers I yet understand not and am out of hope ever to do Sect. 11. Mr. Cr. speaks thus He says meaning me if by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never cals Gods standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supream Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring infants in their armes and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophesie in which words there is neither veriâ—y nor consequence if sense First hee says if by standard bee meant Baptism who makes a Thesis of his Hypothesis or affirms that by standard is meant Baptism To which I reply Mr. Cr. of whom the relatour of the Dispute p. 35. saith That to give me satisfaction which he needed not he told me that by standard he understood some visible Gospel Ordinance as Baptism without an c. to wit Preaching Praying with many more nor had I any reason to conceive he understood any other sith he named no other nor did he say Gospel Ordinances as if he included the genus as now he would evade but some Gospel ordinance in the singular number Now I said Baptism is no where called Gods standard and he hath nothing to reply hereto but that it is so in this place the Genus being predicated on the species But this iâ— but a begging of what he should prove that by standard here is â—eant Baptism in paâ—ticular or Gospel ordinances in general Sure the phrase of setting up the standard is very unsutable to the use of baptizing which was not by setting up but putting down into the water And if Mr. Crs. words or the text do not necessarily speak of Kings and Queens bringing in their arms and on their shoulders to baptism my reasons are the same and of a like force if meant of the people For no story doth mention carrying infants on shoulders to Baptism by the people and such a thing is too frivolous to be made the matter of this prophesie which expresseth some great and wonderfull thing to be done by Gods extraordinary incitement and power of which kinde that is not Though Mr. Cr. grant the phrase of nursing fathers and mothers Isa. 49.23 to be metaphorical yet he applies the words before which are alike mâ—taphorical they shall bring thy sons in their armes or bosome and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders v. 22. according to the proper sense of the words when he saith the people should bring sons in their arms and daughters upon their shoulders to Baptism now if the words v. 23. be metaphorical so are those v. 22. which is also acknowledged by Mr. Cr. 1 In that he grants that in story it is not found that infants have been brought to Baptism on shoâ—lders 2. In that they are said to be brought to the standard which is according to Mr. Cr. Baptism but that is not a
37. r exilia p 335. l 7. r assert l 47. r whence l 13. r tenet p 341 l 36. r condition At Yy the figures are wrong by reason of the use of two Presâ—es for after 344. sect 46. is p 245. agâ—in p 245. l. 14. r of which p 256. l 4. r vasorum p â—61 l 48. r desert p 269. l 31. r ever p 283. l 6. r to p 284. l 33. r nor p 292. misâ—printed 284. l 38. r unto what p 297. l 6. r indefinitely p 304. l 28. r special p 318. l 25. r desertion p 323. l 8. r mere p 382. l 23. r cause p 387. l 22. r of all p 398. l 6. r he is p 401. l 37. r many p 403. l 20. r use no p. 407. l 19. r churchmembers p 501. l 43. r on condition p 503. l penult r righteousness p 509. l 9. r can p 510. l 47. r not p. 557. l 18. r it was p 559. l 18. r. who hath p 561. l 28. r is not p 597. l 34. r sarcastical p 608. l 23. r an p 613. l 43. r might well p 621. l 9. r there p 647. l 12. r import p 653. l 10. r concrete p 678. l 7. r deny p 684. l 46. r sanction p 702. l. 36. r did not p 703. l 11. r were not p 705. l 42. r benefit p 721. l 8. d not p 725. l 14. r the time p 727. l 24. r is p 735. l 11. r there p 745. l 11. r formally p 752. l 43. r there p 756 l 7. r Janua p 783. l 27. r there were p 798. l 7. r ambigua p 799. l 10. d of p 803. l 38. r not p 816. l 44. r one parent was p 822. l 7. d be p 825. l 7. r which it was l 23. r naâ—i p 830. l 18. r and also p 834. l 47. r inference which p 844. l 19. r of the Chair p â—48 l 1â— r 23. p 850. l 16. r caâ—achresis p 851. l 2. d in l 10. r form p 852. l 46. r puâ— p 853. l 31. r comprehend p 854. l 40. r or not p 877. l 29. r not â—s p 883. l 2. r denegandam p 885. l 7. r desert p 889. l 4. r contenâ— Books published by the Author CHrists Commination against Scandalizers on Luk. 17.1 2. Printed for Richard Royston at the sign of the Angel in Ivy Lane London Jehovah â—ireh oâ— Gods Providence in delivering the Godly in two Sermons on 2 Pet. 2.9 on occasion of preserving Bristol from a plot to deliver it to Prince Rupert March 7. 1642. Printed for Michael Sparks at the Blew Bible in Green Arbour London Fermentum Pharisâ—orum or the Leaven of Pharisaical will-worship in a Sermon on Matth. 15.9 Printed for Andrew Crook at the Green Dragon in Pauls Church-yard London Anthropolatria or the sin of glorying in men on 1 Cor. 3.21 Printed for John Bellamy at the three Golden Lions in Cornhil London Two Treatisâ—s concerning Infant Baptism to wit an Exercitation and Examen of Mr. Stephen Marshals Sermon Printed for George Whittington and to be sold at the Blackmore at Fleet-bâ—idge London by W. Larnar An Apology for the two Treatises printed for G. Calvert at the Black spread Eagle at the West end of Pauls London An Antidote against the venome of a passage of Mr. Richard Baxter Printed for Thomas Brewster at the three Bibles at the West end of Pauls London An addition to the Apology in a Letter to Mr. Robert Baillee of Scotland Printed by Henry Hills next door to the sign of the Peacock in Aldersgate-street London Pracursor or a Fore-runner to the Review Printed for the same Antipaedobaptism or the First Part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infanâ— Baptism Printed for Henry Crips and Lodowick Lloyd in Popes-head Alley near Lumbard-street London A Plea for Antipaedobaptists against Mr. John Craggs Dispute and Sermon at Abergavenny Printed for Henry Hills above named Antipaedobaptism or the Second Part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant Baptism Printed for the same Joannis Tombes Beâ—dleiensis refutatio positionis Dris Henrici Savage Londini typiâ— Henrici Hills Antipaedobaptism or the the Third Part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant Baptism London printed for Henry Hills above named FINIS Anti-paedobaptism OR The third part of the full Review of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism refuting the proof of it from Circumcision and the Covenant SECT I. The second Argument against Infant-Baptism that it is will-worship is confirmed HAving proceeded so far in the Review of the dispute concerning Infant-baptism as to vindicate the Texts Rom. 11.17 Act. 2 38 39. 1 Cor. 7.14 from such glosses as tend to wrest them to the maintenance of it and to make good my first Argument against it from the institution of Christ Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.16 The Apostles and primitive Evangelists practice and sayings in two parts of the Review already printed I go on to the finishing of the rest of the forementioned Review My second Argument against Infant-baptism is thus formed That which is will-worship is not agreeable to the will of God nor according to the rule of baptizing But the ordinary Baptizing of Infants though by a lawful Minister is will-worship Ergo. The Major is proved 1. From Col. 2.13 where will-worship is disallowed by the Apostle and so generally Commentators and other Authors account will-worship a sin Doctor Lakes defence about the Sabbath Thes. 2. Ye know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did never please God yet Doctor Hammond in his Treatise of will-worship will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or will-worship to be understood in the better sense But against it are the fraâ—â— of the Apostles words and the drift of them which is to blame them for being subject to ordinances after the doctrines and commandments of men as not agreeing with a Christians co-dying with Christ And he saith Such things have a shew of wisdom and verse 18. he that promiseth that none do beguile them of theiâ— reward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 willing in humility or as our Translators in a voluntary humility I may not now divert from the present business to examine Doctor Hammonds Allegations there being enough in that Text to prove service as done to God invented by men and practised after their commands without Gods appointment not to be after Gods will and I take Doctor Hammond to be well answered by Mr. Cawdrey 2. However the Major is plainly proved from Christs words Mat. 15.9 In vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine mens precepts which proves that worship which is taught after mens precepts which is the same with will-worship in my proposition is in vain and therefore not agreeable to the will of God But I need not say any more about it sith my Antagonists do most of them except against will-worship as a sin The Minor is proved thus That which is worship not
that command is in force to all persons in Covenant as it was then Answ. The command in force then to all persons in Covenant is expressed by himself in the words before pag. 22.23 the command of Circumcision Gen. 17.11 12. when he saith All the Infants of those in Covenant with God were signed with the first signe or seal of the Covenant then instituted and commanded by the Lord which was Circumcision so that if he mean as his words are this is his meaning in his conclusion that command which is Gen. 17.11 1â— to Circumcise the flesh of the foreskin of Abrahams males of eight dayes old is now in force to all persons in Covenant as well as it was then which neither hath nor can have any other sense taking words as they are used by other men but that still all in Covenant with God are bound by thâ— command Gen. 17.11 12. to Circumcise their male children of eight dayes old which is to maintain that which the Apostles have abroâ—â—ted Act. 15. to intangle us with the yoak of bondage which the Apostâ—e saith would make Christ unprofitable to us Gal. 5.1 2 3. But it will be said he means not the command of Circumcision but the command of signing with the first sign or seal of the Covenant Ans. If he means so he rather juggles than disputes For the words speak of the command which is Gen. 17.11 12. and that is no other than of Circumcision no such command of signing Infants of Covenanters with the first signe or seal of the Covenant in the Old Testament besides that of Circumcision is either there or any where else that I know of if there be let it be shewed But this is the manner of Paedobaptists in their disputes to imagine a command of sealing as they call it with the first seal the Infants of Covenanters abstractively or distinctly from Circumcision in the Old Testament Gen. 17. which is indeed a meer fiction with which they mock their auditors and readers who unwarily take what they say without examination Now this were an answer sufficient to this argument yet because this mans reasoning is so commended let 's view his proofes For proof of the Major thus he writes For when God giveth the reason of any command that reason is the ground of the command and till that reason ceaseth he is very bold with God that dare exempt himself from the practice And again If the first proposition be denied viz where there is the same reason of a precept continued there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God and who can say unto him what doest thou For the Lord commands nothing without a reason if there be no reason exprest the reason of his will is implyed which is as cogent and binding as all reasons in the world till he makes it appear that it ceaseth This is very clear Answ. The reason of a Command may be understood either of the reason why Cod commands a thing or the reason why we are bound to observe that command The reason why God commands is various sometimes one thing sometimes another sometimes expressed sometimes concealed And sometimes the same reason is given of very various commands as I said before I am the Lord your God is Levit. 19. the promiscuous reason of moral and ceremonial and judicial commands yea that the very reason which 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. is given for the command to be obedient children not fashioning themselves according to their lusts in their ignorance but to be holy in all manner of conversation is citâ—d from Levit. 11.44 45. and is the very reason why he forbids the Israelits to eat certain meats or to touch certain things unclean by the Law And therefore by Master Drew's reasoning the reason of the precept not ceasing we are bound still to the precept Levit. 11. of abstaining from meats unclean by the Law and from touching things legally defiling But though there may be many motives to do it the rather yet the onely formal adequate reciprocal reason why we are bound to observe any thing is the command of our Lord revealed to us besides which we are to look no further nor are we to neglect it till by some declaration of his will it appears we are discharged Thus Abraham was bound to offer his son Isaac on the Altar because of Gods command without knowing any other reason yea though he had known the reason from the end to be fulfilled yet he had not been discharged till God signified it by the Angel that he should not slay him Now then to Master Drews argument Iâ— he understand the reason of the precept in the first sense his major is false the reason why God gave a precept may continue and yet the practice is not to continue as Levit. 11 44 45. On the otherside the reason of a precept may not reach and yet the precept reach as though God brought not us out of Egypt which is the reason of the command Deut. 5.6 7. yet the command pertains to us and vers 15. It is said Remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day Where I presume Master Drew will say the command reacheth us though the reason of it do not And as for his inference That if it be denied where there is the same reason of a precept there must be the same practice then every man may set himself free from any command of God it is true if by the same reason of a precept he understand the reason of a precept in the second sense for the reason why we are bound to observe his precept to wit the declaration of Gods will it should continue but if he understand it in the first sense for that reason which God gives why he declared his will and bound us to observe it though it continue yet the precepr may not be in force nor on the other side doth the precept alwayes cease to binde though that reason cease as is proved before Now that reason of the precept Gen. 17.11 12. which is vers 4 5 6 7 8. is a reason of the first sort and not of the latter And indeed in more positive rites which are by institution the precept continues not in force however rhe reason God used to inforce it remaine except the institution be continued Rightly Pareus comm in Gen. 8.20 to an Objection That sacrifices are to be continued because the cause is perpetual Answereth The perpetual cause of a thing necessarily co-hering with the thing as a Cause continued with its effect makes the same perpetual But the said causes or ends do not so co-here with the sacrifies of the Ancients but onely by appointment that is divine ordination which was that those sacrifices should be the confirmation of the faith of the fathers and a signification of gratitude unto the coming of
the Messiah c. The like may be said of the ends of Circumcision and the occasion of appointing it But let us view Master Drew's proof of the Minor The reason saith he of the command for signing Infants of Believers under the Law with the first signe or seal of the Covenant was this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as is evident Gen. 17.7 8. compared with the 9.10 and 11. verses where this promise of God and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another I will establish my Covenant between me and thee c. to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee therefore thou shalt Circumcise every male as a token of the Covenant vers 11. But this same reason of the command continues in force under the Gospel God doth as truely say to every Believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles so he is called Rom. 4.11 Therefore I may conclude that Believers under the Gospel have the same command for signing their Infants with the first seal of the Covenant of promise which now is baptism as Abraham had to signe his under the Law with the first signe c. which then was Circumcision and now Sirs if the blessing of Abraham be come upon you and if you be heirs according to the promise you may easily finde a command for Baptizing your Infant seed Answ. If Master Drew would prove what is to be proved he should prove that the proper formal reason obliging to the duty of Circumcision Gen. 17.9 10 11. was the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee But that is false For the formal reason being put the thing is put without any other thing and it being not put the thing is not put though other things be put But if the promise had been put yet Abraham had not been obliged to Circumcise unless a command were put and the command being put Abraham was bound to Circumcise though God had made no promise Therefore though the promise might be a motive to do it yet as Master Marsâ—all truely confesseth Defence of his Sermon pag. 182. the formal reason of the Jews being Circumcised was the command and therefore till Master Drew shew we have the same command to Baptize Infants as Abraham had to Circumcise Infants he can never shew we have the same or equal reason for Infant-baptism as was for Infant-circumcision But Master Drew thinks to prove his Minor from Gen. 17.7 8. compared with the 9 10 11. vers Where it is evident saith he this promise of God I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another But he doth but dictate without any cleer explication or thorough consideration of what he saith For 1. He doth not plainly tell us that the dependence he imagines to be one upon another of the application of the first seal and the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is upon that promise alone and not upon the other promises vers 4 5 6 8. And if he do so mean yet he brings nothing to pâ—ove it and it â—s unequal he should expect we should take it on his word sith if we gather any thing from the placing of the words the reason of the command vers 9 10 11 12. may as well be from the promise of giving him and his seed the land oâ— Canaan vers 8. as the promise vers 7. 2. Whereas the promise vers 7. hath diverse senses one so as to be meant of Abraham as a natural father and his seed according to the flesh another of Abraham as a spiritual father and his spiritual seed he neither brings a word nor do I think can why the reason of the Command vers 9 10 11 12. should be from the promise made to Abraham as a spiritual father and to his spiritual seed which alone is for his purpose to bring Gentile-believers children to be in the promise rather than to Abraham as a natural Father and to his natural seed especially those of them that were to inherit the land of Canaan yea it is manifest that if the dependence were as he saith it is to be interpreted of Abrahams seed by nature sith the command there was given to the natural seed of Abraham only and them that joyned to them 3. Nor doth Mr. Drew shew what dependence one upon another they are knit into whether contingent or necessary or if necessary in what degree of necessity Whether de omni per se or quatenus ipsum This last seems to be most likely and the dependence this To whomsoever that promise is made that person is to have the first seal and whosoever is to have the first seal to that person the promise is made But this were evidently false For it appears from v. 19. that the promise was not made to Ishmael and yet he was to have the first seal others of Abrahams house had not the promise who were to be signed with Circumcision and the females had the promise made to them and yet were not to be signed If it be said they were vertually signed it serves not Master Drew's turn who asserts a dependence of the promise and actual signing in the person federate 4. Nor doth he shew from what term or words his imagined dependence is evident The onely term I know he or any other gathers the supposed dependence from is vers 9. therefore But in the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the most usual sense is And thou noting a further addition to his speech not an illation of one thing from another And so the Tigurines read tu And thou Pareus Tu autum But thou Piscator Tu vero Thou verily So that the evidence is very small which is from so uncertain a light 5. Nor doth he nor can he shew from the comparing Gen. 17.7 8. with 9 10 11. any dependence of application of any other first signe than Circumcision upon the promise there The Command of an indfinite first seal there or elswhere to believers Infants is a meer figment 6. That dependence which is implyed by the term therfore is not at all such as intimates a right competent to Infants but a duty enjoyned to parents which Infants are nor capable of And therefore if any see a command for Baptizing of Infants in that place it is but a parallax or decepâ—io visus a mistake of sight as in him that thinks he sees two Suns or two Moons at once The Minor also in his Argument is to be proved SECT IV. The Covenant Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. was a mixt Covenant BUt afore â—e comes to prove it he brings in an objection Gods Covenant with Abraham was not a pure Gospel-Covenant as appears
c. and restraining that promise in the Evangelical sense onely to the children of Abraham which were elect by God Nor is there a word Act. 2.39 to make it good in Master Drew's sense For 1. Master Drew proves not that the promise Act. 2.39 must needs be the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed His argument is It must needs relate to a former engagement to the Jews and therefore to that Gen. 17.7 But this is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative it relats to a former engagement therfore to this which Logicians deny to be good proof But saith he I know not what engagement this can have reference to if not unto the promise Gen. 17.7 I answer though he know not and so may be one of those that are blind and yet have eyes which he chargeth on his opposits yet others see other promises namely that to David of raising up Christ to sit on his throne mentioned Acts 2.30 or the promise of the Holy Gost mentioned V. 33. or the promise of blessing mentioned Acts 3.25 Any of which may be the Promise meant Acts 2.39 more probably then that Gen. 17.7 2. Where it is said The promise is to you if we either consider the scope of the Apostle or other parrallel texts Acts 3.26 Acts 13.32 33. the promise is is as much as to say the promise made to David Acts 2.30 or to Abarham Acts 3.25 is fulfilled in raising up Christ or the Promise of the spirit is fulfilled in the shedding forth of its gifts of which Promise mentioned V. 17.18 Piscator and others understand it and that for you that is for your good blessing and your children and all that are afarr off as many as the Lord our God shall call not as M. Drew means there is a promise of being a God to you and every one of your children continually to be fulfilled as soon as ever they are in being 3. It is false which M. Drew presupposeth as if the meaning were the Promise is to you that is the Promise of being your God is to you believers and to your children that is to all your Infant children as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles For 1. that speech is made to the Jews as M. Drews own words seem to import onely and their children and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is false that when it is said the Promise is to you the meaning is to you as believers For neither were they then believers as I prove in my Ample disquisit Sect 5. nor is it certain whether some of them were ever believers the occasion and scope seems to intimate rather that they were considered there as persons who had crucified Christ 3. Neither is it true that the Promise is to their children that is to their infant children as their children M. Gataker discept de bapt Infant vi 〈◊〉 pag. 12. saith thus To the obtaining the promise as well repentance as partaking of baptism at least in this place is exacted so that hence the promise of remission of sins cannot be proved to be made to Infants when they are entered by baptism unless also they repent 4 nor do I know how it can be true which M. Drew sayes in any sense for his purpose that God hath promised to every believing Gentile now to be the God of his seed as he did to Abraham by which he would expound the words Acts 23.9 the promise is to your children For in respect of spiritual blessings accompanying salvation it is not true every believers child is not elect in the Covenant of saving grace a child of the resurrection nor in respect of outward Ecclesiastical privileges Neither did God Promise Circumcision to every child of Abraham not to the males under 8. dayes old nor to the females nor hath it any colour to interpret I will be the God of thy seed that is they shall be circumcised much less that God promised to every Gentile believers child he should be Baptized or have right to Baptism sure not to professed unbelievers to abortives or still born Infants For my part with all M. Drews light I cannot understand how according to M. Drews exposition the promise Gen. 17.7 is inforce and applyable to believers under the Gospel as he saith Nor do I conceive it true which he ads If this stand good then the Command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good to For were it granted that it were true that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles yet there is not a word in that text or any other to prove that therefore every believers Infant child is to be baptized it being false that the Covenant of grace doth of it selfe intitle to Baptism as I have proved in my Examen part 3. S. 1. in my letter to M. Baile or Additions to my Appology Sect. 3. in the Ample disquisition Sect. 5. where also it is proved that though the promise Acts 2.39 be alleged why they should be baptized V. 38. yet not as the reason of their right to Baptism as M. Drew makes it but as a motive encouraging them to it as their duty and in performing of it first to move then to repent and then to be baptized The reason is not as M. Drew makes it The promise is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized and the minister ought to do it to you and your Infants but this the promise is to you and your children therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins nor is there a word in the text or elsewhere to prove that dictate of M. Drew God will own believers children therefore he will have them markt for his even in infancy by baptism more truely saith M. Gataker discept Infant de bapt infant vi Eâ—fâ—c pag. 9. Acts 2.38 39. is nothing found concerning Infants to be baptized In that they are Commanded to repent and to be baptized unto the remission of sins it is altogether like to that saying of the Lord Christ he that believeth and shall be baptized shall attain salvation Matth. 16.16 But M. Drew thinks to take off the exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth priviledge of believers children under the Gospel The first exception is that the promise is of extraordinary gifts of the spirit and he answers This doth not sute with the promise made Gen. 17.7 which was to be performed to Abrahams children and yet they had not those gifts But 1. this Answer goes upon his mistake that the promise Acts 2.39 must be that Gen. 17.7 2. he supposeth that the
the person baptized repents of his sins and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements communion with Satan and engageth himself to be Christs disciple Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water it minds us of Christs death burial and rising again and testifyeth our salvation by him and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons and true believers for it assures salvation onely to them not to all that are baptized and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it So that if from hence that baptism is the administration of the Covenant a title be derived for infants to be baptized it can intitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant which are only the elect or true believers But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious For 1. when it is said it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant the expressions sometimes are as if it were the administration it self calling it the new administration as I shew in my Apology sect 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant which is either non-sense or at least inâ—ptly spoken 2. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the outward or inward Covenant The latter I presume they will not say for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therin regenerarion remission of sins and if so then it administers them in a natural way and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato or in a moral way but baptism can administer regeneration remission of sins c. no other moral way but by assuring or perswading or the like what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy nor to any but the elect now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such then it is not baptism but to such if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is except they mean the outward administration which is no other then baptism as I shew Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say that baptism is the administration or appointed for the administration of baptism 3. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God or Gods promise to the baptized If the former then it is no more but this that baptism is the administration that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christs disciple which is indeed the best sense of it but then it will not fit them for so it is not in infants for they signifie no profession or engagement of theirs by it If the later then by baptism God doth promise man but that 's not true his promise is in the Word before baptism or he signifies his promise formerly made this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others either baptized or unbaptized as the then baptized and not at all of use or avail to infants who cannot apprehend the signification or he assures the benefits of the Covenant and that can be only to elect or true believers or that he contains them by it and so it gives grace ex opere operato 4. The Covenant of grace is I take it the Covenant of saving grace opposite to the Covenant of works the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law Gal 3.18 This covenant was made mixtly Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. purely Heb. 8.10 11 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one or the other or both The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision and to seal the same Covenant that it did But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan and greatness in it But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed so Mr. Geree here we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed But if so 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did and so succeeds not in it's use nor is there a reason given but their own conceit why it should seal one part and not another 2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant then it administers not this promise that God will be a God to a believer and his natural seed as such For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found Gen. 17.7 3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16 But this is not administred by baptism which signifies Christ already come 4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abrahams seed by faith Gal. 3.29 Rom. 4.11 12. But they are only the elect Rom. 9.7 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant onely to elect persons and true Believers 5. There 's ambiguity also in the term the Gospel covenant is extended The Gospel covenant is The just shall live by faith that God will be a God to Abrahams seed by faith But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant which is but a fiction that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile 6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onely to the Elect onely it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary But he shews no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise sure such a construction was unknown to Paul Rom. 9.6 7 8. when he expounded that very promise Gen. 17.7 nor doth such a construction agree with the words sith when God saith I will be a God to thee and thy seed the meaning according to M. Geree should then be I will be a God to thee that is every believer and to thy seed that is every believers natural seed which are
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
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
of Abraham had not the privilege by the covenant and then if it were granted that our children by that covenant had the privilege of Abrahams child yet it could not be proved thence that every child of ours hath the privilege of the Covenant sith every child of Abraham had it not Nor doth Mr. Bls. proviso at all help him For 1. it being granted that we in Gospel-times are under the same covenant as was Isaac and that we are taken in though without the limitations first of the covenant onely as it contains promises of saving grace secondly onely of true believers before God I deny it yet it follows not that our children are taken in 2. Nor if it were true that our children are taken in doth it follow that all our children are taken in by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 sith neither all Abrahams children nor all Isaacs children were taken in by it Esau being expressly excluded Rom. 9 10 11 12 13. and elsewhere nor doth God stile himself the God of Esau as he did of Jacob. But Mr. Blake saith my instance from Gen. 17.19 Heb. 11.9 is very weak to prove that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham Ishmael himself was in Covenant though not established in covenant as God there and verse 21. promised concerning Isaac nor his seed never received appears not alone by the sign and seal which he received vers 23. which yet is sufficient for God to seal to a blank is very strange to sign a covenant to a man never in Covenant but also from Gal. 4.30 what saith the Scripture cast out the bond-woman and her son for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman A man cast out of Covenant was before casting out in Covenant ejection supposes admission unless we will give way to Mr Tombs his dream of ejection by non-admission He was cast out after the time of the solemnity of his admission by circumcision as may be seen Gen. 22. Answ. The Apostle Rom. 9. answering the objection that if the Jews were rejected from being the children of God then the promise falls or takes not effect which God made to Abraham and his seed to be a God to them answers verse 7 8 9 in these express words neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called That is they which are children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed For this â—is the word of promise at this time will I come and Sarah shall have a Son Which words if they do not affirm that the promise or covenant Gen. 17.7 was not made to all Abrahams seed and particularly that it was not made to Ishmael I cannot perceive any pertinency in the Apostles speech to the answering the objection made nor know how to understand his words nor do I remember that I ever met with an interpreter which did not thence conceive that the Apostle in those words did assert that the promise or covenant was not made to Ishmael Some I have produced Exam. part 3. S. 4. so conceiving and many more might be alleged if it were necessary But the words of God to Abraham Gen. 17.19 20 21. do sufficiently prove that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not made to Ishmael and therefore he was not in Covenant by Gods act of promise For when Abraham upon Gods promise concerning Sarah and her son ver 15 16. had laughed verse 17. and petitioned for Ishmael verse 18. God answers verse 19. by repeating his promise concerning Isaac and saith he would establish his Covenant with him for an everlasting Covenant and with his seed after him verse 20. Then tells him he heard him concerning Ishmael and recites what he would do for him which expresseth how far he had heard his petition And then follows verse 21. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac which bâ—ing adversative hath this plain sense that he would do that for Ishmael which he had expressed verse 20. But he would establish his Covenant that is confirm and perform what he had promised before verse 7 8. in Isaac not in Ishmael he promised not to be a God to Abraham and his seed by Ishmael in their generations nor to give them the Land of Canaan As for what Master Blake saith that Ishmael himself was in Covenant though not established in Covenant it seems to intimate that he conceives that God made the Covenant to him but did not establish it But sure God makes no Covenant with any which he doth not establish if he did he should not be true Nor is there any such emphasis in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will establish which doth intimate that the Covenant was made to Ishmael but established that is confirmed and to be certainly performed onely to Isaac for the phrase used elsewhere Gen. 9.9 11. doth express no more than is meant v. 12. this is the token of the Covenant I make between me and you As for Master Blakes proof that Ishmael was in Covenant because he was circumcised Gen. 17.23 it rests upon these unproved false suppositions 1. That circumcision was appointed to men because they were in covenant with God 2. That God did by circumcision sign the covenant to him that was circumcised· 3. That every one that was appointed by God to be circumcised was in covenant As for the speech that God doth not seal to a blank it is a speech the Scripture useth not and it having various senses may be true in some sense in other false A blank is such a paper as hath no writing in it or wherein there is some empty space left to write more in whether persons names or promises or other matter By Gods sealing Mr. Bl. means the using of Circumcision baptism the Passeover the Lords Supper according to Gods appointment That which he conceives to be sealed thereby is the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which he makes all one with the Covenant of grace and by proving every Sacrament to be a Seal of the Covenant of grace from Rom. 4.11 his meaning should be that God seals in the administrators right use of every Sacrament to every person that he is in Covenant that he hath the righteousness of faith else God should seal to a blank But in that sense I do aver it to be most true that God doth seal to a blank that is that many thousands had circumcision the Passeover baptism and the Lords supper according to Gods institution and appointment who were never in Covenant with God nor did God seal that is assure to them their interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times or the righteousness of faith But in this sense I grant it to be true that God doth not seal to a blank that is when he appoints any sign or seal
of hope for them as the Paedobaptists grounds can truly give them and for reality of priviledge setting aside an empty title and rite as to them in infancy they grant them visible Church-membership when they profess the faith which in respect of Church-communion Paedobaptists themselves grant them not before but mock both Parents and children telling them they are in covenant and visible Church-members by their parents faith without their own yet denying them Church-communion which is due to every visible Church-member without their own personal avouching the faith besides their injurious dealing with them in their mock-baptism of them when it is not due nor does them any good and denying baptism to them yea persecuting them for seeking it after when it is due and might do them much good by engaging them to Christ and thereupon assure Christ to be theirs My fifth exception Master Blake passeth over as fore-spoken to ch 37. which hath answer before and my sixth as falling in with my tenth where I shall overtake him To my seventh wherein I excepted against Master Stephens for holding the command Be baptized every one of you in a covenant-covenant-sense as he calls it to be as if he had said Be baptized you and your children which I said to be a new devised non-sense such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by To this saith Master Blake I am sure here is a non-sense device to talk of Dictionaries does Calepin or Scapula Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seal promises and Sacraments I reply that speech is non-sense in which the words used to signifie that which the speaker would signifie by them do not in the use of them so signifie But this speech Be baptized every one of you doth not in the use of the words signifie be baptized you and your children therefore that speech so used in that which Master Stephens calls covenant-Covenant-sense is non-sense This appears by Dictionaries in none of which every one of you is as much as you and your children Therefore that speech in that sense is a new devised non-sense As for Master Blakes words either they are non-sense or as bad For first to talk of Dictionaries is not a device an action of the mind but a speech an action of the tongue or hand and therefore it is non-sense to call it so Secondly to talk of Dictionaries is not non-sense for then all speech of Dictionaries should be non-sense and so all the verses before Râ—ders and others Dictionaries should be non-sense But to speak of Dictonaries otherwise then the words signifie so as the meaning cannot be perceived by them which he cannot say of my speech of Dictionaries As for Master Blakes question it is frivolous as much of the rest of his writing here is For though Dictionaries do not help us to compare covenant and seal promises and Sacraments yet they do help us to know the sense of words and discover to us the non-sense of words used otherwise then their signification is Master Blake himself in the 43. ch sect 2. refers me to the Dictionary about the word Pax. To my eighth exception that there is not a word of any scruple in the text as some have imagined if we be baptized our selves and not our children they will be in worse case then in the former dispensation in which they had the seal of the covenant nor is it likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor priviledge of their children He saith I am of his minde that there was no such scruple in their heads Master T. his unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of the Covenant was not then in being though I think the reason he gives is little to purpose yet I say this scruple raised by Anti-paedobaptists and heightened by Master T. as in many other so in this text is removed Ans. My exception then stands good against those who make that scruple the occasion of Peters mentioning their children And for my reason Master Blake had done better to give a reason of his censure then barely to say he thinks it to little purpose It is his calumny that I have any conceit of casting the seed out of the covenant and his conceit that the scruple mentioned is in this text removed hath been shewed to be but his dream My ninth exception was that Paedobaptists make for v. 39. to infer a right to baptism whereas it infers onely a duty which is proved in that v. 38. baptized is in the Imperative Mood To this saith Master Blake Master T. does grossely abuse his judgment in this way of refutation as though the right in which they stood could be no Topick from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to baptism when Shecaniah perswaded Ezra to the reformation of the marriage of strange wives in these words Arise for the matter belongeth to thee Ezra 10.4 here was a motive in the moral way to call upon him to do it and an argument inferred that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to set upon it And to my reason he saith he hath quite forgotten that the words holding out their right are in the Indicative Mood For the promise is to you and your children And here is a notable correction of the Apostle he should have said if this had been his meaning you must be baptized and he saiâ—s Arise and be baptized Ans. Sure I am Master Blake doth most grossely abuse me in insinuating as if by my refutation the right in which they stood could be no Topick from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to baptism when I proved that the Apostle did not from v. 39. infer a right to baptism which in a legal way they might claim but a duty to which in a moral way he perswades And therefore he shootes wide from the mark when he goes about to prove that a right may be a motive in a moral way to a duty And yet as if he could write nothing to the point his own allegation Ezra 10.4 is not to his own purpose the motive as himself alledgeth it being not a right to a privilege but a command from God The like roving talk is in his answer to my reason For whereas I alleged that verse 38. a right is not inferred from verse 39. but a duty because be baptized v. 38. is not in the Indicative but the Imperative Mood tels me the term is v. 39. is in the Indicative Mood which is nothing to my objection but like as in the contention between two deaf men in Sir Thomas Mores epigram he that was charged with theft answered his mother was at home The like random talk is in his insinuation of my notable correction of the Apostle who corrected not the Apostle but shewed the Paedobaptists conceit incongruous to the Apostles words He himself seems I think out of heedlesness to correct the Apostle when
he speaks thus And he â—aies Arise and be baptized which are not Peters words Acts. 2.38 but the words of Ananias to Saul Acts. 22.16 My tenth exception was usually Paedobaptists in their paraphrases put not in any thing to answer repent v. 38. which is true though Master Stephens be alleged in my sixth exception as paraphrasing it by covenant for your selves and your children Master Blake grants the Apostle presseth to a duty and such as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers If so then he doth not infer a right to bapâ—ism barely from their interest in the promise What he saith right and duty very well stand together and that the Apostle fitly makes use of their interest as a motive I deny not It is true the Apostle mentioned more to whom the promise was then he then perswaded to repent for he mentions the promise as pertaining to the absent or unborn but he perswades none to be baptized but the penitent nor mentions any to whom the promise was but the called of God To my Argument from the precedency of repentance to baptism Acts. 2.38 against infant-baptism he answers as before ch 37. to which I have replyed before As for Master Stephens his paraphrase avowed by Master Blake as the Apostles meaning that if the Jewes who had crucified Christ would receive him as the particular Messiah the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation it is far from the Apostles minde For the Apostle doth not make the eontinuance of the promise as the benefit consequent on their receiving Christ and the receiving of Christ the condition of continuance of the promise but the being of the promise is alleged as a thing already existent nor is there any likelyhood that the Apostle Peter would urge them to so hard duties as repentance receiving Christ by so slender a reason as the continuance of the promise of visible Church-membership and baptism to them and their infant children yea the text it self shewes that the things by which he would perswade them to receive Christ were the assurance of remission of sins and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the alleging the promise v 39 is to take away the great objection against these great benefits from their crucifying of Christ and their imprecation on them and their children Matth. 27.25 If then Master Stephens build his word of command to baptize father and child on that paraphrase he builds on a foundation which will not hold Master Blake addes To this the word repent refers as may be made plain But what he means by this assertion I do not well understand it being ambiguous what he means by this whether the paraphrase of Master Stephens that the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation if they would receive Jesus as the particular Messiah or the word of command to baptize father and child and in like manner what kind of reference he means whether as a medium to prove it or as a motive to it If he mean the same with that which his allegations seem to tend to his meaning is that the promise of visible Church-state was to the Jewes as they had been formerly if they did receive Christ and the term repent refers to it as the motive Now though I grant that the promise Acts. 2.39 is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v 38. yet I deny such a promise to be meant v. 39. as Mr. Bl. and Mr. Stephens fancy Nor do any of Mr. Blakes allegatione prove it For Acts 3.25 doth not speak of such a covenant as Master Blake means but of that Evangelical covenant wherein God promised Christ and saving blessings by him Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant onely but also of the Prophets Now the Prophets there are the same with all the Prophets v. 24. and those Jewes to whom Peter spake were no otherwise their children then in that they had been raised up of and sent to that nation in their predecessors times and they are in like manner called children of the Covenant because they were the posterity of those ancestors specially Abraham to whom that Covenant was made But this doth not prove that they were then Gods visible people that the Covenant of visible Church-state did belong to them and their children or that such a covenant is meant Acts 2.39 What Master Blake allegeth from Matth. 8.12 Matth. 21.43 that they were in danger to be cast off doth prove rather the contrary thet the nation or body of the Jewish people who had rejected Christ were not in covenant with God and although those particular persons Acts 2.37 to whom Peter spake v. 38 39. were more awakened then others yet they could not be then said to be in the covenant of visible Church-state being not then believers in Christ. What Master Blake allegeth and infers from Matth. 21.31 32. Luke 7.29 30. I assent to but know not what it makeâ— for his purpose Yea me thinks his calling baptism to which Peter exhorted entrance into a new covenant-way crosseth Master Stephens paraphrase of continuing the same promise to them and their children In his third allegation he misreports me as if I excluded all consideration of right in the Jewes and their children from those words which are Acts 2.39 Whereas that which I said was this that from the promise Acts 2.39 what ever right be imported by it Peter doth not infer their being baptized as a right or privilege accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim but as a duty to which he perswades in a moral way What good interpretation I give of those words v. 39. suitable to Peters exhortation I have set down Exam. pag. 61. Review part 1. pag. 41. and elsewhere Master Blake if he could should have overthrown it Master Cobbets exception is answered in the next section Mr. Bl. hath been oft told that the children are mentioned Acts 2.39 because of the imprecation Matth. 27.25 That the words Acts 2.38 39. are carried in that way that interest in Covenant and Covenant-Seals in Mr. Bls sense formerly ran is supposed but not proved by him That the Jews yet persisting in their adherence to Moses not embracing Christ should be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptism is such a dotage as me thinks Master Blake should disclaim That the words of the text Acts 2.39 hold out such a covenant-right as Master Blake imagins in Scripture-language according to the grand charter of heaven I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is said but not proved by Master Blake Whether my exceptions against the Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38 39. or Master Blakes answers are frivolous shifts the intelligent Reader will perceive My Antipaedobaptism is enough to refute Master John Goodwins charge and my censure of his interpretations others have made good As for
the text Master Blake mindes me of Job 38.2 it may appear from my writings to be more pertinently applyable to himself then me Had ever any man shewed me so much confused scribling so many irrational unproved dictates so many impertinent allegations in my wâ—itings as I and Master Blake have shewed in his I would have silenced my self from writing any more except a retractation of my former bookes SECT XXII Animadversions on ch 2. part 1. of Master Thomas Cobbet his just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38 39. in which his exposition is shewed to be vain and mine justified TWo points the Paedobaptists do endeavour to confirm from Acts 2.38 39. 1. That the children of believers are in the Covenant 2. That this being in covenant gives them right to baptism This latter point is that which I am yet upon for which how insufficient that text is hath been shewed in answer to Master Blake My intent was in this place to have said no more of this text till I came to examine Master Ms. 2. Concl. But sith Master Blake tels me Master Cobbet hath p. 23. said that which utterly overthrowes my exposition I shall examine what he saith Just vindic ch 2. part 1. Sect. 3. He argues thus against my exposition First the promise is to you that is fulfilled to you accordingly as made to Abraham for sending of Christ c. there wants Scripture-proof to make this sense of the promise is to you i. e. is fulfilled to you nor yet doth that in Acts 3.25 26. ye are the children of the promise c. prove this sense Ans My sense of the words is this The promise of raising up of Christ is now fulfilled to you that is for your benefit in the remission of your sins and blessing you being called of God and in like manner to your childeen and to all that are afar off This to be the sense I gather 1. From Scriptures which seem to me to speak suitably thereto The first is Peters speech in the same ch v. 30. of David Therefore being a Prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loynes he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne c. Hence I argue It is most likely that Peter v. 39. meant a promise mentioned before and known to them to whom he spake Not the promise of the miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost for reasons to be presently expressed therefore the promise mentioned v. 30 31 32. The second is Acts 3.18 19 22 23 24 25 26. whence I argue It is most likely that sense is best which hath most consonancy with the speech of the same Author to the same persons to the same purpose on the like occasion But the words Acts 3.18 19 22 23 24 25 26. are such and my sense of Acts 2.38 39. hath most consonancy with those words For in that speech he exhorts to repentance v. 19. because that was fulfilled which was foretold by the Prophets to wit Christs resurrection and v. 25. the covenant mentioned is that of blessing all the kinreds of the earth in Abrahams seed that is Christ. And that this was fulfilled v. 26. in raising up Christ and this was first to them to wit for their benefit by blessing and converting them which hath much consonancy with my sense of Acts 2.38 39. therefore my sense is most likely A third is Acts 13.32 33 c. which though it were spoken by another to wit Paul and to other company yet by one endued by the same Spirit to persons in respect of their nation and estate like alleging v. 35.36 37. the same text and almost in the same words which Peter used Acts 2.27 31 32. Now in that place Paul makes the promise to the Fathers to be the raising up of Christ and speaks of it as to them in that it was fulfilled and that for their benefit the forgiveness of sins v. 38. and thereupon exhorteth to repentance and embracing of Christ v. 40. Somewhat to like purpose might be alleged from Rom. 15.8 c. But this is enough to shew that my exposition doth not want Scripture-proof 2. I gather my sense thus The term is is in the present tense This Master Cobbet takes notice of when he saith that the Apostle doth not say the promise was to you The proposition must be understood either as a proposition secundi adjecti as Logicians speak the promise is to you that is the promise exists to you so as that the Verb substantive should note meer existence But this construction the promise existes or hath existence to you seems to me to be defective in sense or truth For the promise being a transâ—unt act was not then existent Nor were it true do I conceive to what purpose he should mention the bare existence of the promise which could be neither comfort to them nor motive to the duty he pressed Or else the proposition must be tertii adjecti and if so there must be a supplement either of the term made or the term fulfilled For I know no third But not the term made For then the sense should be the promise is now made to you c. but this is not true the promise was not then made to them but to their fathers Acts 13.32 therefore the supplement fulfâ—illed is most probable it being the term used Acts 3.18 and 13.33 3. This exposition of mine seems to me to be right because it is opposite to the Apostles scope which was to direct ane erect those affrighted Jewes to whom he spake Now the sense that I give is very proper to comfort them against the horrour of their fact in crucifying Christ and wishing his blood to be on them and their children Matth. 27.25 by telling them as Peter did Acts 3.13 14 15 16 17 18. that though they did unwittingly kill Christ yet God had thereby fulfilled his promise even for their good and their children even as Joseph when he told his brethren Gen. 45.5 Gen. 50.19 20 that though they thought evil against him yet God meant it unto good to bring to pass as it is this day to save much people alive And this sense is a very fit motive to move them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Christ for remission of sins by testifying that the promise of sending Christ was fulfilled in the raising of Christ from the dead 4. My exposition is confirmed because all other expositions have less evidence and are more liable to exceptions The most likely exposition after that which I give seems to be that which expounds the promise to be that of giving the holy Ghost in the miraculous gifts which is called v. 33. the promise Luke 24.49 and was mentioned in the next words before Acts 2.38 And of this I confess the sense may be good thus understood The promise of giving the holy Ghost Joel 2.28 is fulfilled in that which
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is
to you and your children whom he now calls and the promise shall be to all that are afar off as many as God shall call even of them also did it follow that in no sense the words as many as the Lord shall call can be referred to the Former part of the verse either to parents or children Surely if I have any understanding the contrary followes that if the meaning were the promise even now is offered to you and they were then under the call of God but not yet called the words may be referred to the former part of the verse to parents and children thus the promise of remission of sins is now offered to you and your children under the call of God to be attained by as many as the Lord our God shall effectually call at this time and hereafter But how stands it with other Paedobaptists applications of this Seripture as if the promise did de praesenti belong to the children in external right and administration and a covenant-right in them and title to the initial seal and yet the promise onely offered to them and they not called but under the call of God If the offer of the promise and a call in fieri which is not in facto esse be sufficient to intitle men to the promise in external right and to the initial ieal then had those Jewes which believed not Acts 28.24 and the Athenians Acts 17.32 such right and title Master Sidenham will have infants by the words your children will he say the promise was then offered to them and they then under the call of God If he did he should tell how that we might understand it And there is need he should shew some reason and proof of that his paraphrase which is not yet done ere his Reader if he be wise will receive it And for what he saith that in that verse there is an exact distribution of the world into Jew and Gentile the Gentiles being usually those afar off it requires better proof then this sith neither is the term Jew expressed nor the term afar off used of the Gentiles that I know but Ephes. 2.13 where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be questioned whether it be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text But Master Sidenham addes 2. How unequal would the distribution â—e of this verse not suitable to the lawes of expression among rational men If as many as the Lord shall call should be a limitation to the former part of the verse the word children must needs be redundant and superfluous for Jewes and Gentiles comprehend all the world Now children must either be one part of the world or comprehend under one or both names or be a distinct world by themselves neither Jewes nor Gentiles And this must needs follow on such a reading of the words for the design of the Apostle is to hold forth the freeness of the promise to Jew and Gentile and their children to these Jewes at present to the Gentiles and their children when God shall call the parents as he did these Jewes Ans. Master Sidenham hath printed here such a toy as might please himself but is fit for nothing but to be slighted For 1. He supposeth that you and those afar off is as much as Jewes and Gentiles which is not proved 2. He supposeth consequently you and those afar off to comprehend all the world because Jewes and Gantiles comprehend all the world But this followes not though the term you note Jewes if it note onely some Jewes to wit those to whom Peter then spake 3. That if as the Lord shall call should be a limitation to the former part of the verse the word children must needs be redundant and superfluous for Jewes and Gentiles comprehend all the world Which indeed followes on his conceit that here is an exact distribution of the world into Jew and Genrile But this is manifestly false for though they afar off should be the Gentiles yet all the Gentiles are not therein comprehended but those that are called and if the term you note the Jewes yet in notes not all the Jewes but such as were parents and therefore the term children is necessary being not comprehended under the term you and it is alike necessary to express them distinctly whether the limitation as many as the Lord shall call be applyed to the former part of the verse or to the latter onely so that I can yet see no reason of Master Sidenhams conceit that such a referring of the limitation as many as the Lord our God shall call to the first part of the v. as I make would cause the distribution of this v. to be so unequal as not to be suitable to the lawes of expression among rational men And to what he addes further I say children were one part of the world and comprehended under Jewes but how this must needs follow on such a reading of the words as puts as many as the Lord shall call to the first part of the verse any more then to the latter onely I see not nor if it did do I know any absurdity in it no nor any opposition to what he makes the Apostles designes But let 's see what he makes of all this to his purpose He tels us now put children by themselves a third party and add whom the Lord shall call and you exclude them from being etiher Jewes or Gentiles and so excommunicate them from any hopes of calling or being saved To which I say if I doated like Master Sidenham making you and those afar off synonymous to Jewes and Gentiles in general when the terms note onely some in particular and put children by themselves as a third party I should exclude them from being Jewes or Gentiles whether I added to the first part of the v. the words as many as the Lord shall call or did otherwise And if I made all that are called and saved to be comprehended under you and those afar off as Synonymous to Jewes and Gentilas in General and excluded children as neither I should excommunicate them aâ— he saith But that either any such thing followes on the limiting of the former part of the v. by those words as many as the Lord our God shall call or any other of my sayings is neither proved by Master Sidenham nor any other nor ever will But Master Sidenham goes on Now this is 1. Contrary to that known rule in Logick That Omnis bona distributio debet esse bimembris onely of two members and those opposite one to another to bring in a third marres all This then he imagines that if your children be a third party and not either you or those afar off a Logick rule would be broken But whose Logick rule is that he mentions I confess there have been Logicians who have affected dichotonie but when they have tyed themselves to it they have been censured as guilty of accurate vanity by
ad dictum simpliciter is â—allacious As for my speech which he saith symbolizeth with Bellarmine if it be true it is not the worse for that nor did I blame Mr. M. for symbolizing with Arminius in a truth but for agreeing with him in that explication which doth undermine the true explication of Rom. 9.8 which the Contraremonstrants prove from the Text. If Bellarmine did by mystical sense mean the same which I did by the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost and by the Letter what I express by the outward face of the words I see not that either Chamier or Mr. Bl. have or can prove it false The sense in the outward face of the words I call that which a Linguist who knows what words signifie would conceive upon reading without any other revelation from the Holy Ghost But I cannot believe that any Linguist without other revelation than what the bare words hold forth would ever have understood these promises A father of many Nations have I made thee I will be a God to thee and thy seed Thus Gentiles as well as Jews shall believe in Christ I will justifie raise thee up and all that are my Elect or who believe as thou dost to eternal life I grant Chamiers conclusion In this Covenant here is a promise of Heaven and yet deny that the outward face of the covenant Gen. 17. is all Evangelical nor is there a word in Mr. Blakes that proves it Mr. Blake proceeds thus Lastly Mr. T. yet knows not how to bring any thing home were all granted to serve his interest And then sets down what he conceives to be my meaning which he thus opposeth First that orthodox Divines both ancient and modern have made Circumcision to be of the same signification and use as Baptism and till Anabaptists closed they had no Adversaries but Papists who to advance their opus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Testament will have them as far to exceed the Old as Heaven doth Earth and the substance doth the shadow and then cites a speech of Chamier Panst. Caâ—h tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. sect 58. and prosecutes his calumnies of my borrowing my weapons I use against infant-baptism from the Jesuits to all which I answer 1. That I grant that Circumcision and Baptism are in part of the same signification and use nor did I ever deny it but in as many and more things they differ which I have shewed Exercit. Sect. 2. Examen part 3. Sect. 9. in this part of the Review Sect. 11. and those disparities I prove out of Scripture and the best learned and approved Protestant Writers Nor do I agree with the Jesuits in holding Baptism to confer grace ex opâ—re operato nor do I undervalue the Covenant with Abraham and his seed as no Gospel-covenant nor do I deny Circumcision to have been the seal of a Gospel-promise As Mr. Blake doth calumniate me and to make odious doth faâ—sly and injuriously suggest I took from the Jesuits But this I confess I hold Exercit. Sect. 1. that there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism in signing the Evangelical Covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administring the other of both which speeches I have given an account in that place which I finde not yet invalidated and if they hold the analogy between infant-circumcision and infant-baptism is evacuated there being difference between the covenant made with Abraham and the new covenant though both be in some sort Evangelical and therefore the mixture of the covenant will serve my interest in this point 2. It is false which Mr. Blake saith That my conformity with the Jesuits about the difference between Circumcision and Baptism to maintain the opus operatum of the one to the disparagement of the other as if Baptism exceeded Circumcision as far as the substance the shadow did put me upon it to affirm that what all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable is no undeniable axiome for neither do I conform to Jesuits inâ— that point nor was such conformity any reason of that speech but the words of Mr. M. in his Sermon as the reading of the words of my Examen pag. 113. shew And I say still that speech is a truth and necessary to be avouched by all those who ascribe onely authentick authority to the holy Scripture Nor is it reasonable to require that I should shew any such errour as is maintained by all Protestant Divines against Papists For 1. it is not possible for me to shew what all Protestant Divines hold against Papists 2. Nor is it necessary to verifie my speech which avoucheth not any such errour in act but onely the possibility of it which is sufficiently made good by pâ—oving them not infallible And to the demand how Popery should be known if that be no Popery which all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists I answer 1. it may be counted Popery and yet perhaps a truth which all Protestant Divines oppose 2. What is Popery which we have engaged our selves to extirpate is better known in the ways I set down Ap. p. 133 134. Sect. 13. than in Mr. Blakes way For 1. it is not possible for any man no not the greatest Reader in Controversies to know what all Protestant Divines defend against Papists 2. If that be the Rule to know Popery by many things will not be taken for Popery which are there being many Tenents which are counted Popery which Protestants Divines and those of good note have not opposed but have granted many things favourably to them as not onely the Collections of Brerely and such like Papists but also the Treatises of the Cassandrian writers and late Episcopal Protestant do shew which yet I do not approve of I agree with Mr. Blake that there is less likelihood that the truth should be with the Papists than with the Protestants and yet there may be some truth which some Papists may discern which many Protestants do not It is the saying of Doctor Twisse Vind. Grat. lib. 1. part 2. sect 25. digress 8. num 3. But I would not that those things should be rejected of us because the Schoolmen hold them for neither do the Cretians fain all things Augustines judgment was esteemed better than the Pelagians as being the oracle of his time yet he is censured as the hard father of infants for maintaining their damnation if they died unbaptized Calvin was in high esteem as the great Light of the Protestant Churches who have many of them followed him in the point about usury yet the Popish and Prelatical Divines are generally counted by our most zealous Preachers more right in that point than the transmarine Calvinists It is a wicked calumny which Mr. Blake vents whe he saith of me that I 〈◊〉 in upon the party of these sons of Anak meaning the Jesuits Had he any other
sense of the duty oâ— by foundation of a duty may be understood the Rule according to which that duty is to be performed and this may be understood either thus to whomsoever there is a promise of that thing by which a duty is urged on others they are bound to do that duty and then it is false for Christ promised Matth. 28.19 20. to the Apostles whom he bid preach the Gospel and baptize that he would be with them and Matth. 18.20 to two or three gathered together to be in the midst of them doth it therefore follow that every two or three gathered together in his Name are commanded to preach and baptize or it may be understood thus that he to whom the promise is upon the doing of that duty is bound to do it and this I grant to be true but this will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn for there is no promise to infants that upon their baptizing themselves they should have remission of sins nor is Mr. Sidenham so absurd as to make baptism infants duty but their right now as Mr. Sidenham would have it that because there 's a promise to infants therefore others are in duty bound to baptize them as having right to it it is false sith the institution of Baptism is not to whom God hath promised to be a God for that is according to his election which is unknown Rom. 9.6 7 8. but to them who are Disciples or believers in Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. There are ambiguities in the speeches that commands in the Gospel do suppose promises that promises made to persons do include commands that all the New Testament Ordinances are annexed to promises which would be too tedious and unnecessary to unfold it is sufficient to shew they will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn in the sense they are true and will as well serve to prove infants right to the Lords Supper as to Baptism That which he saith We have as much in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism from the true principles of right to Ordinances as they have for those whom they baptize for they baptize grown persons on such and such considerations and we shall hereafter shew we baptize on as strong and equivalent grounds is notoriously false for we baptize according to the qualification required in the institution of Christ and the Apostles and other Preachers baptizing and directing the use of Baptism in the New Testament which are acknowledged the true principles of right to Ordinances and it is acknowledged even by Paedobaptists that they have neither precept nor example in the New Testament of infant-baptism and therefore cannot have as strong and warrantable grounds as we who are Pistobaptists that is baptizers of believers Nor is it true that it is requisite we should shew them expressâ—command against Infant-baptism it is enough that they cannot prove in its institution Infants never by divine warrant enjoyed Baptism and for Circumcision it was more unlike than like to Baptism and of it an authentique repeal is easily shewed Acts 15. and elsewhere In the rest Mr. Sidenham shews not why infants should not have been baptized at first as well as grown men if it had been Christs minde Ishmael and all Abrahams males were circumcised the self same day in which Abraham was Gen. 17.26 27. and therefore if Paedobaptists Hypothesis were right infants as well as persons of years should have been baptized by the Apostles which they did not for in that it is not exprest it is enough to shew it was not done unless we make the Spirit of God defective in what was needfull to have been set down and to say as Mr. Sidenham doth There is enough to shew it was done though not written is with the Papists to maintain unwritten traditions Rule â—f manners There is no hint left by Christ or the Apostles to deduce as a infant-baptism from And it is false which he saith God hath always ordained some Ordinances in the administrationâ— of which for the most part the subject hath been purely passive He names nor can name any till the institution of Circumcision which was not till after the world had been above two thousand years The rest of his speech savours of this corrupt principle that what we conceive fit in Gods worship is to be accounted his minde This is enough in answer to the first Chapter In the second he saith untruly that the Covenant Gen. 17. was first made with Abraham and his seed in the name of all believers and their seed both Jews and Gentiles nor is it true that if he should finde the same Covenant reaching Gentile believers and their children as Abraham and his they cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant that is Baptism And for what he saith the Covenant Gen. 17. was a Covenant of pure grace I grant it so far as it was Evangelical but deny it to be a pure Gospel-covenant nor do any of his Reasons prove any more than I grant that there were Gospel-promises meant by God under promises of temporal mercies proper to Abraham and his natural posterity and those that joyned with them in their policy which I have proved before out of Scripture to be termed the Covenant it self without a Metonymy and God is said to keep that Covenant by establishing the Israelites in Canaan and therefore it is but vain talk that the promise of Canaan was but an additional appendix added ex super abundanti if he mean it of the Covenant Gen. 17. if he mean it of the Gospel-covenant it is more true that was added to the other as a more hidden sense under the promises of civil and domestick privileges I do not make a mixture in the Gospel-covenant but in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. nor by mixture do I understand any other than a composition of various parts not a mixture in the nature of it or substance or circumstances but that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of two sorts some promises in the first obvious sense of the words proper to Abrahams natural posterity some spiritual common to all believers in the more hidden sense of the words which with what hath been said before is enough to answer that Chapter aâ—so proceeding upon mistakes of my meaning in the term mixt in many passages and the rest if not answered before I let pass because dictates without proof In the third after he hath allowed the distinctions of Abrahams seed into carnal and spiritual natural and believing he sets down six considerations 1. That Abraham 's spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants which may be granted with these limitations 1. That it be not understood universally for Christian believing Gentilesâ— neither Proselytes to Israel nor servants to them are Abrahams spiritual seed yet not at all Abrahams fleshly seed 2. That Isaac was as much Abrahams fleshly seed as
1.2 3 4 5. If any should deny it yet the matter and form of expression v. 6. shewes it to be opposed to something which might be objected against what was before implyed For the speech the word of God hath not fallen or not taken effect intimates that there was some word of God which seemed to be without effect or to fall if the Jewes were cast off from being Gods people And it appears by the answer that the word of God was some promise concerning Israel as v. 6. shewes and Abrahams seed as v. 7.8 9. shewes The word of God concerning Abrahams seed which might be conceived to fall appears upon inquisition to have been that Gen. 17.7 either only or chiefly Piscat Sch. in Rom. 9.6 that word of God to wit that promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Dickson expos annalyâ— Rom. 9.6 the word of God hath fallen when he said to Abraham I will be thy God and of thy seed I conceive it needless to adde any more it being so manifest and so conceived by interpreters of note Hence it appears also that the objection answered by the Apostle is this God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations in an everlasting covenant therefore if the Jewes who are Abrahams seed are rejected the word of God falls To this the Apostle answers 1. By denying that every Jew who was descended from Abraham by natural generation and so a child of the flesh is meant by the seed there named who should be the child of God and so the promise of being God to them is not meant of all Abrahams natural posterity 2. By asserting that they who are counted for the seed and were children of the pâ—omise that is those to whom that Evangelical promise Gen. 17.7 belonged were a peculiar number whether of Jews or Gentiles according to Gods own choice and calling distinguished by no other discriminating reason but Gods will as he proves in Isaac and Ishmael v. 9. Esau and Jacob v. 10 11 12 13. and otherwise in that which followes Whence it appears 1. That the promise Gen. 17.7 was not made to Abrahams natural posterity as such and if so then it is not made to every child of a believer 2. That only the elect whether of Jews or Gentiles are the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 is made and consequently to no other of a beleivers children but the elect nor any other in covenant with God by vertue of that promise but they This to be the Apostles determination I confirmed Exam. part 3. sect 4. by the speeches of Beza Twisse Ames Bayn Walaeus Dounam new Annot Ainsworth Pareus Estius who though a Papist yet is reputed more solid and right about the the point of grace then the Jesuits are and added in my Praecursor pag. 36. the words of Mr. Rutherford of Scotland and Mr. Noâ—ton of New England To which I have added more testimonies of Beza Chamier and the Belgick Professors at the Synod of Dortâ—n â—n my Refutation of Dr. Savage his Position in Latin Sect 5. And because Mr. Blake seeks so much to possesse people as if I drew this from the Jesuits I will add Mr Dicsons words on Rom. 9.7 8. Neither doth it follow bâ—cause the Jewes are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh that therefore they are all sons in the Scripture sense or the seed promised For so even the Issmaelites should be accounted for Abâ—ahams seed contrary to Scripture which hath restrained the right of sons to Isaac and his family by saying In Isaac shall thy seed be called The sons of the flesh are to be distinguished from the elect sons of God for this God would when Ismael being secluded he called Isaac the seed of Abraham that not all are the elect sons of God but onely the children of promise or whom God determined of grace to make with Isaac sons of the faith of Abraham are the children of God and that seed to whom the promise is made Dr. Owen of Perseverance Chap. 5. Sect. 10. The Apostle Rom 9 8. calleth the elect the children of the promises or those to whom the promises to Abraham and his seed were made Chap. 7. Sect. 23 The persons to whom this promise Isai. â—9 21. is made are called thee and thy seed that is all those and onely those with whom God is a God in Covenant God here minds them of his first making of this Covenant with Abraham his seed Gen. 17.7 Now who are this seed of Abrhaam Not all his carnall posterity not the whole nation of the Jewes Our Saviour not onely denies but also proves by many Arguments that the Pharisees and their followers who doubtless were of the nation of the Jewes and the carnall seed of Abraham were not the children of Abraham in this sense nor his seed but rather the Devils John 8.39.40 41. And the Apostle disputes and argues the same case Rom. 4.9 10 11. and proves undeniably that it is believers only whether circumcised or uncircumcised whether Jewes or Gentiles that are this seed of Abraham and heirs of the promise So plainly Gal. 3.7 Know yee therefore that they which are of the faith are the children of Abraham and then concludes again as the issue of his debate verse 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham Mr. Marshal himselfe in his Defence pag. 102. saith secondly by the word Seed was meant the children of the promise the Elect Rom. 9 8. â—s Mr. Bayne nay Arminius himselfe confesses onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon foresight of their faith And indeed so far as I discern in the reading of Arminius his Analysis of the ninth of the Romanes the cited Remonstrants Defence of their opinion at the Synod of Dort on the first Article Mr. John Goodwin his late Exposition of the ninth to the Romans it is agreed that in the mystical sense the promise Gen 17.7 is determined by the Apostle Rom. 9 6 7 8 to belong onely to the elect though the Remonstrants would have them elected upon consideration of believing and the Contra-remonstrants according to the Apostles determination verse 11 c. assign no other reason of the election of some rejection of others but Gods will All do agree that the Apostle determines that every child of Abraham much lesse of every believer is not a child of the promse or the seed of Ahraham to whom the Promise is made Gen. 17.7 but the elect or true believers whether Jewes or Gentiles 7. It is proved that the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelicall or as the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.17 the Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fore-confirmed of God unto Christ was not to every believers naturall seed but to the true believers or elect persons who are meant by Abrahams seed because it can be true onely
of them For in the Evangelical sense to whom God promiseth to be God he promiseth to justifie them to regenerate them to raise them up to eternall life as appears by our Saviours own reasoning Luke 20.37 38. where he infers from Gods avouching himselfe to be the God of Abraham his living to God rising from the dead to eternal life by the Apostles inference Rom. 4.16 from thence that righteousness is by faith Rom. 9.7 8. determining them to be elect people of God to whom he hath promised to be God Heb. 8 10 c. But God doth not promise to every believers child to justifie regenerate and raise him to eternal life for if he did promise it he would perform it to say he makes a promise to any and to say they have not the efficacie of it is to make God a lyar whereas many children of believers are never justified regenerated nor shall be raised to eternall life He performs it to all true believers and elect persons and to none other therefore none others are meant there by Abrahams seed in the Evangelical sense 8 Lastly the words of John Baptist Matth 3.9 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism saying to them And think not so say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham do evince â— that repenting and believing persons though raised by God of stones without naturall generation are the children of Abraham to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7 2. That it was not their naturall descent from Abraham without repentance and Gospel faith which did entitle them to Gods favour or to his baptism and therefore it follows thence that the children of Abraham to whom the promise is Gen 17.7 are onely the elect or true believers 3. That to be the child of a believer is not a sufficient title to Gods favour or baptism To this purpose Paraeus Com. in Matth. 3.9 He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to fleshly birth but pertain only to believing spiritual posterity For they are not sons of Abraham who according to the flesh are of Abraham but who are according to the spirit Piscat Sch. in Matâ—h 3.9 His sentence is although ye come from Abraham according to the flesh yet ye are not therfore those sons of Abraham to whom pertains the promise of eternall life made to Abraham and his seed For this belongs to them who imitate Abrahams faith and piety Diodati Annot. on Matth. 3 9. And think not do not dally with your selves to think that because you are issued from Abraham according to the flesh you are in Gods favour and free from his judgement for with him the imitation of Abrahams faith and piety is the onâ—ly thing which demonstrates and causeth to be the children of Abraham and not the corporall generation Rom 4.12 Now such children may be brought forth of all Nations yea and out of these stones Neither do you perswade your selves that by your perdition Gods people shall perish for Gods people shall always subsist in these spiritual children of Abraham towards whom Gods covenant and promises shall be verified This then is the constant Doctrine of the New Testament that the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall is made onely to the elect and true believers that they onely are Abrahams seed spirituall and so onely in the covenant of grace by Gods promise and therefore if it be true that they onely who are in covenant which Paedobaptists say when they say the Seal follows the Covenant are to be baptized not any one because he is the child of a believer but the elect and true believers are to be baptized and so their own argument for Infant-baptism overthroweth it SECT XXIX The Allegation of Rom. 9.6 7 8 Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall belongs are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 6. TO my Allegation of Rom 9.6 7 8. in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Mr. Blake undertakes to give an answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. And first having belied me as borrowing from Stapleton the Jesuit and learning to a â—air to follow him though to my remembrance I never read that passage in him which he allegeth nor made any use of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans or any other of his works in that Book of mine he proceeds thus in his scoffing calumniating fashion like a Satyrist rather than a Disputant We have drunk up the Protestants poyson and Mr. T. his great care is to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antidoâ—â— be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt Which is Mr. Blakes manifest calumny as the quotations in my Examen part 3 sect 4. in which he might see that I received it from the most eminent Protestants and alleged but one Papist and he no Jesuit but one of the better note and since the quotations in the foregoing Section do fully prove and it were easie to produce treble the number if need were But I find it in vain to endeavour the satisâ—ying of such eager and through prejudice selfe-blinding Antagonists as Mr. Blake is I could if I liked such Arts as Mr. Blake useth tell Mr Blake he borrows from the Jesuit Bellarmin who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7 is not universall concerning the children of beleivers but hath place onely in the predestinate replies This is said without proof for the words of the Scripture are absolute nor is there any mention of predestination in that whole chapter But Mr Blake promiseth me square dealing in the examining my Argument and sets down my words at length and then in stead of answering it puts divers Quaere's to me yeelding first to me that the Text Gen. 17.7 was in that place Rom. 9.6 7 8 brought into question by the Apostle 1 saith he How Bain and Ameâ— come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants Answer And so aâ—so did I and therefore called them the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants not Remonstrants as Mr. Blake not heeding my words suggests as one not willing to omit any thing whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible 2. saith he Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the Covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise I am sure in his Analysis on this chapter to the Romans of which Mr. T. should not be ignorant little lesse than vapouring of his examination of it in Oxford Apolog. page 131. he spake in another manner even in Mr. T. his own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with
senses of his words which I set down might not be conceived to be his meaning and therefore his complaint of me is ridiculous and I shall have cause to censure him as a confused Dictâ—tâ—r rather than an accurate Disputer who doth so indistinctly set down his main conclusion That an adversary cannot determinely resolve what is the meaning and so neiâ—her easily examine his proofs nor know what to oppose Bâ—â— he tells me he meant it of a visible priviledge in facie Ecâ—lesiae visibilis yet he doth not tell what that visible priviledge is He tells me That they have their share in Foedus externum but sets not down what share they have nor what he means by Foedus externum in which they have share And after he saith God would have the children of them who by externall vocation and profession joyn to the Church of God even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge wiâ—h them which hath also ambiguity in it For whereas there are many priviledges which the parents enjoy as R. G. to be baptized to be admitted to the Lords Supper perhaps the Father to be an Elder teaching or ruling or a Deacon in the Church and by Children may be meant persons of ten or twenty years old and while they are children may be understood either during their infancy or during their relation as children to their parents which is as long as they are men the words may be understood either that they have the same priviledge of admission to the Lords Supper or Church-government while they are infants or that they have even in infancy the same priviledge to be baptized that the parent had upon his profession Which last if it were his meanng as most likely it was then his second conclusion being the same with his Antecedent in his Euthymem his argument is an inapt tautology Infants of professors have the same priviledge with the parents to be baptized Ergo they are to be baptized which is to prove the same by the same yet this I must needs take to be his meaning till he shew what other priviledge wiâ—h their parents children of vi-sible professors have in infancy Then he distinguisheth of the Covenant of grace taken largely and strictly which distinction is shewed before Sect. 25 to have no footing in Scripture and to be inaptly used by Mr M. He distinguisheth of Jewes some Abrahams seed according to the promise some onely in the face of the visible Church and of being in Christ by the mysticall union and by visible and externall profession Which distinction I mislike not though they be not of use here sith they were not the terms used in his Conclusion He distinguisheth of Seals belonging to the Covenant the Seal of the Spirit and externall Seals But he neiâ—her shewâ—s where the externall seals as he calls them are tearmed Seals of the Covenant nor was the term Seal of the Covenant at all used in his conclusion Yea to shew how unskilfully he handles the matter in all these distinctions he doth not distinguish any of those terms that were in question and were the predicate in his proposition to wit to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils And this piece of unskilfulness is in that which followeth When therefore I say they are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I mean look what right a visible professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quà visiâ—le professor that right hath his child so to be esteemed But first this speech here explained was not in his Conclusion in his Sermon these words were not there They are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents but this They are to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the Devils 2. Were the sense here given the meaning of his Conclusion it would not be true For if the right belong to the visible professors quà visible professors the same right cannot belong to the child except he be a visible professor For what agrees to any quà talis as such agrees universaliter reciproce and therefore by this expression every visible professor is to be received and esteemed and every one to be so received and esteemed is a visible professor which cannot be said with any truth or shew of truth of the infant child of a believer Besides if this Conclusion were good an infant should have right to be admitted to the Lords Supper sith the parent hath right thereto as a visible professor But Mr. M. makes a large discourse to prove That to those to whom the spiritual part of the Covenant belongs not yet there are outward Church-privileges which belong to them as they are visible professors And to prove this he cites Gen. 6.1 Deut. 14.1 Gal. 3.26 Matth. 8 12. Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 9.3.1 Iohn 8 17. Psal. 147.19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 In answer to which I say â— That I grant this speech to be true 2. I deny that the Texts are pertinent to the purpose of Mr. M. who intends this speech of Gentile visible professors whereas the texts are most of them of the privileges peculiar to the Jewish people namely Deut. 14.1 Matth. 8.12 Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 3.1 Iohn 8.17 Psal. 147 19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 Of the other two the former is of those before the Flood who whether they were called Sons of God by descent or profession or some other way it is uncertain The other Gal. 3.26 is to be understood of being the Sons of God really and the term All is to be limited as v. 27. by ye that are believers as the very words shew For when he saith Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus it is plain this is meant onely of those who had faith in Christ Iesus 3. In all this discourse he doth not shew a Text proving the privileges he mentions to belong to the infants of Gentile visible professors Certainly some of them cannot be applied no not to the Infants of the Jewish nation as v. 9. that to them were committed the Oracles of God that to them God shewed his word c. 4 Nor doth Mr M. distinctly tell us which of these â—or what other outward priviledge it is that belongs to the Infants of visible professors which is the onely thing pertinent to the present business After this he asserts That there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible Membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges and undertakes to prove it from Rom. 11. But I have in the first pâ—rt of this Review shewed Mr Ms and others mistakes about the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 and proved that it is meant of giving faith according â—o election Yet I grant it true which Mr M. asserts in those word and do take notice that pag. 110.
14. art 2. The principall acts of saving faith are accepting receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification sanctification and eternall life by vertue of the covenant of Grace ch 17. art 2. The perseverance of the Saints depends upon the nature of the covenant of grace The other speech he would clear is thus by me expressed Baptism seals onely the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. So in the Directory of Baptism That it is the seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternall and after And that the seed and posterity of the faithfull born within the Church have by their birth interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it In the Rules of direction in the Ordinance Octob. 20. 1645. That the Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ. And therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak To this saith Mr. M. I utterly deny your consequence that unlesse there be absolute promises of saving grace to infants the seal is set to a blank For give me leave but to put the same case First for the â—nfants of the Jewes was the seal put to a blank with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let me put the same case in grown men who make an external visible profession and thereupon are admitâ—ed to baptism can any man say that all the saving graces of the covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors Is it not abundantly known that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had he made a promise he would have performed it Answer To the words in my Examen the seal is put to a blank was added as some speak which I did to intimate that it was Paedobaptists phraseology not mine and that they counted this an absurdity not that I did so So that my consequence was it being counted frequently in their writings an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank that is that baptism should be administred to them that had not the promise and it seals onely the promise of saving grace if the promise of saving grace belong not to the infants baptized then in vain are they baptized according to Paedobaptists Hypothesis for the seal of the promise is put to them to whom it is confessed the promise is not made Mr. M himselfe in his Sermon pag. 43. Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme The covenant then sealed is the covenant of these saving graces which if it belong not to infants baptized but another outward covenant in vain are they baptized for they have not the covenant which baptisme seals And that this is the sense of other Writers appeares by the words of Ampsing Diolog eontra Anabapt p. 195. Dico ergo Omnibus fidelibus baptismum competere cum ipsorum semine tam mulieribus quam viris tam infantibus quam adultiâ— horum omnium enim se Deum fore declarat Deus his remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine his mentis renovatioâ—eÌ„ per spiritum sanctum his vitaÌ„ aeternam promittit ac regnum coelorum quare quoque ipsis obsignabitur hac Dei gratia Ames Bellarm. enervat tom 3. l. 1. c. 4. ch 9. Protest Circuâ—cisio à primâ suâ— institutione habuit promissionem illam annexam quâ nulla est major Ero Deus tuus seminis tui post te Gen. 17. quam Christus ita interpretatur Matth. 22. ut vitam aeternam illa doceat contineri Paulus Ephes. 2.12 Ostendit spem vivam ex illâ pendere I wil add the words of Calvin Epist. 229. which are in stead of many otheâ—s both because of the great eminency of the man being accounted almost an Oracle by many of my Antagonists and because they are full to the present purpose they are thus in English This principle is still to be held That baptism is not conferred on infants that they may be made sons and heirs of God but because they are already with God reckoned in that place and degree he grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh Otherwise the Anabaptists should rightly keep them from baptism For unlesse there should agree to them the truth of the outward sign it would be a meer profanation to call them to the participation of the sign it selfe Moreover if any deny baptism to them our answer is ready that they are already of the flock of Christ and of the family of God because the covenant of salvation which God maketh with believers is common also to the sons as also the words sound I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Gen 17.7 unlesse this promse went before by which God adopteth the children of believers not yet born it is certain baptism is ill bestowed on them Which words do plainly express the covenant of salvation which is made by God with believers is common to the sons that so it is meant Gen. 17.7 that with God they are afore baptism reckoned in the place and degree of sons and heirs of God who adopteth them not yet born that unlesse the truth of the outward sign that is according to Mr. Ms. adoption regeneration remission of sins c. did agree to them it were profanation to call infants of believers to the participation of the sign and Anabaptists should rightly keep them from Baptism Therefore Calvin thought the covenant of saving grace Gen. 17.7 made by God to believers infanâ—s which Mr. M. disclaism and otherwise infant-baptism is profanation and it is rightly opposed Yea the shifts that are used to free their doctrine of infants interest in the covenant and the sealing of it from the difficulty of verefying it against the exceptions before alledged do all seem to suppose the covenant in which infants have interest is the covenant of saving grace As when Mr. Baxters plain Scripture c. pag. 223. will have Baptisme seal onely the conditionall promise Mr. Philips vind pag. 37. expresseth the sealing by offering Mr. Davenport's Confess of Faith p 39. maketh the benefits of the covenant not to be offered in the Sacraments but to be exhibited onely to true believers Mr. Cotton's grounds of Bapt. pag. 70 The covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all but onely offereth it and seals what it offereth Dr Homes that the administration of the covenant of grace belongs to believers children though not the efficacie Dr. Twisse that Infants are in the covenant
accuse a man of nonsense because he speaks good sense to say I do equivocate because I do not equivocate For he that useth a word onely in one sense doth not aquivocate equivocation being when a word is used in more senses than one Fallaâ—ia aquivocationis est quando ex unius vocis multiplici fignificatione sophisticè concluditur Dr. Prideaux Hypomn Log tract 4. c. 7. Sect. 2. Arist Sophist Eleâ—ch l. 1. c. 3. reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when with the same names and vowels we signifie not the same thing which evidently proves Mr M. guilty of equivocating from his own words For in the first conclusion of his Sermon he distinguisheth the covenant of grace for substance which he makes the Covenant of saving grace from the externall way of administration and yet blames me for not including it And if he by covenant of grace include the way of externall administraâ—ion how could he say in his Sermon pag. 26. in the recapitulation of his two first conclusions If the covenant be the same and the children belong to it Sure he will not say the way of externall administration is the same Wherefore from his own words he is deprehended to equivocate in the term Covenant of grace in the first conclusion meaning by it the covenant of saving graces and distinguishing it from the externall administration but in the second conclusion when he saith children belong to it he understands not the inward but the outward covenant not the covenant of saving grace buâ— the way of externall administration And yet he dare not say the â—nfant children of Gentile Christian believers belong to it that is the same way of externall administration for that is in the Jewish Legall Rites Asemblys Confess of Faith chap. 7. Art 5. Therefore he sophistically equivocates in the use of that term which is his frequent manner and yet he is not ashamed to accuse me of that of which his own words acquit me as if he had learned the Artifice in scolding to call another that first of which himself might be detected Nor is Mr. M. clear from equivocating in what follows in which I find muâ—h confusednesse and ambiguity CHAP. XXXVII That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an externall priviledge of visible Church-membership and initiall seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. M. asserts AFter twenty pages spent about the explication of his second Conclusion having varied it five or six times and as I have shewed in every of them still speaking ambiguously even then when he tells us he speaks as plain as he can possibly I pitch upon this which is pag. 116. as his second Conclusion Having said Infants of believers are made free according to Abrahams Copy he thus expounds himself True according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed that look as Abraham the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here By which words it appears thar Mr. M. took this to be Abrahams Copy as he calls it that according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed Abraham and his seed the proselytes and their seed upon their the parents visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Godt Kingdom and Houshold with their parents 2. That so it is in the Christian Church by vertue of that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Gentile believers upon their visibly owning of God and his Covenant have this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents Concerning which Conclusion I say still Mr. M. useth ambiguities of speech there being divers Covenants of God to wit the Old and the New and divers wayes of visibly owning God as by sacrificing circumcision c. by Baptism the Lords Supper frequenting the Church meetings of Christians c. divers kingdoms and housholds of God as the whole world and his Church the visible or invisible which might occasion various senses of Mr. M. his words But I ghesse his meaning to be thus As the Jewes and proselytes being circumcised their children were to be so also so Gentile-believers being baptized their children are to be baptized as visible Church-members which being the same with the Antecedent of Mr. M. his Enthymeme and the consequent it is evident Mr. M. his argument is a meer trifling tauâ—ology as I have often said But I shall not insist on it having in my Apologie Sect. 10. and elswhere shewed it That which I shall consider chiefly in his glosse on Gen. 1â— 7 which to me seems as or more absurd than the glosse of Papists Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church i. e. The Bishop of Rome shall be my Vicar generall of the Oecumenicall Church For 1. according to Mr. M. his Glosse Thee that is Abraham to whom the words were spoken is put for without all rule of Grammar or Divinity or as they speak in Logick supponit by every Jew or Proselyte and every believer or Christian Jew or Gentile who doth not visibly own God and his Covenant 2. According to this glosse the naturall seed of proselytes though but visibly owning God and his Covenant are called Abrahams seed without any use of Scripture which speak of no other seed of Abraham but 1. Christ Gal. 3.16 By excellency so called 2. by grace the elect Rom. 9.7 3. Believers Rom. 4 1â— 12 16 17. Gal. 3.29 4 By nature Gen. 21 12. Psal â—05 6 Gen. 15.13.18 Neither oâ— which are proselytes who do onely own God and his covenant 3. The promise of God to be a God to Abrahams seed is thus expounded The naturall seed of Abraham and the naturall seed of Proselytes and of Gentile Christians visibly owning God and his covenant shall have this visible priviledge that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents In which paraphrase I note what he calls to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom a visible priviledge Now to be accounted I must refer to some person who doth so account and the accounting must be either an act of opinion or science or faith and then to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom is not a visible priviledg but invisible it being in the thoughts of anonother and the sense should be I will be a God to thy seed that is men as v. 9. administrators shall in their thoughts take proselytes and their children to belong to my Kingdom or it is some outward transâ—unt act and then it is an initial seal or I cannot conceive what it
should be if an initial seal either of Circumcision or Baptism if either of these then this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed hath this sense I will bring it to passe that thou thy seed proselytes believers of the Gentiles and their seed even infants shall be circumcised or baptized If any can make any other sense of the words I shall be his debtor And if this be the sense then the promise is made a preâ—iction of infant-Circumcision and Baptism which whether it be not a ridiculous exposition I leave it to any considerate man to judge The Apostle Rom 9.6 7 8. where he expounds this very Scripture understands being a God of saving grace according to election and by Abrahams seed the elect onely Rom. 4 11 12.13 16 justifying of believers by faith Gal. 3.16.29 inheritance and blessing to believers throâ—gh Christ Jesus Our Lord Christ Luke 20 36 37 38. Of being the children of God and of the resurrection Mr. M. his self in his Sermon pag. 7. makes these words a promise of salvation to the infants of believers dying in their infancy pag. 10. he saith The substance of the Covenant on Godâ— part was to be Abrahams God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion to be an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life And this he distinguisheth from the administration of the Covenant Yea in his Defence of his Sermon pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron That Circumcision did seale primarily the temporall promise sanctification secondarily to have an untoward look as being incâ—ngruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratifie temporall blessings which they may have that shall have no portion in Christ. Hath it not then a more untoward look to make this pretended visible privilege to proselytes children though but visibly owning God and his covenanâ— of having an initiall seal Circumcision and Baptism communicated to them meant by the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Much more to call this the Copy of Abraham the Father of believers Not that I deny temporall promises in that Covenant which I have proved to be mixt but I allege these passages onely to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches Besiâ—es the promise were not true so expounded for if this were the sense I will be the God of the posterity of proselytes owning God and his Covenant that they shall be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents then God doth promise that visible privilege to them for the words are a promise of an event not a declaration of a right and show what God would do not what they might claim which in many he performs not there being may of the seed of proselytes that never had the privilege and many of the children of Christian gentile believers who never had the visible privilege of being accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom whereas the word of God must be so expounded that it do not fall as about this very text the Apostle resolves Rom. 9.6 Mr. M. Defence part 3. pag. 127. saith It was not a personall privilege to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed and p. 129. This I add to make it more clear that that promise Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of believers Answer 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant is somewhat doubtfull to me by reason of his using the term Covenant sometimes for the outward covenant or administration sometimes for the promise of God and confounding these terms taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant being covenanters entring into covenant sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace sometimes of the initiall seal termed by him the Covenant and taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant sometimes being understood as they should always be in order to Gods act who alone takes into covenant and puts a man into covenant with himself but frequently though abusively by another mans act aâ— the administrators act of Circumcision and Baptism very seldom of being in covenant or belonging to the covenant by the circumcised or baptized persons own act of promise though in respect of it onely in right speech a person is said to be a Covenantâ—â— or to enter into covenant Of which thing I have often though in vain complained it causing obscurity which a man who is a teacher of others should avoid But concerning the promise Gen. 17 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee in their generations 1. I deny that Abrahams naturall posterity were taken into covenant that is circumcised as I conceive he means by vertue of that promise as I have often proved and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defence pag 182. when he saith The formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God 2. I deny that under the term Thee is meant any other than Abrahams individual person 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed is ever â—eant in Scripture the naturall seed of proselytes or Christian believing Gentiles 4. I deny that by the promise I wil be the God of thy seed can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts That thâ—s promise Gen. 17.7 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise wâ—iâ—h from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer or that this was Abrahams Copy That upon his and the proselytes visibly owning God and his Covenant their posterity should have this visible privilege that they should be accounted to belong visibly to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents Nor doth Mr. M. prove this sense of that promise Gen 17.7 either from the words or their coherence or by comparing it with any other Scripture as yeelding that exposition of it elswhere but saith something pag. 127 128. of his Defence to which though I have answered it sufficiently in my Postscript to Mr. Blake Sest 6. pag. 119. yet I repeat it with addition because much of pleading of Paedobaptists is hence First saith he though Abraham was the Father of the faithful and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and pertake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God and gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant and none but himself yer it was so beneficial
Moses it follows not that the covenant must be the covenant of Evangelicall grace For in Moses his renewing the covenant in the land of Moab there 's a promise of reduction of them Deut. 30.3 which being upon condition of their returning to God and obeying his voyce according to all that Moses commanded that day must be understood of the Covenant of the Law which had its promises of such temporall favours and not of the covenant of Evangelical grace That which Mr. C. saith That he did not thus properly for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed scil this covenant the Churches covenant abstractively considered v. 61. I know not what sense to make of it There 's not a word of Church-covenant or investure with it The plain meaning is either this Not by that covenant of the Law which thou hast broken but by the new covenant of the Gospel as Junius in his Annot. in locum Diodati the new Annot. or this as Piscat Schol. in locum not because thou art worthy of this aggregation of the nations as if thou hadst kept covenant with me as if he had said but of my grace or free favour or as Grotius It is a Metonymy as if it were said not because on thy part thou hast stood to the covenant I have seen Ezek 36. from v. 17. to the chapters end and I see nothing there to Mr C. his purpose to prove a bare externall being in the covenant of grace There 's not the word Covenant in all the passage But on the contrary there are promises v. 25 26 27. of a new heart giving his Spirit which as Mr. B. saith truly is proper to the elect and notes an internall being in the covenant of grace There 's little but muddiness and impertinency in the rest He speaks of an externall being in Christ John 15.2 which is not denied in respect of profession of those that are so and of an externall partaking of Christ for which it's likely he cites not as it is printed Heb. 13.14 but Heb. 3.14 But sure that partaking is a saving partaking to which is required the holding fast to the end the beginning of our confidence For an external partaking may be without condition The Jewish refusers Ios. 1.11 are called Christs own either by kindred or right to them from the old engagements of them to be his by their Ancestors or by vertue of this redeeming them from Aegypt the land of the North or some other way Surely not because they did externally belong to Christ or were externally in the covenant of grace were to be baptized For they expresly denied Christ and rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized by Iohn Luke 7 30. I grant there is an externall being called Matth 22.14 but this not competent to infants I doubt whether Heb 10 29 be to be interpreted of an externall being sanctified quoad homines in respect of others by the bloâ—d of the Covenant The New Annot say thus In regard of the meritorious sufficient satisfaction purchased by it Piscat Schol. in locum per quem vide batur esse sanctificatus quamdiu scil Christum confitebatur Dictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it is meant of the same sanctification of which he speaks in the same chapter v. 10.14 ch 13 12 to wit an effectuall sanctification by remission of sins and purging their consciences from dead works chap 9 14 which alone and not an externall sanctificacion I find ascribed to the blood of the Covenant and the person there said to be sanctified with this sanctification not in reality but according to his profession and opinion of himself as Luke 15.7 some are said to be just persons that need no repentance that is according to their own profession and opinion The purging from sin 2 Pet. 1.9 was externall I grant not inward in the heart yet it was not a mere purging by the outward ordinance of baptism but their own profession and partiall reformation of themselves not competent to infants 2 Pet 2. â— It 's doubtâ—ful whether it note an external being purchased by Christ or a purchase by Christ onely sufficient or an effectuall purchase yet said of them onely according to what they professed and conceived of themselves as Luke 15 7 Heb 10 29 or others conceived of them That Deut 33 3 should be meant of an externall Saintship is supposed not proved though it it were applied to the body of Israel yet it might be understood in respect of the better part that the people were called Gods Saints Psa 50 5 The Saints of God and those that had made a covenant with him by Sacrifice were Israel vers 7 it is true there were many hypocrites but as the new Annot God in respect of his elect calleth the whole body Holy Saints and his people not meerly from an externall Saintship To which I add if it be referred to the covenant Exod 24.8 to which Mr Ainsworth in his Note on the place directs it was the covenant of the law not the covenant of grace which is meant Psal 50 5 It is true There are invisible Churches which are as Isaac was Children of the Promise Gal 4 28 Children of the Gospel-church v. 31 26. But that this should be verefied in all the members of the Galatian Churches unto whom Paul wrot that Episte Gal 1 2 is not true nor is it proved by Mr C that the Aposâ—â—e spake what he saith v 28 31 of every member of the Churches of Galatia It is true that Ierusalem above is the mother of us all but that us all should signifie every profession of the faith in the Churches of Galatia is false for then every one of them should be born after the spirit v 29. and inherit v. 3â— The new Annot on Gal 4.24.6 therefore say The Christian Church is the mother of all the faithfull who are heirs of the kingdom of Heaven whether they be Iâ—wes or Gentiles So that to be mother of us all Gal. 4.26 is not to be mother of every professed Christian in Galatia but of so many as held the right faith with Paul and were born after the Spirit Thus in like maner Rom 8 3 21 when it is said who spared not his own Son but gave him up for us all it is not meant of every professor of Faith in Rome but all the elect and true believers as that which follows in the same verse and verse 33 shewes So that we need not assert eiâ—her that every professor of faith in the Galatian Churches was a child of the Jerusalem above effectually and savingly or that there were some particular visible Churches in which were no hypocrites which yet may be true notwithstanding the Parables Matth 13 and 25. or 1 Tim 3 15. compared with 2 Tim 2 20 oâ— that such as are savingly interessed in the Covenant of grace should fall from grace or that all were externally and
not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging Ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29.10 11. c with 30.11 12 13 14. so Isai. 51.7 Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this I will be your God whence all is inclosed up in that phrase ibid. or was not the first made to the Iews after their return from Captivity more expresly Ier. 3â— as before more implicitely Gen. 17. Reply The objection I concieve though I do not well know whose it is is this that the covenant at mount Sinai with the Iewish nation or the covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. were not the same with the covenant for that was in the flesh in circumcision or with the fleshly Iew in that at mount Sinai this is the heart by writing Gods Law there and comprehends onely them in whose hearts Gods Laws are written And indeed this difference the Apostle makes between the Covenant of the Law and the Goâ—pel the one was of the letter the other of the spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 the promise of the spirit is said to be by faith Gal. 3.14 and in the new covenant this is made the promise different from what was in the first which was faulty for want of it Heb. 8.10 â— that God would write his laws in their hearts now what Mr. C. speaks seems to me no whit to infring this For though it is true the word of Covenant was in their hearts yet it is true if meant of sanctifying implantation only of the elect not all Abrahams natural seed or the whole body of Israel How Moses is said to judg Ecclesiastically I understand not Deut. 29.10 11. c. with 30.11 12 13 14. do not prove that Moses avowed of every Isralite that the word of covenant was in their heart In some places doubtless the promise I will be your God includs also the writing of Gods Laws in our hearts nor will I deny it included in the promise Gen. 17.7 But I do then not understand it of every Israelite in that sense for if so then I must make Gods word fal sith he doth not perform it to al. And for that which Mr. C. seems to hold that they had the promise dispensed unto them with execution of the covenant it is in my apprehension to charg God with falshood if any say I wrong Mr. C. let him construe this passage otherwise if he can yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them suppose he did not that is the execution of the covenant as for the very â—erith or Covenant itself it is the promise whereof dispensed to them and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30.6 To circumcise the heart to love God is to imprint gracious dispositions to promise the same to them is a Covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid In which words he seems plainly to make God promise to imprint in some the gratious disposions he doth not actually imprint which is to make God not keepe his word nor is the matter mended by asking is not Gods Covenant now also sacramentally on our bodies too and in many no further For I grant many are baptized who are not regenerate yet I do not believe Gods Covenant of grace is to any such or as Mr. C. speaks Gods Covenant to write his Laws in their hearts is to any such Nor do I think that either Ierem. 31·33 or Deut. 30.6 God promiseth to all Israelits to write holy dispositions in their hearts but only to the elect nor to these in his covenant at mount Sinai though he made these promises to some of the natural seed of Israel neither Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. nor Gen. 4.15 16. Compared with Gen. 6.1 2. nor Gen. 17.18.19 20 21. compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12. and Gal. 4. nor Heb. 12 15 16.17 prove that either Cain or Ishmael or Esau were ever in the Covenant of Evangelical grace nor is there any text that proves that he new covenant is intailed to natural generations of the most Godly men Mr. C. in answer to the tenth objection saith thus But it 's false to say the Commandement gave right to Covenant Interest since Covenant right was first promised and declared to be the ground of that commanded service of the initâ—atory seal Gen. 17 7 8 9 10 11. c. Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant He doth not say you must be or are circumcised and therefare I will be your God But I will be a God to thee and thy seed therefore thou and they shall be circumcised the nature of a seal supposeth a Covenant to be sealed To which I reply I confess it were ridiculous for any to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest or covenant-right For what is covenant-interest but interest in the covenant and covenant-right but right from the covenant But setting aside Mr C. his inept phrasifyings which I count to be Paedobaptists-gibberish it is not false but manifest truth that it is the command of God onely that gave title to persons to be circumcised and is the Rule to know who are to be circumcised and who not as I have often proved and shewed to be in effect confessed by Mr M. As for Mr. C. his inference from thou therefore Gen 17.9 it is answered often before in the first part of this Review Sect. 5. and elswhere that neither is the reading certain thou therefore nor doth the inference arise meerly from the promise v. 7. nor is the inference at all of a right to circumcision but of a duty nor is this duty urged from each circumcised persons interest in the covenant but Gods making it with Abraham Nor is it true That the nature of a Seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed sith other things are to be sealed as Letters Books Stones Men Fountains c. besides covenants Abrahams circumcision Rom. 4.11 was a seal not of a covenant of some things to be done but of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised if it were true yet is it as little to the purpose sith there may be a covenant sealed to a person that hath no interest in the promise as when ones name is used onely as a Trustee for others And for what is said That the commandment required only a male of eight dayes old to be circumcised which Mr. C. seems to conceive false meaning not before the eighth day is so plain by reading the chapter that I should make question of his wit or his forehead that should deny it And the reason thus exprest is as frivolous The promise heing made indefinitely to the seed whether male or female and not to the eighth day old seed but to the seed albeit but a day old For though the promise be to the child of one day old yet the command is not to him nor is
the God of believers and of their seed that the seed of believers are taken into covenant with their parents I cannot derive its pedigree higher than Zuinglius To this Mr C. opposeth his seventh Conclusion with ambiguity and seeming hesitancy For what else can be the reason of those terms at least as well which are not like the expressions of a man that is well resolved what to hold But that we may rip up this Conclusion 1. He supposeth that right to outward ordinances or more particularly to an initiall seal is covenant-interest from the covenant of grace which is a mistake as I have often shewed 2. That such externall covenant interest of grown persons is Gospel without Scripture which mentions onely justification by faith and life by Christ to be the Gospel not such a covenant interest as they call it which may be to reprobates as well as to elect persons 3. He speaks to believers inchurched by such a covenant as the Scripture mentions not 4. He annexeth the covenant interest he speakes of to this Church-covenant as well as to the covenant of grace without any warrant but his own conceit nor shewes how far it is annexed to the one with or without the other 5. He asserts the covenant interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of infants of inchurched believers 6. That this is Gospel The first place he brings for his Conclusion is Deut. 30 6 11 12 13 14 compared with Rom. 10.6 7 8 and saith The matter of the promise scil inward power of grace sheweth it was a Gospel-promise like that Heb. 8.10 11 12. Ans. This is enough to shew the impertinency of this text to prove the meer externall Ecclesiasticall interest of infants of inchurched believers For it contains that promise of inward grace which Mr. B. saith belongs onely to the elect Friendly Accom pag. 362. 2 Saith he Now this was made to the seed or children of these church members as ch 29.14 15. here is not any evasion as is usuall in mentioning Abrahams seed c. this people to whom this was made being not so spiritual themselves Answ. I grant that the promise Deut. 30.6 of circumcising thine heart and the heart of thy seed is meant of the seed of those then assembled but not of all their seed but onely such as were elect nor at all times but a speciall time upon their return to God when they were in captivity nor at all to their infant-seed but to their grown seed as Mr B. proves in the words and place above cited Friendly Accom page 361. And whereas Mr. C. conceives the people to whom this promise was made not so spiritual he is mistaken For if God promised to circumcise their heart they must be spiritual 3 That it was not a bare tender which I grant 4. saith he Lest any doubt should arise how this should be ratified and made good Moses prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen in whâ—m this covenant was ratified v. 12 13. All which the Apostle further explaineth Rom. 10.6 7 8 Answ. I do not conceive that either Moses Deut. 30.11 12 13. useth the words there to shew how the promise v. 30.6 should be ratified or that he prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen Deut. 30.11 12 13. or that the Apostle Rom. 10.6 7 8. so explains it He that reads the chapter may perceive that Deut. 30. v 11 12 13 14. are brought to this end that Moses might prevent the excuse which might be made for their disobedience by alleaging that Gods lawes were at such a distance from them as that they could not come to them And though it is true that the Apostle appliâ—s those words to the word of faith Rom. 10.6 7 8. yet it is manifest that it was not a prediction of Christs resurrection as there the words stand 1. from Deu. 30.10 where the commandment mentioned v. 11. is said expresly to be Gods commandment and statute which are written in this Book of the Law 2. That it was that which was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it v. 14 which is meant of the Law not of the word of faith concerning Christ dead and risen which was not to be done by us but to be believed Rightly saith Beza Annot. ad Rom. 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baddabar quo vocabulo Moses intelligit legem quam Dominus voce sua promulgavit audiente universo populo suo ita ut nullam ignorantiam possit â—raetexere eum ejus tabulas baberet descriptas tanquam adeo singuli ex re citare possent intus haberent quasi in cognitioâ—e animo insculptam sed quod Moses dixit de lege hoc totum Paulus ad Evangelium acommodat per allusionem Pisc Analys alludit Apostolus ad verba Mosis Deut. 30.12 Diodati Annot. on Rom. 10.6 speaketh on this wise S. Paul makes use of this passage though spoken in another sense The like to which he doth in the same Chapter v. 18. alledging the words Psalm 19.4 concerning the preaching the Gospel in all the world which is undeniably meant of the course of the heavens Nor is it of force to overthrow this exposition to say that the word Deut. 30.14 is said to be in their heart for to be in their heart is there no more than to be understood by them though they were â—isobedient and might be true of the law â—s wel as the Gospel Noâ— is it any disparagement to the holy writings to say that sometimes holy writers accommodate to their purpose words that have oâ—her meaning in the places where they stand Whence I infer that the words v. â—1 he Commandement which I command thee this day do not prove that thereby is meant the very Gospel-Covenant ratified in Christ but the Commandment given in Horeb Deut. 29.1 nor is there any shew of likelihood that the words Deut. 30.11 12 13 14. should be meant of the promise v. 6. of circumcising the heart of their seed for that was not to be done by them but God And though it be true that Moses had that day propounded the Commandments as a mutual Covenant betwixt them and God as wel as God and them the parents or rulers stipulating therein in behalf of themselves and Chidren or rather in the behalfe of the whole nation in present being and unborn posterity and so in reference to them also a conditional covenant that day in the plains of Moab Deut. 29.1.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 29 and 30.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. yet the covenant was on their part to keep the commandments of the Law for their prosperity Deut. 29.9 not to believe in Christ which few of them understood And when it is said Deut. 29.13 that it was that God might establish them that day for a people to himself and that he might be unto them a God it is not meant that they should be
Ishmaels posterity should be cut off from external right to the Covenant he being a Church member according to Mr. C's dictates Mr. C. then tels us that God saith in reference to our times he will be a God to the families throughout the earth and pag. 83. he cites for this purpose the prophecy Ierem. 31.1 but there it is the families of Israel But were it the families throughout the Earth this proves not that it is Gospel that Infants of inchurched believers have external Ecclesiastical covenant-interest If it did it may as well infer infants of inchurched believers yea servants who are part of the families of the earth to have the same interest yea all in the world if we must understand it without limitation and if with limitation then it is most rightly expounded as the Apostle doth Gal. 3.8 the promise of blessing all nations of believers v. 9. and so all the families of the earth to whom God will be God shall be only believers of all the families of the earth Gentile believers as Mr. C. truly saith without Infants As â—or what Mr. C. observes that God said to Abrahaham to be a God to him and his seed in their generations not in their regeneration it is frivolous For none of the Gentiles seed are Abrahams seed but by regeneration and so to be Abrahams seed in their generations applied to Abrahams spiritual or Church-seed among the Gentiles is all one as to be Abrahams seed by regeneration And for the prophecy of being a God to all the families of the earth it is meant not of every member of the family but the meaning is that God would not restrain his Gospel and Church to the Jews but take in any of the families of the earth who would embrace it as when it is said Mark 16.15 preach the Gospel to every creature that is to any Gentile as wel as Jews yet infants not meant This is proved from the event because parents did believe when children did hate them for it Mat. 10.35 36. and the husband was often a believâ—r the wife an infidel But saith Mr C. it was usually otherwise and God speaks of things as they usually prove extraordinary occurrences cross not such a rule To which I say if the prophecy were as Mr. C. would that it should be Gospel that God will be a God of children with parents because he will be god of all the families of the earth than it must be true of the children of all and every of the families of the earth which recieve the Gospel Nor are prophecies to be expounded at if they foretold onely contingents what may be and what may not be but what shall certainly be nor can ther be a rule much less Gospel made of that which is uncertain somtimes it is somtimes it is not a rule being as they say in logick a determinate known thing nor is it true that the occurrent of the families being divided in religion was extraordinary For our Lord Christ speaks of it rather as ordinary commonly to be expected Matth. 10.34 35 36. But Mr. C. would have iâ— a rule from Acts. 11.14 Acts. 16 31. Luke 19 9. To this may be answered 1 that three instances mak not up an induction of particulars whence a rule may be made 2. The first instance is not meant of infants for none are thâ—re said to be saved but those that heard the words which Peter spake The next includes not infants For the very next v 32. shews that by the house were meant those to whom the word of the Lord was spoken Nor is there any intimation of an infant meant Luke 19 9. And it is certain that none of the texts speaks of that which they are produced for a bare external interest for they expresly speak of salvation and therefore if they prove it to be a rule that parents and children are joint Covenanters or are taken in together they will prove they are saved together which Mr. C. I suppose will not assert But some other answers are in my Examen which I must vindicate with these I had said Examen part 78 there is a necessity to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a restrinctive particle and to expound this house Luke 19.9 of Zachâ—us his family only in reference to his person Against this Mr. C. speaks thus Nor by salvation come to his house is meant the comming of salvation to himselfe as if he and his house were all one nor do I know any parallel Scripture speaking in such language that when the scope and intent is to mention the comming of such or such a mercy to such a person that phrase is used to denote the same that such or such a mercy is come to his house what need such a circumlocution if so intended the word might more plainly have been set down this day is salvation come to this publican this person this man or the like in as much as he also is become a son of Abraham And what though the Greek word be used in Acts 2.45 and 4.35 for secundum according as yet not for quatenus or in quantum forasmuch as the text and sense thereof are cleare that it noteth proportion of such administration not meerly the cause or reason thereof Or if it be supposed to imply the cause or reason thereof its evident it noteth the proportion also they gave to every one as or according as they needed scil proportionably to their need it being regular as to give to the needy so to give them according to the measure of their present necessity But how that sense will here be fitly applicable I see not to say that salvation is come to his house or to him according as he is a Believer but rather as our translators render it it 's to be taken as a reason of the former salvation is come to this house forasmuch as he is a son of Abraham Answ. By restraining the salvation come to Zacheus his house to his person I do not make Zacheus and his house all one but salvation is come to his house that is to this place inasmuch or in that Zacheus is also become a Son of Abraham But whereas Mr. C. thinks no Scripture using such language I will use Grotius his words shewing the contrary even in Luke because they are full to answer this passage of Mr. C. Annot. in Luc. 19.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synecdoche Domus enim pro Patre familias dicitur ita supra 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domum autem ideo nominâsse videtur Christus ut ostendat relâ—tam hospitii gratiam Dixerat enim Zachaeo Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quare quae ad hunc locum afferri solent de beneficiis Dei in familiam pii Patris familias quanquam vera sunt rectè accepta tamen huc pertinere non arbitror As for what he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie
do 〈◊〉 act for them to I say Be it so then according to this arguing they should also seal oâ— be sealed for them Hereupâ—n Mr Bl. Vindic Fâ—d Append. pag. 470. taks occasion to answer part of this maintaining pag. 479. that there is a mutuall contract and mutual performances to which persons are engaged not onely usually in covenants but in all covenants and that iâ— is of the general nature of Covenants that there should be such a convertibility as that both must if not seal yet contrast or perform and where a Seal is vouchsafed must accept of it And to the allegation of Gen. 9.9 10. answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken improperly as Job 5.23 Whereto I reply That it must needs be confessed that Covenant Job 5.23 must needs be understood improperly for the stones of the field cannot properly covenant that is promise any thing who are there said to be in covenant with Man But Gen. 9.9 10. where God is said to establish his covenant with all living I see not why it should be taken improperly sith covenanting doth properly agree to God who doth in proper sense promise and in improper sense it would not be rightly said of God that he did not make a Conant but as it were make a covenant or do some other thing which is resembled by making a Covenant which must be the explication of that phrase if God be conceived to speak improperly If Mr Bl. do conceive any Tropicall impropriety of speech in that expression I suppose he cannot reduce it to any Trope in Rhetorick but that he will maâ— the sense of the words And if Gods Covenant with Noah and his Sons be properly understood v. 9. I see not any reason why the same term wiâ—hout repetition applied to beasts as the object of the Covenant câ—n be taken any otherwise than properly Besides this Covenant Gen. 9.15 seems to be called Gods Oath Isa. 54.9 and therefore is properly taken Nor do I know any Interpreter who understands it improperly Paraeus hence gathers Foedus hoc est universale Dei cum omnibus creaturis terrestribus est absolutum non conditionaâ—um And the New Annotations of Mr. Lâ—y on Gen. 9 10 have it thus Some allege this place against the Anabaptists and thus it may serve to refute this fancy viz. that the Covenant of God may be made with and the seal of the Covenant applied to creatures that have not the use of reason which they deny in denying the administration of Baptism to them Which passâ—ge although it have this falshood that we deny that the Covenant of God may be maâ—e with or to Infants yet it appears that they who speak thus understand Gods covenant Gen. 9.10 properly The promise Heb. 8.10 of writing Gods Lawes in their hearts is called the Covenant unto which no covenant is prerequired and to take away the evasion as if it were not a covenant properly so called but a prophecy or but a part of the covenant there being other promises which prerequire conditions it is to be observed that it is not onely called the better Covenant v. 6. as being made a Law upon better promises and having a better Priesthood to execute it but also it is opposed to the Old Covenanâ— and as coming in its stead and therefore if in the one it be properly meant it is so in the other and Jerem. 32. â—0 the promise that He will not turn away from them to do them good but will put his fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from him is his Covenant The Covenant to Abraham and his seâ—d is called Promises Gal 3.26 which shews that promisâ—s on one part may bâ— called â— Covenant And though in Deâ—ds indented there are mutuall promises yet in Deeds Poll as the Lawyers call them I think a person is said to covenant to another though there be no condition or promise required of him to whom the Deed is made As for that which Mr. Bl. saith Where there is a Seal vouchsafed the party to whom the promise is must accept of it it is true if it be required but it is expected that it should be shewed that God ever required the Infants of believers to be baptized in their own persons To return to Mr. C. Most of the things he answers are granted or else examined before but the chiefest thing in the answer is denied to wit that Parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and their passive reception of the Covenant-condition and Bond to after imitation of their Father Abrahams faith and obedience is or may be termed the Infants restipulation intituling to Baptism In the answer to the next Objection Mr. C seems to charge us rather than himself to block up the ordinary way to regeneration and to debar believers children from the ordinary means of their chief good by denying them interest in the Word of Promise the which is such a means c. But therin Mr C. his charge is but vain For the word of Promise which is the means of regeneration is not the covenant of externall privileges but the promise of saving grace in Christ which we debar them of no more than Mr. C. doth And when he denies that he makes every believer to be Abraham sure he must do so if he expound Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee Abraham that is to every believer and to thy seed that is every believers seed And when he grants that God doth not promise such a particular Land now as to Abraham and that the multiplying of Abrahams c. was of peculiar consideration he must grant that the Covenant made with Abraham had peculiar domestick promises not common to all believers which is all one as to say it was a mixt covenant and that circumcision had some reason from the promises in the covenant which were pâ—culiar to Abrams naturall posterity which is sufficient to prove there is not par ratio or the same reason of baptâ—zing infants as for circumcising them I find no where any but Abraham a Covenant-Father as Mr. C. would have it no where doth God say he would be a God to Isaac and Jacob and to their seed Nor is it said Rom. 11.16.28 that they were covenant Fathers to their posterity nor Jesse a Covenant-root to David Isai. 11.1 And by Mr C. his Doctrine inchurched believers are made Abrahams sith it makes the promâ—ses to be to them and their seed which is ascribed to Abraham onely Gal 3.16 Luke 1.55 But Mr. C. objects That the Apostle calls all those inchurched Jewes of old our Fathers Fathers to him and to the Gentiles Corinthian members 1 Corinth 10.1 c. To which I answer They could not be called the Corinthians naturall parents being not descended from them nor their Covenant-fathers for they were many of them such as God was not well pleased with v. 6. and the Corinâ—hians desceâ—ded not from them and therefore derived no exâ—ernall
a Covenant in this latitude and from thence I thus argue If those phrases a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar people be applied to Christians as to Jews in an equal latitude to one â—s to other then it must needs follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as in the time of the Law including all that accept the terms of the Covenant and visibly appear as tâ—e people of God and is not restrained onely to the elect regenerate The consequence is evident seeing the terms plainly imply a Covenant Here is a Covenant people or no where But these terms a chosen generation a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people are applied to Christians as well as to Jews to one in as great a latitude as to the other That which God speaks to Israel in the Wilderness that Peter speaketh to the Church to which he writes All Israelites in Moses days all Christians professing in Peters time had those titles when onely those that kept Covenant were at any time worthy of them and had the comforts of them Answ. The noise I make is not a meer sound without reason nor is any one of my reasons made void by Mr. Bls. answers To him I reply 1. That his speech is inconsiderate when he saith the text speaks fully to hold up a Covenant in this latitude which comprehends non-elect persons when there is not a word of any Covenant and the terms he onely saith plainly imply a Covenant And though I deny not that the people there mentioned were a Covenant people yet I deny any one of the terms doth imply a Covenant for a chosen generation doth not imply a Covenant sith both electiâ—n and generation may be without a Covenant and the like may be said of the other terms a royal priesthood an holy nation a peculiar or purchased people â—o that in this respect the consequence may be denied Nor is the consequence good for another reason For it is not true that all Israelites in Moses days had those titles which I find Exod. 19 5 6. yet there onely three of them and those not said of all the Israelites in Mâ—ses days but a promise of being to God such as these titles import upon condition they did hearken to his voice and kept his Covenant which was neither verified of all Israelites in Moses days nor in after times And therefore though those terms were applied to Christians as to Jews yet it doth not necessarily follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as under the Law sith those titles were not verified of all the Jews at any time but of them and then onely when they were obedient But I deny the minor also of Mr. Bls. argument that the terms are applied by Peter in an equal latitude to Christians as by Moses to Jews and assert as in my Postscriâ—t sect 10. pag. 128. that they are applied onely to those who are members of the invisible Church Whereupon Mr. Bl. speaks thus to me But I would wish Mr. T. to take into more serious consideration First whether the first verse of this second chapter be meant onely of invisible members Whether the Apostle peâ—swades regeneâ—ate men and onely regenerate men to lay aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and evil speakings Answ. To the first question I say affirmatively that by new born babes v 2 are meant onely members of the invisible Châ—rch for they are said ch 1.23 to be born again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever Ver. 2. to be elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father begotten again unto a lively hope ver 3. And to the 2d that he mentions onely regenerate persons whom he perswades though the duty is incumbent on others 2 ly Whether the 3d. v. be to be thus limited Whether the Apostle makes doubt in that manner whether they had tasted that the Lord is gracious And yet those words in both those verses must needs be understood of the same men and under the same notion as these ver 9. The Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. Those that must lay aside all malice guile c. of whom he makes question whether they had tasted that the Lord were gracious they are this chosen generation this royal priesthood Answ. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 2.3 is translated if and may seem to import doubt or uncertainty but it may be as well translated seeing as it is 2 Thes. 1.6 and so it imports certainty that they had tasted how gracious the Lord is without making question of it And this reading is more apposite to their condtiion and more suitable to the exhortation For it is more agreable to the nature of a motive to the duty ver 2. to conceive it thus Desire the word to grow by it sith or seeing you have tasted how gracious the Lord is 2. But if it were read if yet in such passâ—ges as these if doth not import doubt but onely is as a rational particle noting the connexion between the terms as Joh. 15.18 Ephes. 4.20 21. And so the sense is here If you have tasted which he supposeth not questioneth then you ought to desire the milk of the word that you may grow by it 3. Were it the Apostle had doubt whether they had tasted how good the Lord is which is not to be conceived considering what he saith of them c. 1. v. 3 23. c. 2.2 5. c. yet this doubt might be of a more full tast which every regenerate elect person might not have 4. The exhortation to lay aside malice c. doth not intimate they were any of them whom he calls new born babes v. 2. a chosen generation an holy nation v. 9. unregenerate or non-elect for such exhortations are necessary for the most holy Saints in whom are reliques of corruption and liableness to temptation 3 ly Saith Mr. Bl. Let him seriously consider the Apostles further enlargement of this honour of these Christians which in times past were not a people of God words borrowed from Hos. 1.10 Hos. 2.23 and spoken of the call of the ten revolted Tribes And in Deut. 32.21 of the call of the Gentiles into a visible Church state and profession and so applied by the Apostle Rom. 9.24 25 26. Whence I argue The call of the ten revolted Tribes and of the Gentiles into a visible Church way is not to be meant of the Church as it is invisible onely This Mr. T. hath taken into consideration and answered However it be in the pâ—aces to which the allusion is yet it is certain that here it is meant of such a calling as is from darkness to marvellous light taking it it seems for granted that there is no marvellous light in visible Churches that in the land of Zebulon and Nephthali where they saw
electos 1 Pet. 2.9 Gentem sanctam populum Dei peculiarem Exo. 19.5 Mal. 3.17 Tit. 2.14 Eximiè nuncupatos quandoquidem hic est populus cui soli regnum amplissimum in Christo cum Christo ut ibidem Dan. 7.27 promissum est ita da uâ—iri testantur sacrae iterae Apoc. 5.10 20.6 22.5 § 20. ad designandum populum electum 1 Pet 2.9 qui Deo cedit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in possessionem seu peculium By which allegations it may be perceived 1. that the interpretation I give is the common interpretation of most learned Protestants 2. that it is proved no by one title onely but by four titles whereof not one of them can be applied in the sense Peter useth them to any but the elect 3. that this interpretation and application is confirmed not by one only place of Scripture but by many 4. that though I alledged but one place to wit Tit. 2.14 yet being so manifestly paralel and so clearly pregnant for my purpose it was enough and such as I would allow the like in any adversary for good proof though do not take it that in all places the sense is proved by the alledging one scripture in the sense conceived nor do I think it unnecessary to finde ouâ— the various acceptation of words in scripture 2. Saith Mr. Bl These termes and others equivolent to these are given to the Israelites Deut. 14.1 2. Deut. 7.6 Deut. 32.9 not as a church invisible but as visible members Their qualifications are often a low as their appellations by reason of their relation to God raise them high And setting apart Christs death I would know how they came to this honour Answ. These termes are given in the places cited to Israelites yet that they are given to them as visible members and not as a church invisible or as I would say to the church visible of Israel in respect of and with limitation to the elect or members of the invisible church as a field of corn in respect of the good grain is not proved Yet if it were the titles 1 Pet. 2.9 spoken of christians cannot be verified of them but in a sense appropriate to the elect They are no way a royal priesthood but as priests that offer spiritual sacrifices to God acceptable to God through Jesus Christ v. 5. which none but the elect and true beleevers can do no other way royal but in that they are Kings to God râ—ign ovâ—r sin Satan c. through Christ which none but the elect do a chosen generation but by Gods election to life eternal a holy nation but by regeneration of the spirit a peculiar people but by Christs purchasâ— which can be verified of none but true believers and elect persons And to Mr. Bls. demand I answer setting apart Christs death I know not how Christâ—ans should come to this honour which is expressed 1 Pet. 2.9 3. Saith Mr. Bl. The gift of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers were the gift of Christ and purchase of his death These are for constitution of â—â—sible Churches visible members enjoy these priviledges in common with regenerate persons to which more is already spoken Answ. Though I finde Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers termed Ephes. 4.11 the gift of Christ yet I do not finde them said to be the purchase of Christs death as such nor do I know how they can be truely said to be the purchase Christs death as is meant 1 Pet. 2.9 Tit. 2.14 so as that every Apostle c. should be redeemed from iniquity be of the people of Gods possession to shew forth the vertues of God c. nor do I conceive to what purpose this is brought in here by Mr. Bl. except he mean that the titles 1 Pet. 2.9 are given to the visible Church in respect of the Ministers which is so frivolous that I am unwilling to imagine it of him 2. Saith Mr. Bl. Mr. T. objects from that which is said of them they are called by God by his power and vertue into his marvellous light and v. 10. that now had obtained mercy which they had not before which cannot be affirmed of any but true believâ—rs and elect persons Answ. Men brought into a visible Church-state are brought into a marvellous light The seven golden candlesticks Rev. 1.20 had a marvellous light in their lamps and yet in some of those there were onely a few names that had not defiled their garments And this light is a mercy the fruition of it a great mercy Psal. 147.19 20. Yea it is applied by the prophet Hos. â— 23 whence the Apostle gathers it unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion as is not denied by Mr. T. himself Reply Where it is that I deny not that Hos. 2.23 is applied unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion I remember not yet if I did grant it any where I might understand it of saving mercy proper to the elect for that is mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion But Mr. Bls. answer is not to the argument as by me urged For I did not form it thus they who have marvellous light who have obtained a great mercy are elect But thus they who are called by Gods power or vertue which therefore they are to shew forth out of darkness into his marvellous light which in time past were not a people but are now the people of God which had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy are the elect which I confirmed from Rom. 9.23 24 25. where the same place of Hos. 2.23 is alledged and applied onely to the elect But these things are said of those 1 Pet. 2.9 Ergo. Which argument is confirmed by the words of Piscator above cited and of Beza in the place cited where he saith Simulque ne quis ambigat sit electus necne revocat nos Apostolus ad vocationem efficacem ex qua aeternum illud alioqui occultissimum electionis nostrae decretum certò intelligamuâ— idque ex una Dei gratuitâ— eligentis vocantis misereâ—ordia The new Annot praises or vertues That is that we might glorifie God in our conversations thereby shewing forth the abundant mercy and great power of God in calling us Isa. 8.13 Darkness that is ignorance ch 1.14 whereby is meant our sinfull and miserable estate by nature under which men are kept through ignorance of the Gospel Eph. 4 18. 5.8 Col. 1 13. His marvellous hereby is meant our estate of grace through the effectual calling of God by the knowledge of the truth See 2 Cor. 4.6 Acts 13.47 26.18 called marvellous because of the great mystery of godliness which is revealed in the Gospel and called his because God revealeth it Dr. John Rainold Apol. thes· § 15. Neque soluni è tenebris in admirabiâ—em Dei lucem vocati 1 Pet. 2.9 sed electi 1 Pet. 1.2 nuncupantur atque genus electum 1 Pet. 2 9. Now though meer
the world are either Heathens that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Nations or Jewes but me thinks he should not say we have to deâ—l wiâ—h Jews therefore we have to deal with Heathens and consequently our practise is the way of the Apostles by Mr. Bls. own confession To confine the term heathens onely to them that are not Christians in name is indeed according to the vulgar speech but besides the Scripture use which Mr. Bl. me thinks in his writing should have followed But if Mr. Bl. mean iâ— in the vulgar sense it is easie to make it good that no Englishman or his child is a Christian till he be made a disciple by preaching the Gospel sith to be a disciple of Chrâ—st and a Christian are terms of the same sense Acts. 11.26 Yet in bâ—ptizing by Christs commission and the Apostles practise thâ—re is no difference made between Jews and Heathens boâ—h are to be baptized upon their believing Mark 16.16 neither the one nor the other were or were to be bapâ—ized by the Apostles without their own personal profession of faith Our way then by Mr. Bls. own confession is the way of the Apostles His coâ—fession also is true that our way is of more colour then theirs that set up new Churches and retain the old baptism for acknowledging them church members at Bapâ—ism and not admitting them as church-members though without scandal is after their own principles to contradict themselves and to set up Churches in a congregational way disclaiming the National and Parochial and yet to admit infants to Baptism by vertue of Circumcision and Abrahams covenant and church-gathering what is it but to dissert that in practise which they plead in dispute and to make the frame of the national Church Jewish the rule of the Christ an Church catholick Nor have Presbyterians any colour for their reformation of Baptism or the Lords supper if they will stick to their allegations of taking a rule for Baptism from Circumcision or of the Lords Supper from the Passeover for to them all sorts whether ignorant or scandalous were admitted and if we must retain whom the Jewish Church reâ—ained as visible church-members there will be no Ecclesiastical juridicaâ— excommunicatâ—on for moral miscarriages there being 〈◊〉 â—uch among them As for what Mr. Bl. chargeth the baptized Câ—urches with of the unholinâ—ss of their members though I can say littâ—e of those near Mr. Bl. if there be an yet I am able to say of some and Mr. Baxter himself hath in print said somewhat of one of the Churches which might refute this calumny and I think there are many able to testifie of the holy conversation of many of the Churches of baptized persons however Mr. Baxter imagines they in the end prove wicked However we do neither in practise nor opinion maintain such impure Churches of ignorant and vicious persons as Mr. Bl. Vindic. Faed ch 47. doth and Presbyterians commonly do Nor is it likely the worst of the baptized Churches should be worse then the ordinary sort of the Paedobaptists Churches of Mr. Bls. way Chap 29. Mr. Bl. answers to some objections against his assertion 1. That regenerate persons onely are in New Testament times honoured with the name of the people of God they therefore onely are in Covenant To which he answers 1. That there are terms equivalent Beleevers Saints Disciples and Christians which are given to the unregenerate To which I reply that though this argument be not mine yet it may be said that the term Gods people doth rather imply being in Covenant wiâ—h God then the other terms But I think the argument not cogent sith the term my people doth not in the force of the word necessarily import a Covenant of God and men maâ— be conceived his people by election or purchase without a Covenant and therefore own it not 2 ly Saith he It is not often that that phrase is found in New Testament Scriptures with such restriction onely to regenerate persons He denies not Tit. 2.14 is taken for a people separate by grace out of the state of nature But he is not resolved whether Revel 21.3 serve to purpose it being in dispute whether to be fulfilled on earth or in heaven if on earth then it sets out a singular glory in the Church through Ordinances in purity yet with a mixture of close hypocrites â—nd for Christs personal reign on earth that he lets go as the opinion of others of a considerable part of whom he is not very well conceited it seems Answ. His not denying Tit. 2.14 to 〈◊〉 pregnant and being alledged by me as the parallel place to 1 Pet. 2.9 confirms mâ— restriction of the titles there used â—o â—he regenerate And â—e thinâ—s the promises Revel 21.3 4. That God would be their God with them that he would wipe away all tears from their eys there should be no more death nor crying nor labour should be sufficient to prove the people of God there meant to be onely the regenerate And me thinks Matth. 1.21 2.6 Luke 1.17 68 77. 2.32 7.16 Acts 15.14 18.10 Rom. 9.25 11.1 15.10 2 Cor. 6.16 Heb. 4 9 8.10 1 Pet. 2.10 Revel 18.4 the term my people or Gods people should be restrained to the elect 3 ly Saith he My people or people of God is usâ—d more frequently in the N. T. without restriction to the elect regenerate He alledgeth three places 2 Cor. 6. â—6 which with him is plain quoted from Levit. 26.16 where it is a national promise to be understood of Gods visible abode in ordinances being tendered to those that were over buâ—â—e wâ—â—h Idols from which he disswades with this argument that they were the temple of the Lord separate of God for his worship and servicâ— and the promise is no more then is made good to visible Churches Revel 2.1 whereof some members were not regenerate Answ. To dwell in them to walk in them to be their God and they to be his people the temple of the living God 2 Cor 6.16 whom he receives to whom he is a father and they his sons and daughters cannot be meant of any other then the elect For they onely are the temple of God in which he dwels who have hâ—s â—pirit 1 Cor. 3 16 17. 6.19 a bare separation by outward calâ—ing to his worship service is not enough which is the most foâ—cible argument to dissâ—ade frâ—m medling with Idols However it be Levit. 26.16 here iâ— is not a national promise but a promise to particulaâ— persons separate from the rest of the nation v. 17. Nor can it be understood of Gods visible abode in ordinances but in persons who were holy nor is it made to every visible Church in râ—spect of every visible member Nor is the promise of Chrst walking Revel 2.1 so much as this of Gods dwelling in them The 2d he alledgeth is Rom. 9.25 which is to be understood no otherwise where the
soon expeâ—â— a new world in the Moon proved as that position by any true Logical deduction out of Scripture He talks of my trifling circumstances in my Examen and foul miscarriage in my stating of the question even in that whicâ— was most necessary according to the rule of all Logicians that in ever consideration of things distinction of ambiguous terms should be used 〈◊〉 afore any definition proposition proof or answer be made as Kecheâ—m syst Log. l. 1. sect post c 1. out of Cicero Boetius Aristotle Galen c shews and for endeavouring to bring Mr. M. to state his â—wn proposition without ambiguity that I might know what to deâ—y or graâ—t which Mr. Bl. terms ineptly my soul miscarriage in my stating of the question when I stated not a question at all but onely soâ—ght to finde out how Mr M. meant his 2d concl in his Sermon But Mr. Bl. will have his position limited Anâ— he speaks thus 1. We take not in all the natural seed of Abraham as the position plainly expresseth but the seed by promise which I understand not of the elect or regenerate seed but of that seed which Gâ—d by miracle according to promise gave to Abraham by â—arah when she was past years of child bearing Answ. 1. If he take not in all the natural seed of Abraham as comprehended in that promise Gen. 17.7 but the seed by promise then the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was never made to Ishmael which was signified by circumcision and consequently though Ishmael was circumcised yet he was never in covenant and Mr. Bls position is false men in Covenanâ— are the adequate subject of Circumcision 2. If he understand not by the children of the promise Rom. 9.8 the elect or regenerate then he doth not understand as the Apostle doth who declares v. 11 that the seed v. 7. who are children of the promise v 8. are such as are by Gods calling according to Gods purpose of election v. 11. whom â—e loveth v. 13 hath mercy and compassion on v. 15. and deserts the contraâ—â—monstrants as I have often shewed in this and other writings 3. If he understand the seed by promise onely of that which God by miracle according to promise gave to Abraham by Sarah when she was past years of child-â—earing then hâ— asserts the Covenant Gen. 17.7 in the fullest latitude to be made wholly to Isaac no to Jacob or any other for no other but Isaac individually taken was that seed which God by miracle according to promise gave to Abraham by Sarah when she was past years of child bearing Mr. Bl. adds The natural posterity which was the birth by promise we onely understand and so the Apostle explains it Rom. 9.7 8. neither c. Answ. If Mr. Bl. understand onely Gen. 17.7 by the seed of Abraham the natural posterity which was the birth by promise and that according to Mr. Bls. description in the words immediately precedent is no other then individual Isaac then he takes in no other then â—saac into the Covenant Gen. 17 7. as meant by Abrahams seed Now the Aâ—ostle is so far from explaining it so that the contrary is most true Foâ— 1. the Apostle expresly saith that is they which are the children of the flesh that is begotten by mâ—er natural generation of Abraham which is all one with the natural posterity of Abâ—aham thesâ— are not the children of God that is those to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7 as the contradistinction to the children of the promise in the latter part of v 8. shews And that by children of the flesh are meâ—nt meer natural posterity appears in that v. 7. which is explained v. 8. the term the seed of Abraham is put as equipolent to children of the flesh which understood any otherwise then thus â—he seed or children of Abraham by meer nâ—tural generation should exclude Isaac also who was the natural posterity of Abraham and so the seed of Abraham but not by meer natural generation 2. If the Apostle had explained the seed Gen. 17.7 of the natural posterity onely which was the birth by promise which according to Mr. Bls. description can be no more then individual Isaac then he had said Rom. 9.8 but the child of the promise is counted for the seed not as he doth in the plural number the children of the promise by whom are meant all elect persons who are by suâ—ernatural calling counted by God for the seed of the Gentiles as well as the Jews as he affirms v. 24. are counted for the seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 is made But Mr. Bl. â—oes on thus Where children of God is taken in the same latitude as adoption v. 4. comprizing all the visible body of the Jews as it is also taken Deut. 14.1 Answ. â—he right reading as I have before proved of Rom. 9 4. should be whose was the adoption and this is meant indeed of the visible body of Israelites in former generations excluding the presâ—nt nor do I deny it to be so meâ—nt Deut. 14.1 but not so as either then or at any time comprizing every particular Jew but as Mr. Bl. himself rightly explaineth such passages in his answer to my letter pag. 51. though 〈◊〉 applied to Rom. 9.25 26. the denomination being a praestantiori parte as we call it a heap of corn where yet there is a mixture of chaff and a corn field where there is a mixture of tares and other weeds and as the Apostle writing to the Church of the Thessalonians saith knowing brethren your election of God and yet I suppose you do not believe that each particular man was a vessel of glory But I go after Mr. Bl. Onely saith he those that are born by promise are included and so all the sons of Ishmael and Keturah though theâ—r parents were once in Covenant are by Gods special command shut ouâ— Answ 1. There are no more born by promise according to Mr. Bls. description but Isaac and so no more according to him included not Jacob muâ—h less all the visible body of the Jews 2. If those that are born by promise onely are included then Ishmael and the sons of Keturah who were not born by proâ—ise are not inâ—luded in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 then they were never in Covâ—nant for none were never in that Covenant who were not included in the promise 3. The Scripture doth not mention outâ—shmael â—shmael out of the Covenant he was once in but to 〈◊〉 out of Abrahams housâ— Nor do I see in what sense Abraham couâ—d be said to cast him out of Covenant Surely not by revoking 〈◊〉 promise that were little less then blasphemy to ascribe to Abraham the evacuating of Gods word not by uncircumcising him for 〈◊〉 was any such thing done though Abraham obeyed God nor perhaps could be done What other way he might shut him out of â—ovenant I do not understand 4. If Ishmael were once in the Covenâ—nt as it comprehends the promise of
taking in of a person into an Office Army or Family or the like to perform the work enjoy the benefit profit c. of such an Officer Member c. And it is usually done by some Officer to whom that business is committed and the person upon his admission and by vertue of it takes his place work benefit or what else he is admitted to as his right and due But I know no such thing in the baptizing of infants Indeed by Baptism regularly a man is admitted to the Communion of the Church in prayer hearing receiving the Lords Supper and such other acts of Christian Communion as belong to visible Church-members But an infant by Baptism is not admitted to these Prayer and hearing are in some sort allowed to unbaptized persons and they are admitted to them who are infidels when infants baptized are sent away as uncapable of them and disturbers by their crying and playing The Lords Supper they are not admitted to by their Baptism till they themselves profess as Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists agree The being name repute of Churâ—h-members is antecedent to Baptism and therefore they are not admitted to it by Baptism I must confess therefore I do not well know what this admission of infants iâ— which is by Baptism and I think the proposition in Mr. Bs. argument to be void of truth or sense if it be not thus construed All that ought to be admitted visible church-members are baptized or which is all one ordinarily ought to be baptized afore they are admitted unless the admission and baptism be one and the same and then the speech is an inept tautologie as if he had said All visible church members that ought to be baptized ordinarily ought to be baptized So that now Mr. B. may see some reason of my demur about his major proposition which though it were as plain as he well knew how to express himself yet there is so much ambiguity in it that in the sense which the words in any good construction will bear it is to be denied But if he understand it in the later sense the Syllogism is nugatory the minor and the conclusion being the same Nevertheless as in the Dispute I let the major pass so I shall do in this answer onely taking notice of some things in his proof of it and insist upon my denial of the minor The first argument of Mr. B. to prove admission into the visible Church is to be by Baptism I approve and thence conclude against infant Baptism thus If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptism of admitting any by Baptism as visible members but believerâ— by profession then all that must be admitted visible members ordinarily by Baptism must be believâ—rs by profession But since Baptism was instituted or established we have no precept or example in Scriâ—ture of admitting any aâ— visible members by Baptism but believers by profession Ergo all that must be admitted visible members must be believers by profession I know not what in shew of reason can be said to this For what man yet Mr. B. and Paedobaptists dare dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it from a way that hath full current of both yet they that will admit infants into the visible Church by Baptism do so If he say there 's precept before I answer his own major requires precept or example since Christ ordained Baptism and therefore that shift avoids not the retortion of his argument To what he replies to this argument in his Praefestin morator sect 16. besides what I have said in the 2d part of this Review sect 4. pag. 66.67 there is enough in the same book sect 10 11 12 c. to manifest that infants are not in any Scripture disciples appointed to be baptized Matth. 28.19 Nevertheless I find Alstedius in his Supplement to Chamier de natura Ecclesiae cap. 7. § 4. thus writing Baptismus admittit in Ecclesiam particularem sed in Ecclesiam catholicam potest aliquis admitti sine baptismo quia hanc ad rem sufficit vera fides And whereas Mr. Ball in his reply to the answer of the New-Ergland Elders about the nine positions pag. 60. had said Baptism is the seal of our admission into the congregation or flock of Christ but not evermore of our receiving into this or that particular society as set members thereof Mr. Allin rejoyns in his Defence pag. 163. Baptism doth not admit actually into the Church and your own expression secrety implieth as much when you say Baptism is a seal of our admission into the Church or flock of Christ If baptism be the seal of our admission then there is admission thereunto before baptism but who doth admit and where and when is any admitted to the Church but in particular congregations â—an any be admitted into a Charch that whole Church being ignorant thereof Fulwood serm of the Church c. p 14. The children of believers born in the Church are not though virtual actual members of the visible Church before Baptism This I produce to shew the uncertainty among Paedobaptists about admission into the Church by baptism and membership before Baptism Like also what Mr. B. saith in his 2d arg To be above ordinances is to be above obedience to God and so Gods And when he saith in his 3d. The nature and end of baptism is to be Christs listing engaging sign it is a good argument to prove that infant baptism hath not the nature and end of baptism â—ith it is not Christs that is according to his appointment listing engaging sign the infant neither lists nor engageth himself by it as Christ appointed And when he saith If it be the use of baptism to engraff and enter us into the body or Church 1 Cor. 12.13 and into Christ as Rom. 6.3 then sure it must be used at our engraffing and entrance it rather follows it is before sith the means is to be before the end in execution To what he saith about Church-members Disciples Christians enough hath been said in the 2d part of this Review sect 10. c. In his 6th argument having formed an argument from Ephes. 5.26 he saith of me Mr. T. in his Exercit. objecteth 1. That then the thief on the cross c. were no church members Answ. It followes not from he that is baptized shall be saved that therefore he that is not baptized shall not be saved so here for the former speaks but ad debitum and the later de eventu it will follow that it is a duty to baptize all members where it may be done but not that it shall certainly come to pass Refut What I said Exercit. pag. 21. of that text Ephes. 5.27 was not an objection against what Mr. B. would evince from the text but in answer to an argument urged for infant baptism from that text by a London Minister in a conference anno 1643. Which
came to free his whole Church from that visible Church-membership it had then by natural descent and consequently to alter the visible Church membership of infants into a more perfect way by setting up a Church throughout the world not by carnal descent in one nation but in a spiritual way by faith in Christ through the preâ—ching of the Gospel And I must tell Mr. B. of Circumcision and the Law it 's bondage and Tutorage whether it like him or not sith infants had no where else visible Church-membership then in the Jewish Church whereby they were in bondage to Circumcision and the Law Nor can I tell what ordinance of admitting visible Church-members unrepealed he means besides that of Circumcision and therefore he must speak of these if he speak of the visible church-membership in the Jewish Church which had these annexed 3. Yet further saith he when this text tels us that Christ came to redeem us from under the Law and the bondage of minority is it not a clear proof that he hath brought us into a far better state then we were in before and hath advanced us in his family as the Heir at age is advanced And can any man of common sence and conscience expound this of his casting all their infants out of his family Christs Church is his family and doth the Heir use to be freed by being cast out of the family Why may he not as well say that all the body of the Jewish nation are now delivered by being cast out of the Church or Family of Christ Is it not more agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here to affirm that certainly they are so far from being turned out of the family or Church of Christ that by Christ they are now brought into a far higher state and made members of a far better Church then that particular Church of the Jews was Answ. It is true Christ hath advanced his Church into a far better state then it was in before and that is the reason why infants are left out I say not cast out of his visible Church For whereas the particular Church of the Jews in which alone infants were visible Church-members was as well a civil Commonwealth as a Church of God and was by descent of birth and by proselytism made up of all in the Commonwealth it seemed good to God to make his Church more spiritual consisting onely of them who owned Christ as their Lord and therefore till infants do so they are no parts of the visible Church Christian. And thus men of common sence and tender consciences may and must expound the Apostle it being agreeable to his scope if they will speak rightly And the body of the Jewish nation I mean the greatest or most considerable part if embracing the Gospel they had been baptized their children being not baptized till they professed had been rightly said to be delivered from the minority and bondage they were in before in the sense before declared Mr. B. adds 4. And if any yet say that it is not the infants but onely the parents that are thus advanced by Christ to a better state is not this text plain against him For the Apostle extendeth redemption here to those that were under the Law and who knoweth not that infants were under the Law And if it did not belong to each individual under the Law yet it cannot in any tolerable sence be denied to belong to each species or age yet I can prove that conditionally this deliverance was to each individual person in the sense as God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquity Act. 3. last And now judge I pray whether this be not a pittifull ground for men to prove the repeal of Gods mercifull gift and ordinance of infants Church-membership Answ. That which I say is that the particular Church of the Jews being dissolved a Church of a better constitution is by God erected and so the Church of God is advanced by Christ into a better state that is from carnal to spiritual which necessitates the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian till they be disciples or believers and this is a better estate to infants as well as parents sith that Church-state did engage them to Circumcision and the Law which were their bondage Nevertheless Mr. Bs. proof is not to be allowed For it follows not redemption is extended to those that were under the Law therefore to each individual or to each species or age the term being indefinite and the speech true if any under the Law and those of one species or age be redeemed as in like sort when God is said to choose the poor the weak things of this world this proves not universal election of the poor or weak sith the terms being indefinite they need not be understood universally except in necessary matter I remember once in a Dispute it was urged thus for universal redemption Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law all are under the Law Ergo To which I answered by denying the minor producing Gal. 4.21 Rom. 6.14 c. though I might hâ—ve answered also by denying the indefinite term to contain all But if Mr. Bs. reasoning be good that it cannot in any tolerable sence he denied to belong to each species or age because they were under the Law it will follow that it cannot be denied in any tolerable sence to each Jew for they were under the Law and then it will follow thaâ— the Jews were universally redeemed that they might reâ—eive the adoption of sons And it seems by his words in his Parenthesis Mr. B. holds a conditional deliverance for each individual person meant Gal. 4.5 concerning which besides what I have said before Sect. 33 34 35. I adde this censure of Mr. John Collings Provoc provocatus in answer to Boatman ch 5. pag. 61. Universal redemption conditional Covenant Two Covenants one absolute another conditional are notions in Divinity I do not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's plaâ—e as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianism minced for the better digestion But those words of Mr. B. that God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquities Acts 3. last in the sense he can prove as he thinks that conditionally this deliverance was for each individual person do import that he holds that Christ was sent not onely for universal redemption conditionally but also for universal conversion conditionally Which if true then Christ blesseth all by turning every one from his iniquity Acts 3.26 conditionally and then unless he can assign another condition then the act of a mans free-will he must hold universal grace of conversion and conversion by Christs blessing conditional upon the concurrence of mans free-will which is indeed the venome of Arminianism
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
his assent to his verbal profession But infants baptism is no profession of any faith either explicit or implicit there being no act done by them tending to make any shew of faith which they neither understand nor take â—o bee true upon the trust of their teachers as Papists do in their implicit faith which yet we dâ—ny to be christian faith but are every way passive both in respect of the act of the baptisers and the reason and end of it they neither do any thing towards their baptism nor understand any thing of it Yea were it true that such an implicit profession of faith were in infants baptism yet were it not enough to make them visible members of the christian church no not according to the definition of Protestant writers who when they define the church to be a company of professors of faith do mean more then an implicit profession to wit an intelligent and free profession and do blame the baptising of the Indians by the Spaniards forcing them to own the Christian Faith afore they understand it though there bee more implicite profession of the faith by them then is or can be by an infant 3. I argue They are no visible members of the christian church to whom no note whereby a visible christian church or church-membership is discernible doth agree For that which is visible is discernable to the understanding by some sensible note or signe by which it is known But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church or church-member is discernable doth agree Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by shewing the right notes of the visible church and church-members not to agree to infants The right notes of the christian church and church-members are the profession of the whole Christian faith the preaching and hearing of the Word administration and communion in the Sacramenâ—s joyning in Prayer discipline c. with believers Hudson vindic pag. 229. But none of these agree to infants Not profession of of the whole Christian faith For they neither understand nor shew by any thing they do that they assent to the christian faith Not the preaching or hearing of the Word For infants can neither preach nor hear the Word I mean as it is speech or significative language though they may hear it as a sound much less as yeilding assent to it which hearing alone is a mark of a visible church-member Nor do they administer or have communion in the Sacraments None will say they administer nor though they should be baptised in water by a Minister or eat bread or drink wine at the Lords supper can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament For he onely hath communion in a Sacrament who useth it as a signe of that for which it is appointed and this use onely is a note of a visible church-member otherwise a Spaniards forcible baptising of an Indian without knowledge of Christ should make him partaker of the Sacrament or doing it in sport or jest should make a visible church-member See Mr. B. himself correct sect 6. pag. 253. But infants neither use baptism nor the Lords Supper as a signe engaging to Christ with acknowledgement or remembrance of him therefore they have no communion in the Sacraments no not in baptism nor is their pretended baptism any note of visible Church membership Nor do they joyn in prayer discipline or any part of Christian worship or service which might shew they own Christ as their Lord and therefore they are not discernable to be of the visible Church christian by any right note 2. By shewing that the notes whereby they are conceived to bee discernable as visible Church-members are not notes of their visible church-membership Two notes are usually alledged the one the covenant of God the other the parents profession of faith neither shew them visible Christian church-members nor both together Not the covenant or promise of God For there is no such covenant that promiseth to every believers childe much less to every professor of Faith's childe saving grace or visible church-membership and a promise to save indefinitely not expressing definitely who is not a note whereby by this or that person is discernable to be the person to whom it belongs Besides if there were such a promise to every childe of a believer yet unless it were a promise of it to them in their infancy it would not prove they were actually visible church members but onely that in the future they should be Nor is the parents Faith a note of the infants visible church membership For whether it be a note of it self or conjunctly with the covenant it is a note of the infants visible church-membership because it is his child and if so then it is a note of his child 's visible church-membership at twenty years of age though he should be then a professed Infidel as well as a day old a note of an Embryo's visible church-membership in the mothers womb as well as a childe born which are absurd Other reason then this I know not But sure I am there is not the least hint in Scripture of a childes being discernable to be a visible Christian church-member by the parents faith or profession but to the contrary To this argument briefly propounded in my Examen of his Sermon part 3 sect 3 Mr. M. replies not in his Defence and therefore I see not but it stands good 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member are not visible Christian church-members This proposition is most sure according to Logick rules take away the form the thing formed is not if the form denominating agree not the denomination agrees not Scheibler Top. c. 5. de forma Stieri praec doct Log tract 2. c. 4. But the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member infants have not Ergo. The minor is proved thus They which have not the outward profession of Faith within have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member For profession of Faith is the form constituting and denominating a visible church-member as is proved from the constant sayings of Divines Ames Marrow of Divinity first book c. 31. § 11. Faith is the form of the Church § 25. visibility is the affection or manner of the Church according to its accidental and outward form § 27. The accidental form is visible because it is no other thing then the outward profession of inward faith which may easily be perceived by sense c. 32. § 7. It is a society of believers for that same thing in profession constitutes the visâ—ble Church which in its inward and real nature makes a mystical Church that is Faith Ball trial of separat c. 13. p. 302. A lively operative faith maketh a man a true member of the Church invisible and the profession of faith and holiness a member of the Church visible Norton answer to Apollon â— 1. prop. 2. pag. 10
the tenour of the Covenant of grace as expressed in many texts of Scripture According to the tenour of the Covenant of grace God will not refuse to be their God and take them for his people that are in a natural or law sense willing to be his people and to take him for their God But the infants of believing parents are thus willing Ergo. The major is unquestionable The minor is proved from the very law of nature before expressed Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in natural sence ergo the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sence and that is of the parents who have the full dispose of them and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them for their good â—ill they come to use of reason themselves The parents therefore by the light and law oâ— nature choosing the better part for their children and offering and devoting them to God by the obligation of his own natural law he cannot in consistency with the â—â—ee grace revealed in the Gospel refuse those that are so offered And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth he wiâ—l in no wise cast out ... And he will be offended with those that would keep them from him that are offered by those that have the power to do it though they cannot offer themselves For legally this act is taken for their own Thus I have shewed you â—ome of the fundamental title that infants of believers have to Churchmembership and our obligation to dedicate them to God Answ. They are as I conceive Mr. B. willing to be Gods people in a natural sence who do in their own persons actually will this in a law sence who having not use of reason themselves do will by another who hath the dispose of them as v. g. a parent That some acts of a parent are legally taken for the childs it 's not denied But in this argument of Mr. B. I deny the major And whereas Mr. B. saith it is unquestionable I say it is manifestly false there is no such thing in the tenour of the Covenant of grace yea God did refuse Ishmael and Esau though Abraham and Isaac prayed for them and dedicated them in Mr. Bs. sense to God What Mr. B. dictates by way of proof whether of the major or minor which I think he did not well heed is not true Infants cannot will of themselves therefore the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sence For it follows nâ—t unless the Law-giver do ordain it so Nor doth it follow that if the infants cannot will and anothers will must be theirs in law sence it must in Church matters be the will of the natural parents For in such things it may be as well conceived that the will of the mother the Church as it is termed the Church-governours or as some will the Gossips should be their will in the law sence and that they have the power to dispose of them and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them for their good as the natural parents The speeches the parents by the â—ight and law of nature choosing the better part for their children and offering them and devoting them to God by the obligation of his own natural law he cannot in consistency with the free grace revealed in the Gospel refuse those that are so offered is false the Gospel no where â—ssuring grace to those that are offered by anothers will but to those who repent and believe themselves The speech And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth he will in no wise cast out Joh. is false it being certain God hath cast out many so comming as Esau Ishmael c. and hath a tincture of Pâ—â—agianism and the Text Joh. 6.37 to which Mr. B. alludes is grosly abused by him sith it speaks onely of thâ—se that come to Christ by their own faith and of not casting out from the invisible Church and everlasting life as v. 39 40. shew not meerly from the visible Church And the speech and he will be offended with those that would keep them from him that are offered by those who have the power to do it though they cannot offer themselves being meant of not baptizing them is also false and the contrary is true that he will be offended with those who baptize infants which he never appointed but profane the ordinance being appointed onely for them who are themselves disciples and believers And thus Mr. Bs. fundamental title to infants visible Churchmembership is blown up Mr. B. adds You must now in reason expect that infants Church-membership being thus established partly in the law of nature and partly in the fundamental promise what is after this spoken of it should not be any new establishment but confirmations and intimations of what was before done rather giving us the proof that such a law and promise there is that did so establish it then being such first establishing laws or promises themselves And from hence I may well add this further argument If there be certain proof in Scripture of infants Churchmembership but none except this before alledged that makes any mention of the beginning of it but all speaking of it as no new thing then we have great reason upon the forementioned evidence to assign this beginning which from Gen. 3. we have exprest But the former is true ergo the later You confess that infantâ—s were Churchmembers once You onely conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your conâ—â—t hath not a word to support it in the Text. The right to such a blessing was then new to Abrahams seed when Abâ—aham first believed But when it began to belong to infants of believers in general no Text except this before cited doth mention Nor doth that promise to Abraham intimate any inception then as to the Churchmembership of infants but onely an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing Answ. Mr. B. mistakes in conceiving visible Churchmembership to belong to infants of believers in general and therefore it must be derived from Gen. 3.15 I retort his argument If there be certain proof in Scripture of infants Churchmembership but none except in the nation of the Hebrews and that had its beginning at the call of Abraham out of Ur and ended at the rejection of the Jews then infants visible Churchmembership began with Abrahams call and now ceaseth But the antecedent is true Ergo also the consequent The consequence is in effect Mr. Bs. In the minor the first and third propositions are proved by the dispute before For the second that the nation of the Hebrews began with Abraham besides the allegation before of Nehem 9.6 Acts 7.2 where he is called their Father and the story of the Hebrews begun from Abrahams call the words of the Prophet Isa. 51.1 2. are express to this purpose calling
of God who chose the daughters of Adam for their beauty as being the seed of the Saints c. but as being at least in appearance holy and true worshippers and chosen by God they are so denominated noâ— from their discent from the godly for then they had been called the sons of the Saints rather then of God but from their profession and practâ—se if the interpretation of Aben Ezra that they were the sons Elohim of the Judges or mighty or that other that they were eminent persons hold not 3. I deny that it can be proved that these sons of â—od were not truly godly or that that they were so wicked that God repenâ—ed that he made them and destroyed them in the flood For neither doth their love of women prove they were not truly godly Solomon is judged truly godly Nehem. 13.26 though hee fell perhaps more deeply into the same sin Sampson was a believer Heb. 11.32 yet sinned this way Nor doth that which is said Gen. 6.11 12 13. prove it for that is rather to be understood of the Nephilim or Giants or the posterity of the the sons of God mentioned v. 4. rather then of the sons of God themseâ—ves v. 2. And therefore it is not proved that it was not their own godliness that made them called the sons of God but their Church state Nor is theâ—e any thing Deut. 14.1 that proves the sons of God Gen. 6.2 were such from their infancy as born of Churchmembers For they are the sons of Gods there either by profession or special choice v. â— not from their parentage Much less is there any thing 2 Cor. 6.18 to that purpose for the promise of son-ship there is not from birth but obedience v. 17. And as Gen. 6.2 their being made sons of God is not exprest to be by calling so neither is it said to be by humane generation nor doth it follow if the daughters of men were such from their birth the sons of God must be so from their birth no not though sons of God noted a generation or stock as it doth not follow that because that which is born of the flesh is flesh from the birth that that which is born of the spirit is spirit from the birth Joh. â— 6 Also saith Mr. B. an intimation of this priviledge and that they were sons of mercy and of the promise appeareth in the very names of many of the children of the righteous both before and after the flood which I will not stand on particularly Answ. This is granted but proves not their visible Churchmembership from their birth He adds And when all the world had so defiled themselves that God was resolved to cut them off he spared Noah and his family or sons Though Cham was to be cursed yet was hee of the Church which worshipped the true God and spared as a son of Noah and one of that society And if God so far spared him then for his fathers sake as to house him in the Ark the type of the Church hee sure took him to be of the same society in his infancy and then bare him the same favour on the same account Answ That the Ark was a type of the Church is not said in Scripture it is rather made a type of Baptism 1 Pet. 3.21 But let it bee granted the Ark was a type of the Church and that Cham was in the Ark for his fathers sake and a membâ—r of the Church yet it followes not he was so in infancy he might be so as a worshipper of the true God though himself in other things corrupt Again saith Mr. B. As soon as Noah came out of the Ark God blessed himself in his issue as he did Adam with an increase and multiply and made a Covenant with him and his seed after him Which Covenant though the expressed part of it be that the earth should bee drowned no more and so it was made with the wickedst of Noahs seed and even with the beasts of the field yet doth it import a special favour to Noah and his seed as one whom God would shew a more special respect to as he had done in his deliverance and upon this special favour to him the creatures fare the better For though the word Covenant be the same to man and beast yet the diversity of the promissary and his capacity may put a different sense on the same word as applied to each And indeed it should seem but a sad blessing to Noah to hear an increase and multiply if all his infant posterity must be cast or left out of the visible Church and so left as common or unclean This were to encrease and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil If he that was so mercifully housed in the Ark with all his children must now bee so blest as to have all their issue to be out of the Church it were a strange change in God and a strange blessing on Noah And an uncomfortable stablishing of a Covenant with his seed if all that seed must bee so thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain Answ. Though the Covenant Gen. 9.9 should import a special favour to Noah and his seed more then to the beasts which yet the text expresseth not yet that this should be infants visible Churchmembership followes not nor is it likely sith then all the infant posterity yea all the seed of Noah and consequently all the men of the world since then should be visible Churchmembers Nor was thâ— blessing of multiplying sad to Noah reduced to such a paucity though his infant posterity were not of the visible Church nor were they any more common and unclean thereby then they should have been if so taken nor had this been to increase and multiply the Kingdome of the Devil they that are not visible Churchmembers may be of the Kingdome of Christ and not of the Kingdome of the Devil I say not all Noahs issue was out of the Church yet the leaving out infants from the visible Church shewed no change in God from what hee was to them when he housed the sons of Noah in the Ark nor doth it any whit lessen the blessing expressed Gen. 9.1 nor doth it infer that all that seed must be thrust from God and dealt with as the seed of cursed Cain These are but frivolous inferences fit onely to scare weak heads Moreover saith he it is certain that Noah did prophetically or at least truly pronounce the blessing on Sem and Japhet And in Shems blessing he blesseth the Lord his God shewing that God was his God and so in Covenant with him And it is plain that it is not onely the persons but the posterities of his three sons that Noah here intended It was not Cham himself so much as Canaan and his succeeding posterity that were to be servants to Shem and Japhet that is to their posterity And the blessing must be to the issue of Shem as well as
severity intimates an inclination or desire to it which is stopped by a contrary inclination whereas Gods attributes are all equally in him nor hath he any propensity of desires to exercise one more then another but he doth work all things according to the counsel of his own will 2. It is falsly supposed as if visible Churchmembership were an act of remunerative mercy and not the taking of infants into visible Church-membership were an act of severity against the infant for the parents sin whereas the taking or not taking into visible Churchmembership iâ— as election to eternal life or reprobation an act of soveraignty and liberty which God useth as hee pleaseth without respect to any persons or parents good or bad actions 3. It is also as falsly supposed that by not taking infants into visible Churchmembership they are cast out from being in any visible state of Churchmercies For their being in the families of the godly though not visible Churchmembers puts them into a visible state of Churchmercies even as well as if they were taken to be visible Churchmembers and baptised 4. That God giveth some greater mercy then visible Churchmembership to wit eternal life out of the Church visible is easily proved in that he saves elect infants which die in the womb are abortives or still born And if Mr. B. do deny it hee must hold a tenet like the Papists that without his visible Churchmembershâ—p infants are damned 5. The grace of God in Gospel times is enlarged in the extent of it to all nations in the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Messiah comen already freedom from the bondage of the law in the powring out of the spirit in the new Covenant c. although infants be not visible Churchmembers 6. Gods tenderness of compassions to the godly and their seed may and doth stand with the non-visible membership of their infants in the Christian Church it being not out of any defect of mercy in God or deprivation of mercy to them which they may not have without it but because it is his good pleasure that the Church Christian should not bee by natural descent but by faith not national but of believers of all Nations 7. How God is said to admit into visible Churchmembership infants needs explication admission as I have hitherto conceived it beeing the act of the administratour of baptism according to Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 24. and therefore his conclusion seems to have this sense that God will baptise some infants with water which is a friâ—olous conceit 8. If Mr. Bs. suppositions on which his argument rests should bee granted him the conclusion should bee rather that God will not permit the infants of the godly to bee put to death but will keep them alive from the hands of persecutors for otherwise hee should be more prone to severity to the wicked then to mercy to the godly and their seed For all the instances hee gives of Gods severity to the children of wicked men is in the taking away of their natural lives and therefore his inference if there were any force in it would concâ—ude not the visible churchmembership of the infants of the godly but the preservation of their livâ—s in common calamities and persecutions which it is certain he doth not but as the Wiseman saith All things happen alike to alike to all Eccles. 9.2 Which things being premised thougâ— the minor of M. â—s first syllogism may be well questioned yet waving it I deâ—y the consequences of the major in both the syllogisms which rest on such futile dictates as he hath not proved except by saying he knows not how it should be otherwise which seems to intimate this fond conceit of himself as if none could know what he doth not He goes on in his frivolous arguings thus Ch 25. The 20th arg I draw from Deut. 28.4 18 3. Those that keep the Covenant are blessed in the fruit of their body and of Covenant-breakers it is said cursed shâ—lt thou be in the fruit of thy body thy sons and thy daughters shall be given to another people and thy eyâ— shall look and â—aâ—l with longing for them c. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters but thou shalt not enjoy them for they shall go into captivity The argument that I fetch hence is this That doctrine which maketh the children of the faithful to be in a worse condition or as bad then the curse in Deut. 28. doth make the children of Covenant breakers to be in is false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth the infants of the faithful to be visible Churchmembers doth make them to bee in as bad or a worse condition then is threatned by that curse Deut. 28. Therefore it is false doctrine The major is undeniable The minor I prove thus The curse on the children Deut. 28. is that they go into captivity Now to bee put out of the whole visible Church of Christ is a sorer curse then to go into captivitie therefore that doctrine which puts infants out of the Church doth make them in a more accursed state then those in Deut. 28. They might bee Churchmembers in captivity as their parents were or if they were not yet it was no worse then this To bee in captivity is but a bodily judgement directly but to bee out of the Church is directly a spiritual judgement Therefore to bee out of the Church is a greater judgement which I must take for granted having before proved that it is far better to bee in the visible Church then out Answ The minor of the first and secâ—nd syllogism are both denied For though to be put out of the whole visible Church of Christ either by just excommunication or voluntary desertion is a heavie curse yet to be put out doctrinally that is to teach that infants are not visible Christian churchmembers is not to put them under any curse at all neither is it to be so any judgement spiritual or bodily nor are they in any better case by their being accounted visible Churchmembers and baptised then they are without both nor hath Mr. B. proved any such thing before but what he hath scribled to that purpose is before shewed to bee vain Another argument saith hee this text would afford in that the judgement on the children is part of the curse on the parents cursed shalt thou bee in the fruit of thy body now GOD doth not curse the faithful but hath taken off the curse by CHRIST though corporal afflictions are left But I must haste Answ. That non-visible Churchmembership of infants now is any part of judgement or curse for the parents sin hath not the least colour of proof from this text or any other The purport of the whole chapter is quite besides the present business it being to assure the Israelites of prosperity in Canaan while they kept Gods Commandments and adhered to him and curses on them and theirs if they fell off from God the curses are for
to Mr. B. they may be severed And if that which constituteth a visible churchmember be a qualification visible so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ which can be no other then his serious sober free and intelligent profession of the faith of Christ then my description of a visible churchmember is right and infants that have no such qualification are not visible churchmembers To say that their parents are visible professors is insufficient For there is no Scripture that makes the profession of the parent the childs qualification nor any Scripture that for it makes it our duty to esteem him in our judgement to belong to the Church of Christ nor is the paâ—ents profession any qualification of the child visible neither is the relation of the child visible or sensible For relations say Logicians incur not into the sense nor is the Fathers profession any more his own childes profession then any other mans childes profession So that Mr. Bs. own words beeing well heeded overthrow his tenet and confirm mine I go after him in the rest These things saith he explained I proceed and prove my minor thus They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church they are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation Therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall bee saved Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes here seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation of the Church to be all one whereas there is a great difference seemingly being in order to the understanding visibly to the sense he may be seemingly in the state of salvation and of the Church who is not so visibly there being many arguments which may make a thing seem to the understanding besides that which is discernable by the outward sense Therefore if Mr. B. mean by seemingly all one with visibly as his words import I deny his major as false and to the contrary assert that we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who yet die not visibly in a state of salvation that is do not any thing incurrent into the sense which may shew they are in a state of salvation as infants born abortives still-born children dying in the womb natural fools phrenetiques Yea we conceive hopes of the salvation of persons dying raving cursing by reason of their disease destroying themselves dying excommunicate justly from the Church though visibly they are in a state of damnation The minor is also false they that are not visibly of the Church may yet be visibly in a state of salvation as an Indian yet not professing Christ nor baptized being affected with the preaching of Christs love to man so as to lift up his eys to heaven knock his brest listen to the preacher weep kiss the preacher follow him keep company with him c. this man is not yet visibly of the Church yet he is visibly in a state of salvation and so dying we have ground of Christian hope that he shall be saved But Mr. B. tels us The major is evident and confirmed thus 1. Sound Hope is guided by judgement and that judgement must have some evidence to proceed on But where there is not so much as a seeming or visibility there is no evidence and therefore there can be no right judgement and so no grounded hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth still unskilfully put seeming for seemingness and confound it and visibility 2. Where there is no seeming there may be evidence he should rather have said Where there is no seeming there is no judgement for where nothing seems to a person he passeth no judgement or opinion 3. I presume Mr. B. takes evidence largely for any argument which shews a thing and not in that strict sense in which it is denied by learned men that faith hath evidence and in the large sense there may be and is in innumerable things evidence in which is no visibility as that corn will be sown and reaped though we see it not c. And in this present argument Mr. B. himself a little after reckons up many reasons besides visibility of the state of salvation and of the Church which he makes evidence for a judgement upon which there is a grounded hope of infants salvation pâ—g 77 78. as Gods declarations promises c. And therefore I deny that speech where there is not so much as visibility there is no evidence 2. Saith he Again to judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgement But such a judgement can be no ground for sound hope Answ. Yet a man may truly judge that to be which doth not visibly appear to be 2. Saith he The minor is as evident viz. that they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church are not seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation For 1. if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of salvation then they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of salvation But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The antecedent might be proved from a hundred Texts of Scripture It is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he giveth eternal life and those that sleep in Jesus that God shall bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will preserve pure and unspotted c. He that denieth this is scarse to be disputed with as a Christian Even they that thought all should at last be brought out of hell and saved did think they should become the Church and so be saved The consequence is beyond questioning Answ. 1. Seemingly and visibly are still mis confounded by Mr. B. 2. If the antecedent bee meant of the visible Church of which alone the conclusion is to bee then it is denied and the proofs are all impertinent sith they speak not of the visible Church as visible but of the invisible 2. Saith hee I next argue thus If there bee no sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of any out of the Church then there â— no sure ground of hope for faith and hope are conjunct wee may not hope with a Christian hope for that wee may not believe But there is no sure ground for such faith they that say there is let them shew it if they can Therefore there is no sure ground of hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth ill to
bring to that purpose 7. Saith Mr. B. And why should children be joyned in standing Church ordinances as prayer fasting c. if there were not strong hope of the blessing of these ordinances to them 2 Chron. 20.13 The children that suck the breast were to bee gathered to the solemn fast Joel 2 16. this will prove them also standing Churchmembers seeing they must joyn in standing ordinances so why received they circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith if there were not strong probability that they had the thing sealed and signified God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not Answ. There 's nothing here endeavoured to bee proved but what I have also granted that there is a strong probability that infants of believers so dying are justified and saved and yet I see no strength in these allegations to prove it For though the little ones and sucking children were to bee present to shew an universal humiliation as did the beasts also Jonah 3.8 yet the infants did not joyn in prayer nor was the end of their presence any special blessing of the Ordinance to them but the moving GOD to spare the whole people invaded or in danger of perishing by famiâ—e nor were the prayer and fasting standing Church-ordinances any more then the Covenanting Deut. â—9 Nehem. 9. but occasional nor doth this presenting of infants prove them standing Church-members any more then the like Jonah 3.8 proves those infants or the Ninivites beasts standing Churchmembers As for Cirâ—umcision that infants received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith is no where in Scripture affirmed and how much Paedobaptists are mistaken in their inference of the nature of Sacraments in general or Circumcâ—siâ—n in special from Rom 4.11 hath beene often shewed before Sect. 31 c. The ends of Circumcising of infants was to distinguish the Hebrews from other people and to fore-signifie from what people CHRIST was to come and to engage them to observe the Law of Moses which they were to receive by reason of Gods command whether they hoped for their childrens salvation or not Abraham was to circumcise Ishmael though hee knew hee was not a childe of the promise and Isaac Esau though hee were rejected by God The speech God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not is like the Popish Schoolmens conceit that Sacraments confer grace where no bar is put and intimates that Circumcision was Gods oâ—dinance to assure at least rigteousness of faith to each infant circumcised which is a false conceit 8. Saith Mr. B. Why else doth God so oft compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe 1 Thes. 2.7 Num. 11 12. Isa. 49.15 Psâ—l 103.13 Answ. Though I grant a strong probality of the salvation of believers infants so dying yet to shew the vanity of Mr. Bs. scriblings as if hee brought more for it then I do I cannot but observe the slighty dealing of Mr. B. in this point For first whereas hee alledgeth these texts as if GOD did therein compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe in the first Paul not God compares himself to a nurse in the second Moses speaks of himself as if God had put an impossible burthen on him as if he could as a nursing father bears his sucking childe carry all that people to the promised land In the third God saith he would not forget Sion who had said hee had forgotten them though a mother should forget her sucking childe and Psal. 103.13 the love of God as a father is spoken of them that fear him So that the two first texts were through heedlesness mis-alledged grosly by him the other two express Gods love onely to his obedient and seeking people mention nothing of his love to their infants 2. God doth compare his love to a Fathers or Mothers not because he is engaged to believers infants to save them nor because he hath natural affection as they have but to shew his gracious care and dealing towards his elect children 3. Gods love is no more compâ—red to a believing parents love then to an unbelievers and therefore if this prove a strong probability of the salvation of a believers infant so dying it doth prove the salvation of an unbelievers as probâ—ble 4. Gods love and care is compared to an Eagles in carrying her young ones Deut. 32.11 12. Christs to an Heâ— Matth. 23.37 According to Mr. Bs. reasoning thiâ— should prove then the strong probability of tâ—e salvation of Chickens But I am ashamed that the world should see the nakedness of these magnified reasonings though I be necessitated to uncover it The 9th from Matth. 19.14 is no more then I have alledged often for those infants and what Mr. B. here alledgeth to prove this a right of other infants is answered at large in the second part of this Review sect 17. 10. Saith he We read of some that have been sanctified from the womb and therefore were in a state of salvation and Jacob was loved before he was born and therefore before he had done good or evil was in the like state of salvation Answ. Have not I also granted this thing and that upon the same reasons Why then doth Mr. B. suggest to draw parâ— is hearts from me to him as if he said more in this then my self Yet I cannot be very confident of the reason from Jerem 1.15 to which Gal. 1. â—5 is parallel sith the sanctification was to the office of a Prophet which is appliable to infants so dying 11. We find promises of salvation to whole housholds where it is probable there were infants Act. 16.34 Answ. 1. Acts 16.31 is no probability that infants should bee meant sith in the next v. it is said he spake the word to all that were in his house which is not to be said of infants and v. 34. he rejoyced with all his house believing God 2. If they should yet this can be no more then a particular promise to him unless this were true that God will save every believer and his house And Mr. B. over lâ—sheth in saying we find promises of salvation made to whole housholds when there is no more but this one The 12th is from 1 Cor. 7.14 and it is built on Mr. Bs. interpretation of holy as if it noted a separation to God as a peculiar people But I have fully answered Mr Bs. 29th ch and have shewed his mistake in the first part of this Review sect 22 c. and need to answer no more in this place Mr. B. goes on thus It cannot be said that these promises are verified according to their sense if any mercy be given to any infant Here the persons are determined that is all the seed of the faithfull and we have large ground given probably to conclude that it is eternal mercy that is intended to all that living to age do not again reject it but that either at
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ— but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâ—ration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâ—eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â— Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an â—dea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâ—iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâ—sh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way â—hen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâ—ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â—2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâ—chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâ—lk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâ—fies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed â—o them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâ—lieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the â—ather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
or sincere believers As for what he said before about the falling away of the ingraffed is answered before But Mr. Bl. yet adds There is a national pardon and a personal pardon iâ— oâ—t applied to a national return as 2 Chron. 7.14 Jerem. 18.7 8. there it is the removal of drought locusts pestilence here their judgement was the vail of blindness not assenting to the Gospel light and they shall be saved from this blindness as the Text expressly hath it v. 25 26. Answ. This blindness is no way removed but by giving of faith as is proved before and therefore this proves for me the ingraffing to be giving faith according to election and all the ingraffed to be elect Yet once more saith Mr. Bl. The words quoted out of v. 26 27. are partly from Isa. 59.20 and partly from Jerem. 31.34 as I conceive which in the Prophets are directly spoken of a national return and national pardon as Mr. B. of one of them hath well observed but in New Testament Scriptures variously applied as all know that text of Habakkuk is ch 2.4 That of Jeremy is applied personally but here as the context is clear it must bee applied nationally to Israel according to the flesh The vail shall be taken from them on whom it lies it lies on Israel according to the flesh what mystery had the Apostle revealed in case he had onely shewed that all elect bâ—lievers should be saved Answ. Though that were no mystery yet it was a mystery that God shouâ—d contrive it so that Israel Gods people formerly should now be blind and the Gentiles see and when their fulness is come in then all Israel should be saved who were then broken off And this salvation is to be national and yet spiritual there being a national effectual conversion to God although all of the nation be not converted as well as there is a national return from captivity and yet not all return The words being quoted from â—sai 59.20 Jer. 31.34 there being no reason to the contrary they shoulâ— be applied personally here as â—hey are Heb. 8.12 10. â—6 17. I shall close up the vindication of this argument with the words of Dr. Owen of perseverance Ch. 7. § 24. The force then of this promise Isa. 59. â—0 and the influence it hath into the establishment of the truth we have in hand the perpetual abiding of the spirit with the Saints will not be evaded and turned aside by affirming that it is made to the whole people of Israel For besâ—des that the spirit of the Lord could not bee said to bee in the ungodly rejected part of them nor his word in their mouth there is not the least in text and context to intimate such an extent of this promise as to the object of it and 't is very weakly attempted to bee proved from Pauls accommodation and interpretation of the v fore going in Rom. 11.26 For it is most evident and indisputable to any one who shall but once cast an eye upon that place that the Apostle accommodates and applies these words to none but onely those who shall be saved being turned away from ungodliness to Christ which are onely the seed before described And those hee cals all Israel either in the spiritual sense of the word as taken for the chosen Israel of God or else indefiniâ—ely for that nation upon the account of those plentiful fruits which the Gospel shall finde amongst them when they shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter dayes My seventh argument was If the re-ingraffing bee by vertue of Gods election and love his gifts of calling then it is into the invisible Church by election and giving of faith But the former is true v. 28 2â— Ergo the latter Mr. S. answers 1. It 's said that as touching election the Jews are beloved for their fathers sake hence it follows God hath a love of election to believers and their natural seed for so the Jews were the natural seed of Abraham Answ. It followes not of believing Gentiles and their natural seed for this is spoken peculiarly of the Jews Nor doth it follow of all the natural seed of Abraham the contrary is determined Rom. 9.6 7 8. nor of any at all times as in the time of their great Apostasie Much less doth it hence follow as it hath been pleaded for Paedobaptism that because God loved the Jews for the fathers sake therefore wee are to take in the parcels all the infants of inchurched believers to bee elect and in the Covenant of Grace and thereupon to baptise them this to my apprehension hath not a shadow of consequence But saith Mr. S. 2. It 's granted that the calling of the Jews shall be according to Gods election and first love and that Gods election shall more fully take hold of the Jews at their recalling then of any nation but yet still the argument is of no force to prove that their re-ingraffing and so ours is onely or firstly into the invisible Church for they are elected as well to be a visible Church as to be partakers of inward graces and their re-ingraffing must be specially and firstly into the visible Church from which they were broken off or else there will be no correspondence between their rejection and re-ingraffing Answ. Yet the arg is of force to prove it is into the invisible Church so as none are re-ingraffed but the elect and partakers of inward graces though it were granted that their re-ingraffing be specially and firstly into the visible Church Yea Mr. Ss reason is against himself for if their re-ingraffing be not firstly and specially into the invisible Church by faith there wil be no correspondence between their re-ingraffing and rejection which was firstly and specially from the invisible Church by unbelief Mr. Bl. answers thus His election love and gifts of calling did at the first put them into a visible Churchstate and condition Deut. 7.7 8. And the same love election and gifts of calling now they are broken off doth re-ingraff them if this argument hold it was an invisible Church that was brought out of the land of Aegypt Answ. According to Mr. Bl. the Apostle should mean that the election and love Rom. 11.28 are meant of such election and love as may be to them that perish and such a calling and gifts as may be lost for such the election into a meer visible Churchstate and condition and calling and love and gifts are which Mr. Bl. p. 302. will have to be the meaning of the Apostle here But this is not meant here 1. because that election love gifts and calling are here meant as are from the Covenant of the Redeemer v 26 27. and whereby all Israel shall be saved this is manifest from the connexion the words v. 28 29. being a confirmation of the proposition all Israel shall be saved v. 26. from the Covenant to turn away impieties from Jacob and to take
away their sins for this reason because they are beloved according to the election and calling of God which are unchangeable But such salvation election love gifts and calling never happen to them that perish the Covenant turning away from impieties and taking away sins belong onely to them who are eternally saved therefore they are not an election love gifts and calling which put into a meer visible Churchstate and condition 2. Such gifts and calling of God are not here meant which are revocable or of which God repents for to be without repentance is to be without revocation or change But the gifts and calling which are into a meeâ— visible Churchstate are revocable and with repentance as both the Scripture and experience shews therefore they are not here meant 3. That calling and election are meant here which are ascribed to God in the passages where there is speech of Gods election and calling of persons before in the 8th 9th and 11th chapters for it is manifest that the dispute about election and calling of the Jews and Gentiles ch 9 10 11. arose from the words of the Apostle Rom. 8.28 29 c. But the election and calling in all the passages signifies such an election and calling as is to eternal life and righteousness as is manifest from Rom. 8.28 30 33. Rom. 9.7 11 24 25 26. Rom. 11.5 7. Therefore not an election or calling into a meer visible Churchstate 4. That calling and election is meant here which is usually if not always meant by the Apostles in their writings For it 's likely Paul would speak here in the sense in which the word is commonly used there being no cogent reason to the contrary But the words election and calling in the Apostles writings are taken usually it not always for election and calling to righteousness and eternal life as may appear by these places 1 Cor. 1.2 9 24 26 27 28 29. 7.15 18 20. Ephes. 1.4 18. 4.1 4. Gal. 1.6 15. 5.8 13. Phil. 3.14 Col. 3.12 15. 1 Thes. 1.4 2.12 5.24 2 Thes. 1.11 2.11 14. 1 Tim. 5.21 6.12 2 Tim. 1.9 2.10 Tit. 1.1 Heb. 3.1 9.15 James 2.5 1 Pet. 1.1 15. 2.9 5.10 2 Pet. 1.3 10. Judeâ—â— â—â— Revel 17.14 Therefore the meaning is in like manner Rom. 11.28 29. That which Mr. Bl. alledgeth from Deut. 7.6 7. doth not weaken this For though it prove that which is not denied that there is an election of a people to a visible Churchstate yet it proves not such an election and love to be meant Rom. 11.28 nor by my argument doth it with any colour of reason follow that the Church brought out of Aegypt was the invisible Church because they are said to be chosen Deut. 7.6 7. any more then because Judas is said to be chosen by Christ John 6.70 therefore election Rom. 11.28 is into a meer visible Churchstate or Apostleship But Mr. Bl. after his calumny of my dis service to the Anti Arminians wiped away before tels us that the Apostle there delivers an universal proposition and apâ—lies it to such election love and gifts that belongs to bodies or nations yet it is a truth that equally holds when it is applied to election to salvation and with just warranty is applied by Divines to that purpose Answ. It is not true that the Apostle delivers Rom. 11.29 an universal proposition concerning any election love calling gifts for then It would be false there be many gifts and callings of God which are not without repentance in the Apostles sense but a proposition of the gifts and calling which are to salvation according to that love and election which are to everlasting salvation according to the Covenant mentioned v. 26.27 and therefore those Divines who understand it of election love gifts and calling to a meer visible Churchstate and condition have no warranty to apply it to prove that election and perseverance which the Text if they speak true speaks not of and the argmuent from thence for that purpose is utterly enervated by that interpretation sith the assumption is by it made confessedly false if the argument be thus framed That decree is immutable and that gift and calling of God do certainly continue which the Apostle saith are without repentance But the Apostle saith the decree of election to eternal life and the gift of taking away sins and the calling which is inward are without repentance Ergo. As for Pareus his forming it as from the less to the greater it is as for the most part such arguments are liable to many exceptions and in this matter hath no strength for then it would follow that if Gods gift and calling to visible Churchstate is without repentance calling to the office of a Presbyter which is more is without repentance I deny not but Commentators do speak some of them as Mr. Bl. alledgeth and some doubtfully of which election and calling to understand it and some speak disjunctively as if it were meant of either and some one while means it of the one and another while of the other But it is not worth while to search into or set down their words It is sufficient that I have demonstrated that iâ— must be meant of such election love gifts and calâ—ing as are to saving holiness and righteousness and eternal life Yet those which I alledged as writing against the Arminians and understanding it of the decree of election unâ—o life and perseverance in saving grace Mr. Bl. denies not that I have â—ightly cited them onely he will not have Ames so peremptory as I am by reason of some words of his from which Mr. Bl. doth most falsely infer thus so that it appears according to him that they spake truth in the denial of this to be meant of the unchangeable decree of eternal election which they who read Ames his words in his Coronis art 5. cap. 4. may easily discern I add to thoâ—e I cited in the first part of this Review sect 2. pag. â—5 Dr. Owen of perseverance c. 2. § 7. c. Dr. Kendal of redemption ch 8. pag. â—20 c. The reason why some wil not have it meant of election and effectual calliâ—g to salvation is their mistake that particular persons may not be said to fall away from such eleâ—â—ion and calâ—ing For though it be true that the particular persons never fall away from their personal election and calling yet they may fall away from that election and calling to eternal life which they in their ancestorâ— had which sense I have shewed to be agreeable to the Apostles meaning in the first part of this Review sect 3. And Dr. Twiss in his Vind. Grat. l. 3. err 8. sect 3. acknowledgeth that when the Apostle saith Rom. 11.23 they shall be graffed in he means it not of those individuals in their persons but their posterity But Mr. Bl. argues thus The Fathers for whose sake they are beloved are the ancient Fathers
being opposed to giving saving faith and no person said to be hardned but he that wants saving faith and he that wants being hardned though hee should have historical so that if hardning be a privation of both yet it hath its denomination onely from the privation of saving faith And for Mr Bls. reason hee would have me consider first the conclusion of it is not to the present point For if the Jewes might not bee said to fall from a saving faith yet their unbelief mentioned Rom. 11.30 might bee and was a privation not onely of historical faith but also a saving else Mr. Bl. must say they had a saving faith though not historical which is a palpable absurdity for then a person may have a saving faith and not an historical and the unbelieving Jewes had a saving faith and consequently the shewing mercy must bee not onely a conferring an historical faith but also a saving 2. The maâ—or is not true universally taken All that which the Jews to this time want is that from which they fell For they want their Temple sacâ—ifiâ—es Priesthood c. and yet they fell not from them Third the argument is thus retorted That which the Jewes to this time want is that from which they fell let Mr. Bl. take that into consideraâ—ion But to this day they want even a saving faith Ergo they fell from a saving faith Such ill hap hath Mr. Bls. arguing yet as one whose fingers did itch to bee dealing with mee hee scribbles further Whereas I alledged Ephes. 2.12 to prove the unbelief of the Gentiles in times past mentioned Rom 11.30 was not onely a privation of historical but also of saving faith Mr. Bl. puts these frivolous questions to mee Were they not without a dogmatical â—aith Were they not aliens and strangers so much as from the Commonwealth of Israel To which I answer they were and ask him Whether they were not without a saving faith And if so the shewing mercy is opposed to the noâ— giving a saving faith and Mr. Bls. position most absurd that the faith here to wit Rom 11.20 where alone the word faith is used in that Chapter is historical and not saving Mr. Bl. adds And though in some sense every regenerate professing Christian is without CHRIST without God without hope respective to saving fruition and acceptable communion with him yet that text is manifestly abused when it is applied to any of Christian profession The whole must be carried on in a due application of it Gentiles in the flesh aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel Answ. Though I finde no emendation of it in Mr. Bls. Table of Errata yet I do conceive regenerate is printed for unregenerate otherwise the speech were more grosly false then I shall imagine Mr. Bl. would thus deliver And it beeing so I conceive no abuse of it to have applied it to meer visible professors of Christianity among the Gentiles if the words were added to it which Mr. Bl. would have joyned For they were Gentiles in the flesh aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel without Christ without God without hope Nevertheless I know not what this makes to infringe my inference from Ephes. 2.12 to prove the unbelief Rom. 11.30 to have been a privation of saving faith Master Bl. denies not this sense of the words that the Ephesians in their infidelity were without Christ without God without hope respective to saving fruition and acceptable communion with him and sure they that were thus were without saving faith except Mr. Bl. imagine they had a saving faith who had not so much as an historical Nor is it denied the same state to bee described Rom. 11.30 which is described Ephes. 2.12 and therefore my inference stands notwithstanding this passage of Mr. Bl. He further saith And for his observation that it occasioned the Apostles exclamation O altitudo O the depth c. v. 33. Sure the goodness of God bringing the Gentiles who were dogs Matth. 15.26 unto the glory of children and the severity of God in casting out the children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.12 might well occasion this exclamation in the Apostle as he had called to behold the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards the Gentiles goodness He might well cry out upon the greatest turne of providence that ever the world saw which in ages past had beene hid and the Angels desired to looke into O the depth c. Answ. True but was this goodness or severity in respect of a meer visible Churchstate or was it not also in respect of their state in the invisible Church Sure the thing had not been so admirable if it had not been in respect of the later as well as the former and Writers and Preachers usually apply it to silence the objection against absolute election and reprobation concerning their everlasting state as if it imported unmercifulness and injustice incompetent to God and it seems so like the passage Rom. 9.19 20 21 22 23 24. that me thinks if Mr. Bl. did compare them he should judge both places meant of the same thing and which iâ— an irrefragable argument it is clear Rom. 11.33 hath reference to what he said before v. 11 12. which is manifestly meant of their estate of salvation and reprobation and therefore must be so meant v. 33. What Mr. Bl. adds concerning my speech about Mr. G. and the Assembly is through mistake as if I had censured Mr. G. as like Plautus his miles gloriosus in his disposition whereas I censured him onely in respect of those words there used which was right however in other things he were without gall from which nevertheless that in his writings against me he was not altogether free is shewed in my Apology sect 6. And for Mr. Bls. conceit that where one degree of boasting is ascribed to Mr. G. one hundred will be ascribed to me by them that read our writings it is not unlikely if they see through Mr. Bls. spectacles which make things seem black that are white and make small â—illocks seem hills But I find cause to make it part of my Letany From the unrighteous and hard censures of Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and others of my Antagonists good Lord deliver me What I said of the Assembly shewed no more boldness then was meer It is too apparent by the dealing with Mr. Coleman my selfe and others that the stream of voices in the Assembly went to establish all after the Scottish mode without a through examination of what was alledged to the contrary except what was objected were backed by a very considerable party in Parliament or Army or City of London It is no more boldness in me to assault such an Assembly then it was in a particular dissenting brother My weapons I assâ—ult them with are such as the Holy Scriptures yeeld and my interpretations such as my adversaries themselves give and my arguments and answers are the very same which they use in
may be said oâ— Mr. Bl. answering me afore he had studied my writings he hath said enough to shew his folly and to work his shame My candour p. 23. is ordinary where there is the like cause I conceive the election of bodies societies or nations in the sense I have often given may bee as well into the invisible Church of true believers as into the visible Church of true professors and that the election of the Gentiles by which they were ingraffed was into the invisible Church of true believers Of Calvins and Bâ—cers words I shall say no more having not â—he books Mr. Bl. p. 314. adds Mr. G. syllogistically concluding that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy outward Church priviledges Mr. T. sect 4. replies that it is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved which is that the Christian Jews and their seed were in infancy to be baptised But by his favour he that concludes the whole concludes the parts of the whole Outward Church-priviledges is the whole baptism is a part of the whole concluding Church priviledges he concludes baptism as hee that can conclude Mr. T. is at Lempster or Sudbury concludes also that his head and shoulders are And if any priviledge bee concluded then baptism is concluded which is the leading one among Church-priviledges Answ. Omitting Mr. Bls. snarling at my dwellings in Lemster and Ledbury for so hee means I observe how well he pleads for Mr. G. who would have him conclude that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy in infancy outward Church-priviledges as a whole and consequently Baptism as a part Which if it were Mr. Gs. arguing hee should by the same reason have concluded their enjoying the Lords Supper and Church office Nor is the other plea much better For some priviledge may be concluded as laying on hands for a sign of prayer as Christ did and yet not baptism For though baptism be the leading priviledge after a person is brought to the faith yet afore a person is a believer if there be any leading Church-priviledg competent to infants it must be laying on of hands the Scripture giving no hint of any other The distinction I give in the first part of my Review sect 4. p. 28. is handsome being set down as it is by me there though Mr. Bl. carp at it for those priviledges which Mr. G. termes Gospel priviledges and I term so in answer to him as keeping his term I may say of them if they may be so called and not rather legal Mr. Bs. words the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Churchmembership and the repealing of the ordinance therfore where there is no breaking off from the Church there is no such revoking or repealing do justifie the title of the 6th sect of the first part of my Review That the breaking off Rom. 11.17 was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning infants visible Churchmembership as Mr. B. conceive which Mr. Bl. opposeth with me And his first reason the deserving cause of that breaking off is unbelief now unbelief is not in infants much less proper to infants serves to prove that the infants of unbelievers are not broken off for unbelief is not in them and that infants of believers are not graffed in For as the deserving cause of breaking off iâ— unbelief which is not in infants so the means of graffing in by the rule of opposites is faith which is not in infants And when in his 2d reason he saith this breaking off was of the general body of the Church of the Jews that is the major part Now infants were not the generality they made not up the major part of that body this serves to answer what Mr. Bl. before p. 307. and elsewhere would infer that if the Gentiles or the body of them be elect then all must be so whereas the body according to himself may stand for the major part or generality which he denies infants to be and therefore the body and genâ—rality may be ingraffed and not infants Mr. Bls. exceptions against my distinctions of breaking off because breaking off implied a former union are vain for there may be a breaking off from that union which they had not in their own persons specially when the breaking off is of a people nor is it usual to term thâ—se acts privations of habits which take not away habits that were but might have been as when we are said to be redeemed delivered from hell to be cast out into outer darkness Matth. 8.12 though never in heaven But were not this right but non-sense yet Mr. â—ls exceptions against the distinctions is frivolous For in those distinctions I do not set down the wayes of breaking off that were actually but such as are imaginable which is necessary when we go about to argue by a disjunctive syllogism as all Logicians know Yet what Mr. Bl. saith excommunication is not the breaking off meant Rom. 11.17 20. For that is the act of the Church on some particular member But this here is the act of God which is by taking away the Kingdome by removing their Candlestick departing with his presence is right if understood of the subtracting of the presence of his spirit as well as his word Which is to be conceived for the word was offered and preached to them when they were broken off and therefore they were not broken off barely by subtracting that Besides the ingraffing is not by bare outward ordinances for they were vouchsafed even to the broken off and consequently the fâ—tness of the Olive is not the bare priviledge of outward Ordinances And if it be not the Churches act but Gods by which there is ingraffing then infants are not ingraffed who have no act of God to ingraff them but onely that of the Church or administratour of Baptism Mr. Bls. talk of the Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership begun in the great Charter of heaven and continued is but vapouring Mr. Bl. mis recites Mr. Bs antecedent which was not as hee repeats it That the Jews were cast off for unbelief but that none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief which I denied and Mr. Bls. exceptions is frivolous But the text assignes unbelief Mr. T. assignes no other cause then that must stand To which I reply and so it doth by my answer and yet I do assign another cause Gods act of executing his decree of reprobation To what I said that the unbelief being positive Rom. 10.21 if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant no infants no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off he saith we easily yeild his conclusion if he frame it in a syllogism that the infants of infidels that never heard of Christ were never broken off They could never be broken off that were never taken in A branch of a bramble was never broken off
believing parent being a Churchmember notwithstanding the yokefellows unbelief their children were Churchmembers and so made no scruple of that nor did Paul or need he to resolve that scrupâ—e about their childrens condition Yea the very form of the Apostles reasoning else were your children unclean doth plainly import that they took the uncleanness of their children as an absurdity deprehended by them and the contrary out of doubt as when 1 Cor. 15.29 the Apostle saith Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not he supposeth they took it for an absurdity and the contrary out of doubt that they that are baptized for the dead do it in vain And though that the parents being divided they might fear that the issue would follow the worser part a slain would lie upon them yet that this stain should be in respect of their Churchstate could not be if they well knew as Mr. Bl. saith as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Churchstate their own state in the Church being manifest and certain That the case of the Corinthians and those Ezra 10.3 is not like is shewed in the first part of this Review sect 17 18. and will come into further consideration in that which follows What Mr. Bl. adds That the Apostle tels them that the unbelieving party doth not as they fear defile the issue but is sanctified as to issue by the believer is a meer fiction For the Apostle onely tels them they did not defile each other but were sanctified to each other by reason of their marriage state not the faith of one party And it is as false that by reason of the parents faith the Apostle tels them the child is not reckoned with the unbelieving parent who is a Gentile or that by unclean is meant a sinner of the Gentiles for the child of both parents Gentile believers is still a Gentile and if unclean be a sinner of the Gentiles by holy should be meant a Jew by nature which is a ridiculous conceit of Mr. Bls. as if the parent being a believer the child were a Jew by nature and not a sinner of the Gentiles What he adds that by believer in that place 1 Cor. 7.14 is meant a professor of the true faith is vain when the word believer is not used in that v. or any v. of that Chapter about that matter nor in that sense there If to be sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 be not to be set apart for God as Mr. Bl. determines then the term sanctified is not used in the common if not onely use of the word in Scripture and prophane writers and by him conceived here as Mr. B. asserts Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 29. p. 81. In answer to the 2d sect of the 39th ch of Mr. Bls. vindic faed I say first that I do not yeild that the Corinthians had any scruple at all about their issue 2. That my waving the examining of the occasion of the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 17.12 13 14. was not because of any strength I found in Mr. Bls. allegations but because I conceived neither of our opinions any other then a conjecture and therefore the thing not material nor in the framing my postscript had I time enough to do what I did after not out of a mind to quarrel but to shew the invalidity of Mr. Marshals 4â—h arg for his interpretation from his conceit of the occasion of the doubt to have been by reading the fact mentioned Ezr. 10.3 Mr. Bl. here endeavors to confirm his exceptions against my allegation of 1 Cor. 5.9 as the occasion of the doubt resolved 1 Cor. 7.12 Yet replies nothing to my answer to the two first but to the 3d. saith If their scruple was concerning conversing with their idolatrous yoke fellows upon occasion of those words not to keep them company they must needs scruple their conversing with covetous and extortioners husbands or wives upon the same account and the Apostle being silent in his answer it is clear they were silent in their letter and moving no scruple they had no scruple when it is impossible for them to scruple one upon those words and not scruple all Here is the wildest of fancies when hee names four evils respective to civil social converse they should startle at one respective to their marriage society and question no more To which I answer it is neither impossible nor very unlikely much less a wild fancy to imagine it of them that the Corinthians either did not scruple at using their covetous husbands from 1 Cor. 5.9 10. though they did their idolatrous if they did not heed the explanation after added v. 10. but onely the precept v. 9. and understood by fornicators idolaters which they might easily do or if they did heed the explanation yet did not conceive the like reason of relinquishing covetous yoke-fellowes as idolatrous which they might well do finding precepts against marriages with idolaters none against marriages with them that were onely covetous and not idolaters or they might not put the doubt of any other to the Apostle then the idolatrous because there were none that had covetous yokefellows who were not idolaters and they wovld put the case onely about that which was the chief cause of their scruple or because they could easily resolve themselves that coveteousness and extortion from men do not so defile or are so inconsistent with marriage society as idolatry and going a whoring from God or they might put the case about the covetous as well as the idolaters yet the Apostle resolve the one onely expresly because the resolving the one would resolve the other for which and for other reasons which might occur though not discernable now they well either startle at one onely or not seek for resolution of any more or if they did yet Paul resolve no more And this being understood the Apostle needs not write to them as Mr. Bl. imagines he must if my conjecture hold and he took in every part of their scruple though not what Mr. Bl. conceivs must be their scruple upon my conjecture And hereby Mr. Bls. replies of wonder of my thoughts of the Apostles need of resolving both scruples of the same evident ground of scruple concerning each as one are plainly answered without reply to his taunting quips The rest also is answered concerning B. Howson Bunney my Uncle Whately for it goes upon this supposition that if the Corinthians took occasion to doubt from 1 Cor. 5.9 then they must doubt whether they must live with fornicating yoke-fellows and the Apostle must resolve them that if any brother have a wife that is a fornicator let him not put her away which may not follow it by fornicators they understood onely idolaters and so doubted of them onely or chiefly doubted of them or resolving themselves otherwise propounded the doubt onely of them or the Apostle thought it needful onely to resolve concerning
be sinners by nature as those which are born of the heathen Answ What I said before I say still without any jeer or disregard to Mr. Cartwright that the conceit that 1 Cor. 7.14 and Gal. 2.15 are two full parallel Scriptures is but a dream there being neither agreement in scope matter words or sense between them Not in scope For 1 Cor. 7 12 13 14. the Apostles scope is â—o resolve a doubt about continuance of married persons in disparity of religion Gal. 2.15 his scope is to determine by what we are justified not in matter for the one speaks of the sanctifying of husband and wife to each other and the holiness or uncleanness of the children the other of Jews and Gentils acding to their different national state nor is there one word used Gal. 2.15 which is used 1 Cor 7.14 nor can the sense be agreeing For Jew by nature cannot be as much as holy 1 Cor. 7.14 because then the children of the Corinthians should bee Jews by nature which was impossible they being born of Gentile parents for such were the Corinthians 1 Cor. 12.2 Nor is Mr. Bls. sense Jew by nature that is holy by birth from believing parents any where else found in Scripture Nor doth Jew by nature intimate their Churchstate as if hee meant it thus we who are members of the visible Church or have this priviledge to bee in the Covenont of grace by nature in that wee are born of believing parents For they are said to bee Jews by nature by reason of their natural descent without any respect to the faith or unbelief of their parents even those whose parents were idolaters as Aâ—az Manasseh or any other of that line were Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles and the children of the most holy Proselites yet were not Jews by nature nor were they Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace they were Jews by nature without respect to the Covenant of grace for that was alwais to them who were believers whether Jewes or Gentils and the covenant whereby the Jews had priviledge was not the Covenant of Evangelical grace but the Covenant of peculiar national blessinigs but here the opposition to the Gentiles and the occasion shews Jews to bee taken as a term appropriate to natural Jews by natural descent from Jacob in contradiinstction to Gentiles from other roots If any ask who are meant by we and why here is mentioned Jews by nature and why they are opposed to the Gentiles and they termed sinners I answer the words seem plainly to be a part of Pauls speech to Peter and that by we are meant himself with Peter termed a Jew v. 14. and other believers of the Circumcision mentioned v. 12 13. and the sense is We though we are Jews by nature or even we who are Jews by natural birth and this mentioned because they had the Law peculiarly given them as Piscator in his Analysis Nos quantumvis Judaei sumus quibus nimirum lex peculiariter a Deo data est Or as the opposite term sinners of the Gentiles intimates knowers and keepers of the Law of Moses and therefore if any certainly much more then sinners of the Gentiles we should seek and expect to be justified by the Law yet if we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ and even we have believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law it is not equal that wee should as Peter did at Antioch dissemble our liberty in Christ compel the Gentiles to Judaize or keep the law for righteousness and so not walke uprightly or rightfoote it according to the truth of the Gospel Now the Gentiles are termed sinners in the sense in which in the ordinary acception among the Jewes it was taken for men that observed not the law opposed to the righteous Matth. 9.13 Luke 15.1 2 7 10. 18.9 13. and many more places And in this sense it is taken v. 17. we our selves also are sound sinners that is we our selves also are deprehended convinced or proved to be prophane breakers or despiseâ—s of the law which the Gentiles did and which I think is meant Ephes. 2.1 2 3. and that Paul doth not any more reckon himself with them Ephes. 2.3 then he doth with them that are alive at Christs comming opposite to them who are dead in Christ 1 Thes. 4.17 though he use the first person plural in both for I see not how that could stand with his speeches of himself Acts 23 1. Philip. 3.4 5 6. and therefore do conceive a conception or an enallage of person Ephes. 2.3 used often in speeches whereby a speaker takes that to himself which is proper to others whether to avoid distaste as if he upbraided them or to insinuate into their affections or for such like reason Out of all which I infer 1. That Jews by nature is not put Gal. 2.15 to intimate a birth-priviledge of the children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles concerning their Ecclesiastical state even in infancy as visible Churchmembers but it is put to note either the advantage peculiar to the Jewish nation in that the law of Moses was given to them or rather the greater likelihood and meetness or congruity to seek or claim righteousness by the law then the Gentiles 2. That he meant not they were Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace For that were clean opposite to his intention which was to shew that their estate of being Jews by nature did not confer to their justification which doubtless it would have done if it had been by the Covenant of grace but to intimate that the law was given to them or rather they studious of it and Zelots for it and therefore if any they should be justified by it as Paul in a like place Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 7 8 9. So that whatever advantage or precedency is intimated by it it is ascribed to the law and their observing of it not to the new Covenant of grace 3. The deteriority or worse condition of the Gentiles is ascribed to them not barely in respect of their birth from unbelievers and so agreeing to their infants much less as agreeing to infants of unbelieving Jews as well as Gentiles but in respect of their manners either onely or chiefly and so not competent to infants And therefore notwithstanding Mr. Bl. thought Gal. 2.15 a fit Text for his Sermon in which he asserted infants birth-priviledge of believing Gentiles though Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines crack in their Epistle before Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter that he hath truly stated the the question set it upon the right basis and well fortified it and Mr. Bl. hath produced somewhat from Mr. Cantwright to colour his parallelling 1 Cor. 7.14 with Gal. 2.15 yet I say still and have such a gift of impudence as to aver that both Mr.
proposition All the children of an unbeliever are unclean unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer For whether by uncleanness we understand non-admissibleness into the Church it is false for the children of unbelievers bought with money by Abraham though infants yet were in Mr. Bls. sense federally holy and me thinks Mr. Bl. who asserts against Mr. Firmin the baptizability of the infants of the generality of Enâ—lish though the parents be openly profane and hate godliness should not deny it however the case is clear in the Circumcision of professed infidels children bought with money Gen. 17.27 And for federal real holiness I suppose Mr. Bl. will not deny but that many of them as Rahab c. were in the Covenant of saving grace To the first of these Mr. Bl. 1. saith thus pag. 338. I pray leave generation out and see whether there can be any sense in it unless it be understood their sanctification will confer no legitimation without generation if I say not believer I must say husband or wiâ—e that is a believer Asw. If generation be left out and believer it may be good sense according to my interpretation An unbelieving husband may be sanctified to his wife that is may lawfully use her though she were an unbeliever as his wife and may continue to live with her and she with him though they never had or should have children else your children which you might beget should be unclean but this being put they are legitimate But according to Mr. Bls. interpretation it is not good sense in the case of the barren for she or he are not instrumentally sanctified for generation there being no generation there is no being an instrument for generation nor sanctification thereto And an instrument is an efficient and where there is no effect there is no efficient nor instrument And to be sanctified instrumentally must be as an instrument to a principal agent which in this thing cannot be any other then God now no instrument of God fails to produce its effect therefore without actual generation no wife can bee said to bee instrumentally sanctified for generation And for the leaving out the term believer it is good sense as I expound it without it and if the Apostle had not conceived it good sense without it hee would not as hee did have left it out But I confess it is not good sense according to Mr. Bls. interpretation who saith though falsely p. 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party as to the holiness of the issue twice over I confess their sanctification would confer no legitimation actual without actual generation yet their might bee legitimation of issue which is enough to shew the consequence to bee good and for the Apostles purpose without actual generation the legitimatiâ—n being onely upon supposition as it is usual in such arguments and so the generatiâ—n onely supposed Doubtless the Apostle resolved the Corinthians of the lawful living together of the barren as well as they that had or should beget which wilâ— not agree with Mr. Bls. exposition of instrumental sanctification for that is not true but of actual generation past or future as I have proved But Mr. Bl. adds the Apostles major is of an unbelieving huusband and a believing wife and I make the propoâ—â—tion universal according to the capacity of the subject of all believing wives joyned to unbelieving husbands not with Mr. T. of all husbands and wives And this is the Apostles included proposition which must bee the basis of so many inferences and refutations when yet all mens Logick except what Mr. T. hath learnt will utterly disclaim it Answ. That the Apostles major is not of an unbelieving husband and a believing wife is manifest by the words in which the term believing is in both speeches left out And sure if the Apostle would have ascribed any thing to the believer as such hee could as easily have put it in as the term unbeliever or the terms brother or sister used v. 12 15. And though I deny not that the wife or huusband opposite to the infidel yoke-fellow were believers yet I have lâ—arned so much Logick and Divinity that what attributes do agree materially do not alwayes agree formally in each speech as though Ishmael was the son of Abraham yet what is said of him Gal. 4 13 24 25 29 30 3â— is said of him nâ—t as Abrahams sonne but as Hagars And so it is here though the husband or wife were a believer yet they are not there considâ—red as believers nor the things there spoken of them ascribed to them under that consideration but under the consideration of husband and wife and if any disclaim this Logick he will disclaim such Logick as the holy Scripture useth in these and other places I alledged in my Examen part 3. sect 8. p. 78. the words of Chamier tom 4. paustr. cath l. 5. c. 10. § 67. against Augustines interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 oâ— a ceremonial holiness as apposite to refute his own of federal For saith hee that interpretation is ridiculous if these propositions bee not true that all born of those â—arents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are begotten in the time of the womans monethly courses Infidel husbands never use their wives but at such time for so the Apostle is made to speak by Augustines interpretation Now the self same I shewed to follow on his own interpretation the words being changed which should bee changed in such a retorsion For then according to it the Apostle should say All the children born of those parents of whom one is not sanâ—tified in the other are out of the Covenant of grace infidel parents never beget of their wives children within the Covenant of grace Both which are false and consequently the interpretation of Chamier whence it is apparent that Chamier made these prâ—positions in the Apostles arguing to be included Those children whereof one parent is not sancâ—ified in the other are unclean none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are holy I said also in my Antidote pag. 16. that Mr. Bl. confessed these propositions included in the Apostles consequence Against this Mr. Bl. thus riseth up What can I iâ—agine but that Mr. T. knowingly fastens this gross untruth upon mee Seeing he so we I knowes that I both deny it and have argued against it having made such defence â—s he could in his Apology of it yâ—t now in his Antidote says I confess it I am overmuch honoured to be named if I may say so the day that Chamier is mentioned but as much wronged to have such a Monster of absurdities as is contained in that proposition obtruded upon mee my thoughts are over-high of Chamier to believe any such weakness in him when Mr. T. shewes it in him having yet given his Reader no account where it may bee found I shall subscribe to that Proverb Nullum
magnum ingenium sine aliqua mixtura dementiae Answ. Chamiers words in the place cited making the Apostles arguing with Augustines exposition to include the two propositions before named do plainly shew that in his Logick the Apostle asserted these propositions All the children whereof one parent is not sanctified in the other are unclean none of them are holy and Mr. Bl. in his answer to my Letter ch 7. sect 2. pag. 36. to my fourth argument against instrumental sanctification thus made in this form of reasoning this proposition is included Their children could not bee holy without that sanctification which could not bee true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness replies never denâ—ing the proposition to bee included but avers iâ— true of instrumental sanctification and federal holiness yea most true necessarily and universally true Now hee that saith without that sanctification of one parent in the other the children could not be holy saith none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified to the other are holy to which is equipollent all the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are unclean And thus it is shewed Mr. Bl. where hee and Chamier confessed those propositions to bee included which indeed have no monster of absurdities in them but are the genuine medium of the Apostles argument and Chamier without any mixture of madness did acutely discern to be included in the Apostles reasoning though hee heeded not how this very observation overthrowes his own interpretation as well as Augustines The rest of this section not answered about the reason I gave why the proposition included in the Apostles sequel is to be conceived without the terms of believer and unbeliever inserted by Mr. Bl. and the illustration of it I shall make no further reply to here but refer the Reader to what is so largely spoken in vindication of my self in the first part of this Review sect 21. pag. 170. sect 36. pag. 249 250. I proceed to examine Mr. Bls. fifth Sect. of the 29th Chapter although there are some things in the sixth Section which perhaps might bee more fitly answered first Mr. Bl. Sect. 5. having said that I alledge that the Apostles in this text brings a formal argument to prove the marriage society of these yoke-fellowes lawful which in the two former verses hee had determined hee then adds And it cannot be denied but the words at the first sight seem to carry some colour to understand them so far in Mr. T. his sense as to make them formal concluding reasons of his former determination having said v. 12 13. then hee adds v. 14. But the way of inference will as well bear it that the Apostle doth first determine in the controversie by revelation as Mr. T. will have it as an Apostle then takes off their scruples which oâ—casioned their fears both respective to their posterity and themselves Mr. T. indeed challenges this way of interpretation to make the Apostle immethodical but what better method then to determine a point and then answer reasons against it The Apostle meeting with their fears in respect of their posterity and themselves it must needs bee that they signified them and hee answers them The Apostles method it is true and manner of inference indifferently favours either interpretation But the words themselvs clearly evince that they are a removal of scruples against their marriage society and not a formal concluding argument against it Answ. It is true it is a bottome I build much on 1. That the Apostle brings the media or middle terms of two Syllogisms or formal arguments v. 14. to prove the lawfulness of the continuance in marriage society of the believing yoke-fellow with the unbeliever determined by him v. 12 13. and that they are not as v. 16. a Rhetorical argument onely to move the affeâ—â—ions to embrace what before their judgements were setled in but a Logical proof of the resolution by setting down the medium out of which a syllogism is to be framed to infer the conclusion 2. That the Apostle doth not at all resolâ—e any doubt about their posterity but takes the state of their posterity as out of doubt with them and thence infers that which was doubtful to them concerning their own marriage state Now Mr. Bl denies not the words at first sight seem to carry some calour to understand them so far in my sense as to make them formal concluding reasons of the Apostles former determination and confesseth the Apoâ—â—les method and manner of inference indifferently favours either interpretation Bâ—t that the words are to bee analysed and conceived onely in â—he form I have resolved them I prove first by the particles for else but now all these particles are argumentative For in many places as Rom. 3.20 4.15 c. 1 Corinth 7.9 31 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated else or otherwise or for then are argumentative as 1 Cor. 5.10 15.15 29. Rom. 11.6 in which places it notes an absurdity consequent if the antecedent bee not granted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now is used also frequently as an argumentative particle as 1 Corinth 12.18 20. Rom. 3.21 Heb. 8.6 9.26 there are both these used as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 1 Corinth 15.20 And accordingly Pasor in his Lexicon on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diciâ—ur etiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 15.20 interdum servit assumptioni syllogismi 1 Cor â— v. 14 15. v. 20. Mr. Cobbet Just. vindic pâ—rt 1. chap. 1. sect 1. Where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in argumentation as 1 Cor. 5.10 and the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in like sort used 1 Cor. 12.18 20. So Rom. 3 2â— Heb 8.6 9.26 11.16 Do declare that that sentence in the laâ—ter part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is annexed in way of argumentation to the proposition immediately before Beza annot ad 1 Cor. 7.14 particula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc in loco non est temporis adverbium sed est conjunctio quae adhiberi solet in argumentorum assumptionibus 2. This is proved from the maâ—teer iâ— is agreed on that the Apostle determines the doubt of he Corinthians v. 12 13. and it is apparent that the first part of v. 14. is a reason of his determination Let us consider the detâ—rmination v. 12 13. let him not put her away let her not leave him Now this determination may be understood either as a plain prohibition forbiâ—ding the believer to put away or leave the unbeliâ—ving yoke-fellow at all being contented to dwell with the believer But this sense seems not to me to be the Apostles intent 1. Because it might then be a hard yoke that a believer must not put away his wife which will dwell with him though she play the harlot or it may be understood as a determination of their liberty Let him not put her away
sanctified in or to or by the wife 2. The children in such a state are holy as if they had been both believers Answ. The scope of the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.12 13 14. can be no other then the resolving of the doubt in the Corinthians which Mr. Sydenham truly saith he answered v. 12 13. and then gives v. 14. an argument to prove it Now therein is no speeial Gospel priviledge held forth For 1. if any priviledge be there assigned it is to the unbeliever remaining an unbeliever for he is said to be sanctified But sure an unbeliever remaining an unbeliever hath no special Gospel priviledge Ergo. 2. The unbeliever is put there not to shew any meliority of condition to himself but to take away the doubt which was concerning him as defiling their society So that the meaning is not the unbeliever is a gainer by his wife but the unbeliever brings no damage to her in respect of the thing in doubt concerning the lawfulness of continuing together in marriage use by his unbelief there is no advantage mentioned to either of them but a determination that there is not that disadvantage from the one as necessitated to leave the other Nor is there any thing that carries the shew of an argument a majori The Apostle doth noâ— say they have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel therefore much more may live together Yea such an argument had been far from being strong there being no arguments usually weaker then such if any disparity may be shewed they are quickly enervated And in this thing the proposition would have been false upon which such an argument must turn as its hinge to wit They that have an eminent advantage together in the Gospel may much the rather live together For 1. it would have been from that which is meerly extrinsecal and accidental to marriage society Gospel priviledges neither establishing nor dissolving marriage society which is lawfull as well among them who have no Gospel priviledge as those that have 2. The proposition were false for then if the unbelieving whore have Gospel advantage as I conceive Mr. S. will not deny any more then other Paedobaptists do by the believing fornicator they may live together so that if the fornicator being a believer beget a holy child on an unbelieving whore or what ever other Gospel priviledge it is the unbeliever hath by the believer imagine to cast out Devils in Christs name though she be not joyned to the Church to prophesie in Christs name or to do wonders by this Gospel priviledge they are allowed to live together in fornication Which are monstrous absurdities following Mr. Ss. conceit But he tels us That the Apostle holds out a Gospel priviledge not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state is clear 1. Soâ—eza â—eza affirms that in two special Copies he finds the words thus read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither can it hold sense with the former words but as thus read And if it had not been the Apostles proper meaning to shew the special priviledge the believing party hath notwithstanding the unbeliever he would have â—nely said the husband is sanctified to the wife and the wife to the husband that would have been the plainest and least ambiguous expression of such a sentence And the Apostâ—e would never have made an argument of four terms when three could onely satisfie for all know that an argument with four terms is most deceitfull and false Answ. 1 The reason hath no strength in it the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side Ergo the Apostle holds out a Gospel priviledge not common to meer unbelievers in their marriage state For there may be exprâ—ssed an advantage on the believers side as suppose her liberty her quiet of conscience c. and yet the thing from whence it is inferred no Gospel priviledge but a thing common to unbelievers as in case a bâ—liever doubt of the lawfull eating of an infidels meat offered to an Idol and iâ— be resolved as the Apostle doth 1 Cor. 10.25 26 27. from the right God hath to all creatures here is the advantage on the believers side the quiet of his conscience and yet no Gospel priviledge held forth but such as is common to unbelievers the lawfull eating of what was sold in the shambleâ— 2. Mr. Ss. antecedent that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side and there fixeth it is contrary to what he said before that the argument is from an eminent advantaâ—e they had together in the Gospel for if they had the eminent advantage together it was no morâ— put or fixed on the believers side then on the unbelievers 3. It is so far from being true that the Apostle puts the advantage on the believers side that it is true rather on the contrary if any advantage be exprest it is put on the unbelievers side for the unbeliever is said to be sanctified not the believer 4. It is not true that the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband as believing and that which Mr. Sydenham alledgeth to prove it is of no force For the reading in two Copies is not sufficient to countervail the multitude of Copies which have it otherwise it being more likely that the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made by some Scribe then by the Apostle at first who v. 13. used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without it And for the sense it holds â—s good sense without it as it did v. 13. The unbeliever is mentioned not to shew a special priviledge to the believer but because the occasion of the doubt was from his infidelity and therefore that could not be omitted without omitting that in which was the force of the objection which could not be distinctly satisfied without mentioning it and by putting it in there are not four terms as unskilfully Mr. S. intimates but by omitting it there come to be four terms the conclusion to be proved being this The wife may live with her unbelieving husband and the premises these That wife may live with her husband who is sanctified to her But so is the unbelieving husband to his wife Ergo. But of this the Reader may see more at large the first part of this Review sect 14. 2. Saith Mr. S. The Apostle doth use higher terms and phrases in this argument then is ever used in Scripture to express a meer lawfull or common priviledge as to be sanctified in the wife and the children to be holy expressions of another dialect then to hold forth a civil or natural or legal conjunction being singled out in Scripture to hold forth the best state of persons in relation to God and his use Answ. 1. Were all this true as it is not yet Mr. Ss. conclusion is not proved thereby For though the terms should never express a meer lawfull or common priviledge a civil or natural or legal conjunction and that they are singled â—ut in
Scripture to hold forth the bâ—st staâ—â— of persons in relation to God and his use yet it follows not the Apostle holds out by them a Gospel priviledge sith they may hold out a Jewish priviledge which is not a Gospel but râ—ther a legal priviledge as the term holy seed doth Ezra 9.2 2. Hâ—w fiâ—ly these terms sute to the exposition I give without holding forth a Gospel priviledge may be seen in my Examen part 3. sect 8. in the first part of tâ—is Review sect 12 13 24 25 26. Mr. S. adds 1. That the term unclean notes the same it doth Acts 10.14 where Cornelius being a Gentile without the pale of the Jewish Church is called common and unclean as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise he was no bastard he was without the Church just in the same phrase with the Apostle here when he saith that children are not unclean he must needs mean they are not of common use or to be excluded from outward priviledges of the Church 2. That unclean is used for legal pollutions and uncleannesses which made men to be separated from the Congregation and excommunicâ—ted from the priviledge of ordinances untill they were washed and sanctified Thus in Levit 5.2 3 4. ch 7.19 14.7 8. Isa. â—2 1 Hag 2.13 with many other places where unclean is opposed to a present suitable capacity for Church priviledges Answ. 1 In all those places Levit. 5.2 3 4 7.19 14.7 8. Hag. 2.13 Isa. 52.1 the uncleanness is not opposed to a Gospâ—l priviledge but a legal or Jewish nor were the unclean out of the Covenant or the people of God even when they were unclean and therefore if â— Cor. 7.14 he should tell them their children were not unclean in that sense he should not tell them of a Gospel priviledge but a Judaical Legal Mosaical priviledge which had been both false for they were uncircumcised Gentiles and therefore were unclean in that sense and vain to tell them of that as a priviledge which was no priviledge but which hee counts nothing of 1 Cor. 7.19 2. Cornelius is not termed unclean as wanting a Gospel priviledge he was in Covenant with God and accepted with him and in the visible Church sith Actsâ—0 â—0 2 But he is termed unclean as one not meeâ— by reason of his uncircumcision for a Jew to go into or eat with Acts 11 3. and therefore if the Apostle should 1 Cor. 7.14 mean it just in the same sense with Acts 10.14 he should tell them their children wâ—re not unclean that is were persons with whom they might eaâ— and converse which understood of infants were ridiculous â—f meant in the â—ense God tearmed Cornelius clean then it is as unfitly applâ—ed to infants who are not clean as Cornelius in that fearing God and working righteousness he waâ— accepted with him Acts. 10.34 35. which is more thâ—n an ouâ—waâ—d Church priviledge and a 〈◊〉 thing then Mr. S. and his â—ellow Paedobaptist conceive the Apostle meant 1 Cor. 7.14 That which Mr. S. brings of the use of the word holy that it exâ—resseth the Hebâ—ew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it ever signifâ—es that which is appropriated to a Divine use and that it is the 〈◊〉 notion of holiness in the Old and New Testament and never taken otherwise and that for proof of it he hath compared aâ—ove â—00 places in the Old â—estaâ—ent â—ccording to the Septuagint and all the N. T. places where the word is generâ—lly taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God how false or insufficient it is to his purpose is so aâ—ply shewed in the first part of 〈◊〉 Review sect 12 â—3 22 23 24 25 26. that I conceivâ—◠〈…〉 this time to add any more In which placeâ— it may be seen what I grant concerning the word generally taken and 〈…〉 more places thâ—n 1 Tim. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. for another use then Mr. S. asserts to bee the proper notion of holy in the Old and N. T. that it notes that which is appropriated to Divine use and is never taken otherwise to shew it to bee taken otherwise as 1 Sam. 21.5 Isai. 13.3 Ezra 9.2 c. But let 's view what hee saith to my allegation of 1 Tim. 4.5 1 Thes. 4.3 4 7. for a different use from his sense From 1 Tim. 4.5 saith Mr. T. is meant onely the lawful use of the creature in opposition to what is to be refused It is a wonder but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth how any man of common understanding finding the word holy and sanctified alwayes used in a religious sense should flye to this place to make an exception Answ. I have so far as I thought needful looked into my former writings and do not finde any place where I say as Mr. S. here saith I do what I yeelded at the Dispute at Bewdley and for what reason is shewed in the first part of this Review sect 27. p. 203. and if Mr. S. took from Mr. B. this which he here so unbrotherly chargeth me with hee might have there found an answer which should have been taken notice oâ— if my answer printed 1652. came to his knowledge afore the publishing his Exercit. 1653. But I never could finde in my Antagonists Mr. B. M. â—l c. any such candor as to construe any thing that came from me since this controversie arose between us in the better part but I think I may say almost in every thing I have done or said that thâ—y mention they pervert my words and deeds and aggravate them in the worser sense when they might have had a good or at least excusable construction As for this thing which Mr. S. here makes an instance of Gods leaving me to blindness when I left truth the true state of it is thus I had said in my Examen part 3. sect 8. p. 73 74 That this may be the sense I gather from the like use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used 1 Tim. 4.5 where the creature of God is said to be sanctified that is lawfully used in opposition to that which is to be refused so here the unbelieving husband is sanctified that is lawfully enjoyed as a husband by or to or in respect of his wife whether believer or unbeliever in this case there is no difference and alledged some words of Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 24. to the same purpose Which when Mr. M. in his Defence p. 155. framed an argument from against me I shewed him his mistake in the first part of this Review sect 13. p. 115. denying the sanctification 1 Cor. 7.14 to bee such a sanctification as that place 1 Tim. 4.5 means but onely make them like thus far that as 1 Tim. 4.5 it signifies lawfully enjoyed so here though in a different manner and from a different reason or cause And for the concession in the Dispute at Bewdley my yeilding Mr. Bs.
not being circumcised had not been a breach of the Covenant nor could the Lord have said this is my Covenant that the manchild be circumcised if the application of that ordinance to the child had not in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant Answ. There are these things to be proved 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17. 2. That Circumcision was a seal of this promise of God of making believers blessings to families and nations in order to the multiplying the seed and encrease of the Kingdome of Christ. 3. That the application of this seal to infants is part of the seal 4. That thereby was signified and confirmed that promise of such blessing But the proof is of other things 1. that the application of Circumcision to the infant is part of the token of the Covenant 2. The application of that ordinance to the child had in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant For neither is it all one to bee a token and to bee a seal of the Covenant there being other tokens then seals and signe and token being the same though distinguished Rom. 4.11 they are unfitly confounded by Mr. C. nor is it all one to signifie something in the Covenant and to signifie this thing in the Covenant that God would make believers blessings in Mr. Cs. sense Not doth either of Mr. Cs. middle terms prove either of his conclusions For the childs not being circumcised had been a breach of the Covenant as being a breach of the command of God enjoyned then though circumcising the child had been no part of the token of the Covenant and the Lord might have said this is my Covenant that the man child bee circumcised that is this is my command in my Covenant if the application of that ordinance to the child had not in it a signification and confirmation of something in the Covenant But allowing that Circumcision is called the Covenant by a metonimy of the thing signified for the signe and that it signified something in the Covenant beeing applied to infants yet not one of Mr. Carters propositions is proved thereby For 1. it may be a signe and not a seal 2. It might be a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. yet not of that promise Gen. 22.18 which is in another Covenant not in that Gen. 17. 3. If it were a seal of that promise Gen. 22.18 yet not in Mr. Cs. new devised sense 4. â—o omit the ineptness or non sense of the speech the application of this seal to infants is part of the seal For what doth hee mean by the application of this seal to infants but onely Circumcision and hee before called Circumcision the seal which hee meant so that his speech can have no other construction then this Circumcision of infants is part of Circumcision which is inept or non-sense I say further that the speech is not true For if it bee a part it is either essential or integral I know no other sort of parts it can bee meant of But it it is not a part essential for then without application to infants there should bee no seal and so a Proselyte had not the seal though hee were Circumcised unless hee had an infant manchild and hee circumcised nor integral for the Circumcision of a Proselyte was entire Circumcision or seal as they speak without his manchilds Circumcision Thence also saith Mr. C. is that in Acts 7.8 that is he did it according to that Covenant of Circumcision so as the application of the seal to the infant was part of the Covenant to bee performed on the part of Abraham and his seed in their generations even by his spiritual seed to a thousand generations in that which is the same for substance and equivalent to circumcision as we shall see anon Answ. That God gave Abraham the Covenant of Circumcision and so or accordingly or he according to the Copies that have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begate Isaac and circumcised him the eighth day is not denied nor that he did this according to the Covenant of Circumcision that is according to the command of God concerning Circumcision as a signe of his Covenant Gen. 17. in which sense it is granted that the applicaâ—ion of the seal meaning circumcision to the male infant was part of the Covenant to be performed on the part of Abraham and his seed in their generations but this proves not what Mr. C. undertook to prove that it was part of the seal or part of the token of the Covenant it beeing not all one to bee part of the Covenant and part of the seal or token of the Covenant unless Mr. C. confounds them as he seems to do nor is there any word of God for application of any seal to the infant but Circumcision the text is express for Circumcision this is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man child shall bee circumcised which can bee understood of no other then Circumcision without making God to speak non-sense and making God command a thing in words which they signifie not and making God to command a thing indefinite and indeterminate which no wise Law-giver doth and making a pronoun demonstrative to import not the definite thing expressed but some other individuum vagum of which it is uncertain what it is contrary to the very exposition of the Holy Ghost Gen. 17.23 where it is expresly said that Abrahams Circumcising was as God had said unto him contrary to what Abraham and all interpreters Jewish and Christian that I have ever met with afore Mr. C. have conceived and which iâ— it be granted it will follow that if the male child of Abrahams posterity had not been circumcised but had another seal of the Covenant applied to it the Covenant or Command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12. had not been broken Moses had kept the command if he had baptised his son though he did not circumcise him These and many more absurdiâ—ies follow on that portentous opinion which I guessed long since by some words of Mr. Cawdrey and Palmer in the first part of theiâ— Sabb. Rediv ch 2. § 32. to have been hatching to maintain the Judaizing conceit of infant Baptism from infant Circumcision that they might not seem therein to run on the rock of holding the Law of Circumcision yet in force yet might have some colour for a command of infant Baptism Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. where infant Circumcision is commanded and nothing else but I found it not so expresly vented by any afore Mr. C. Now what saith he for it â— That this part of the Covenant was to be performed by Abrahams spiritual seed But hee doth not prove that it was to bee performed by Abrahams spiritual seed of the Gentiles after Christs comming Hee urgeth the words of the Psalmist Psalm 105.8 Hee hath
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
against him for me For if that which is ascribed to the whole people belongeth by a synecdoche to a part even those who are or shall be converted then what is said either Gen 12.2 3. or 22.17 18. or Rom. 11.16 17 24. of families nations branches lump may be understood synecdochically of a part of families nations or people and those believers as Paul Gal. 3.8 9. determines as converts as Mr. C. and so not children of believers much less infants necessarily included in the families nations branches ingraffed lump that is holy and consequently all Mr. Cs. arguing made void by his own concession which hitherto he hath framed from Abrahams Covenant to prove infant Baptism And what he argues That the lump which is termed holy Rom. 11.16 and the whole people termed beloved v. 28. is to bee understood of the better part and of those that were then unborn and of such a lump as should have a being successively and part after part and so cannot bee actually holy then when the Apostle spake it doth all exactly agree with my explication of the ingraffing of the branches in my Apol. sect 14. in the first part of this Review sect 1 2 c. And doth well serve to answer the arguments for the ingraffing parent and child into the visible Church christian against the sense I give for the ingraffing into the invisible Church by giving of faith according to election Nor did I ever say the Apostles meaning Rom. 11.16 was that thâ—se particular persons of the Jews who persâ—st â—n unbelief or that the whole people of the Jews are now in the times of the New Testament holy in any sense whatever but grant they are broken off from the holy root vers 20. are castâ—away vers 15. are enemies and so unclean and prophane and therefore not holy v. 28. yet this meant but of some v. 17. a part v. 25. and all these things do well accord together and with the perseverance of Saints asserted against Arminians sith the people of the Jews are not by me asserted to be broken off from the invisible Church of elect and true believers in respect of what particular persons broken off were in their own persons but in respect of what the particular persons were in a former age of the same nation or people Mr. C. p 109. imagines that Christ saith of little children is the Kingdome of God because of his sained additional promise but he brings not a word to prove it nor doth the Text yeeld any proof that they were believers children and I have proved the Kingdome of God is meant of that of glory Review par 2. sect 18. And for his conceit that Christ bid suffer them to come to him because of the additional promise of Mr. C. it is without proof and not agreeable to Mr. Cs. own conceiâ— For if Christ would intimate that this is part of the Gospel of the Kingdome that believers should be blessings to their children namely so as they should be means of their conversion he should rather have directed the Apostles to suffer them to be brought to their parents to be educâ—ted then to himself to lay hands on them And Christs anger against his Disciples argues no such intimation nor his saying that of them is the Kingdome of God proves their right to Baptism as doth the receiving the Holy Ghost Act. 10.47 For that shewed Cornelius actually a believer so did not Christs speech of the little children which expressed not their present but future estate as is proved Review par 2. sect 19. Nor is there a word brought by Mr. C. to prove that Christs command was given to his Disciples for a perpetual obligation to the Disciples of Christ in all ages then to come to bring infants to Christ in an external way and therefore by Baptism For though it were recorded after his ascension yet it follows not it was recorded to learn this to have a way of bringing infants to Christ by Baptism there being something else to be learned by it and it is rather a sure proof that Christ did not teach that by his command sith neither then nor after do we find the Apostles did baptize an infant and the phrase of comming to him cannot import Baptism sith he did not baptize Joh. 4.1 2. and if any standing rule were intended by Christs command it should be rather laying on hands and praying for infants then baptizing them Though it be granted that to whom Christ is a King he is also a Prophet yet it follows not that infants being such as of whom is Christs Kingdome they are his Disciples as meant Mat. 28.19 much less that they are made Disciples when their parents are converted because they are then in the way of the Spirits teaching Christ being a Prophet to other then Disciples meant Mat. 28.19 Nor is there the least hint Act. 15.10 of infants being Disciples and the notion of Disciples by the parents conversion or by being in the way of the spirits teaching which yet is not shewed but fancied by Mr. C. are meer devised whimzies refuted by me Review par 2. sect 10 11 12 13 14 15. Nor is any sufficient answer given hereby or by Mr. C. elsewhere or any other or ever will be to the argument as brought by me against infant baptism Review par 2. sect 5. and elsewhere What Mr. C. saith That more might be said about those words in answer to it namely that in the words Baptizing them Mat. 28.19 we have by a synecdoche a part for the whole an usual form of speech in the Scripture for we know the Apostles commission did extend as well to a setting up of other Ordinances as of Baptism Therefore when he saith Go teach all nations baptizing them it is as if he had said Go teach them and enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel of which among other things the application of the token of Abrahams Covenant to infants may be a part any thing in that place contained notwithstanding Answ. 1. Such a synecdoche in any institution of a rite is no where to be found as this which Mr. C. dreams of baptizing them into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit that is enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel not onely Baptism but also breaking of bread c. 2. We know the Apostles commission did extend as well to the setting up of other Ordinances viz. breaking of Bread 1 Cor. 11.23 as of Baptism but not in the word baptizing Mat. 28 19. but in the word teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you v. 20. 3. There is this very thing which Mr. C. himself saith against baptizing infants it is as if he had said Go teach them and enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel For sure Christ did not bid them teach infants nor do I think Mr. C. would have them entred into
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.
take care that their children were circumcised that which he saith of the children begotten on prohibited women Ezra 9. and Timothy begotten on a Jewish woman by a Grecian husband that they were circumcised Act. 16.1 2 3. proves this that the children who were not of the Congregation of Israel and so no visible Churchmembers were to be circumcised nor had Covenant interest The case controverted 1 Cor. 7.14 was onely concerning the persons unequally yoked not concerning their children Acts 2.33 39. Is not a word to prove parents are to take care of the infants baptism nor Gen. 7.1 with 1 Pet. 3.21 there being not an infant in the Ark nor typical Baptism being a rule concerning formal Baptism of Christians if it were Masters must take care to baptize their house yea their married children though as prophane as Cham and their wives with them How impertinently 1 Cor. 10.2 is alledged is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 21. What Mr. C. observes out of Exod. 12.44 48 49. that a stranger was not to eate the Passeover except all his males were circumcised if it be right yet it makes nothing for proof of parents duty to see their infants baptized there being no such institution about Baptism and the Lords Supper as was about Circumcision and the Passeover It is granted that the words Exod. 12.40 Will keep the Passeover to the Lord are meant onely of an adult person yet it is true also which I say in my Examen part 4. sect 6. That males not come to years of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper were to eat the Passeover and consequently if Mr. Cs. dictates were of any of any validity parents should see they eate Lords Supper I grant That God made Abraham Gen. 17.7 a common person as well in reference to us inchurched Gentiles as to the inchurched Jewes and Proselytes in point of Evangelical covenant interest but that hee should be so made in point of ingagement from covenant interest unto the receiving of the initiatory seal by parents and children Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11. is but Mr. Cs. fancy sufficiently refuted by this that if it were true then we Gentiles are bound to circumcise our infants which is the onely initiatory seal there meant contrary to Acts 15.24 Gal. 5.1 2. That which is true of Abraham and his natural seed must be applied to Abrahams spiritual seed true Believers of the Gentiles and their natural seed is but Mr. Cs. vain dream dictated without proof My grant in my Examen part 3. sect 1. pag. 37. as the words shew was not that children might be baptized vertually in their parents in exact speech so as to receive it in their own persons but onely in that sense in which Mr. M. said women were circumcised vertually in the males yet so as they might not be circumcised in their own persons which being considered my words yeild Mr. C. no advantage To the 11th section I grant that Matth. 28.19 ties not the Baptizer to know the baptized to be internally and savingly interested in the covenant But that it sufficeth that that sort or species of infants scil such like infants are in deed and truth of Christs Kingdome I utterly deny For then any infant in the world might be baptized because he is of that sort or species of infants scil such like infants are in deed and truth of Christs Kingdome Dare any say of no unbelievers infants is Christs Kingdome However it is true of Belivers though not inchurched and yet Mr. C. denies the right of the child if the parent be not inchurched Mr. Cs. reason are vain neither is our Lord Christs saying Luk. 18.16 any rule to us about baptizing nor was the rule of circumcising infants that some of that sort had the internal saving interest and efficacy of this promise I will be the God of thy seed but the command of God without which it is better to exclude all infants then upon our own heads to bring on our selves the guilt of will-worship by taking them in Which must of necessity fall on infant Baptizers after Mr. Cs. rule For Christs appointment was to baptize infants no otherwise then persons of years There is no difference in the words Matth 28.19 between the reason of baptizing one and the other But persons of years were not to be baptized by Mr. Cs. rule in that they are of that sort or species of persons scil such like persons are in deed and in truth of Christs Kingdome but onely upon their own discipleship or profession of faith as the practise thoroughout the Acts of the Apostles shews Therefore neither are Believers children to bee baptized after any other rule And yet infants are no more left in the wide wilderness or any whit less folded up in the Church by their non-baptizing then they are by their baptism If they of N. E. do fold them up in the Church why do they keep them from Church-communion till they bee made members by Church-covenant If it be better 99 who happily have not so peculiar a title thereto be folded up in the Church then that one of such lambs be left out in the wide wilderness are not they guilty of too much strictness in leaving out of the Church in the wide wilderness many weak lambs who are weak in faith because they do not satisfie the Church in the declaration of their experiences But this is the guise of men who are strict in their own inventions as in Church-covenant declaration of experiences for admission to Church-communion c. to bee loose about Gods commands as this of baptizing disciples of Christ is Enough in answer to these cloudy dictates of Mr. C. SECT LXXXVI The 13th and 14th Chapters of Mr. Rutherfords first part of the Covenant are examined and found to make nothing for Infant Baptism AFter the finishing the most of this part of the Review my learned and godly brother Mr. John Skynner of Weston in Herefordshire who hath written a solid Treatise against Infant Baptism entituled Corruption corrected in answer to one Mr. Woodward acquainted me that Mr. Rutherford had written for infant Baptism in a Book of his of the Covenant of grace part 1. chap. 13 14 which having read I found as he foretold me no more strength then others had brought for it and it is written rather like a Sermon then a Scholastique Dispute and with so many unproved dictates such a number of obscure expressions many of which I cannot discern good sense in so that they have need rather of construction then resurâ—tion so many incoherencies and inconsequences as that I do not jhdge it worth while to answer him Yet because of the name of the man and my words sect 1. of the 2d part of this Review I shall add some animadversions on those two chapters Ch. 13. he tels us that 〈◊〉 are in Covenant with God externally by visible profession which I 〈◊〉 if meant of their own
I have oft shewed in Mr. M. Mr. B. and Mr. Bl. to let fall such passages especially in opening the institution Matth. 28.19 in opposing Papists Prelatists Antibaptists as overthrow their disputes for infant baptism and therefore they will not stand to them when they are urged against them but by some shift elude them It is false which Mr. Rutherford saith that this proposition Those to whom the promise of the Covenant does belong these should be baptized if universally understood is Peters Acts 2.38 39. or that this assumption The promise of the Covenant is to you and your children is the express words of Peter The offer of Christ in the preached Gospel is not the call meant Acts 2 3â— nor are all such as to whom the offer is made exterâ—ally in covenant and such to whom the Covenant is made and should be baptized though I grant if they give a professed consent to the call of the Gospel they are bapâ—izable Calvins words are no proof against those who yeild not what he saith of the Anabaptists of his time Mr Rutherfords words are too vain for a man of his name which say that believing children are not children but men of age My exposition of Acts 2.39 neither excludes sucking children nor is the inclusion proved by him from Matth. 2. â—8 1 Cor. 7.14 the sense Mr. Rutherford makes the onely sense of Acts 2.39 the promise and word of the Covenant is preached to you and your children in you is false for then it had been true that it was preached then to all afar off which is manifestly false and vain for it had been no comfort to them sith it might bee preached without their benefit nor is this to be externally in covenant except in Mr. Rutherfords gibberish both under the Old and New Testament In the Oâ—d persons were so by birth without preaching in the New they onely who profess faith The other sense Mr. Rutherford sets down is none of mine nor is it needful I should answer the objections against it and the terms the Lord hath internally covenanted with you I take to be non-sense no covenanting with us being an immanent but a transeunt act My sense is fully set down here Sect. 13 c. and proved I grant no more Covenant favour holden forth to their children Acts 2.39 then to the Pagans children except in priority of tender I make not external covenant holiness ceremonial holiness out of daâ—e nor can he cleer it or that by any thing I say the words Acts 2.39 must be in a contradictory way expounded to wit the promise is no more made to your children so long as they are infants then to Devils which seeing hee mentions Mr. Ms. words but a little before I have reason to conceive reflect on my self and if so they have too great a shew of Diabolism Right to hear the preached Gospel and a Covenant or Gospel warrant peculiar to believers children is such talk as I understand not I think hearing is a Duty obliging all Pagans have not onely warrant but also command to hear it it is not onely lawfull but necessary The children of the most holy Christian Gentile believers are not Christians till they believe and both they and their parents when they believe are still Heathens the term Heathens being all one with Gentiles contradistinct to Jews and so used here by Mr. Rutherford himself pag. 74. in words before cited and I sometimes admire that some learned men should suggest this to Readers and hearers as a hâ—inous thing to term them Heathens when they must be so if they be not Jews though most holy Christians The term Pagans if it bee all one with professed infidels positively I grant it belongs not to our children yet they are infidels negatively till they believe and are so accounted of them that admit them not to the Lords Supper as well as of those that admit them not to Baptism unto which actual profession of faith is as well required as to the Lords Supper To neither hath a man any right by Covenant although by the Covenant he hath right to the benefits of the Gospel Baptism and the Lords Supper are neither of them formally benefiâ—s or seals of the Covenant of grace though by conâ—equent in the right use of them such benefitâ— accrue to men by them They are hoth rites appointed by Christ the one to be the baptized his signe whereby he professeth repentance and faith in Christ and engageth himself solemnly to adhere to Christ as his disciple the other whereby heâ— signifies his remembrance of Christs death both our duties and a right to duty sounds to mee like non-sense I know no Anabaptist that ignorantly confounds the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and benefits covenanted But this I aver that when God promiseth and covenanteth they are connex there is no man to whom Cod promiseth or covenanteth but he hath or shall have the thing promised or covenanted And this I learn from the Apostle Rom. 9.8 who makes onely the chosen sons of promise as Mr. Rutherford here pag. 77. expounds him and that is as Gal. 3.16 he expresseth himself to Abraham and his seed were the promises made or said that is Christ personal or mystical or both and to no other And sure the Apostle Rom. 9.6 did think it blasphemy to say that God had promised and those he promised to should not have the thing promised for then Gods word should fall and he be a liar If Gods conditional promise be a Covenant yet it is made onely to them that perform the condition He that believeth and is baptized shall bee saved is not an universal promise to all men whether believers or not but onely to so many as shall believe 'T is true we can exclude none because we cannot exempt any from believing and therefore we are to make an indifferent offer to any but God in his intention excludes many and his promise is not made to them whom he excludes nor are they under his Covenant or in covenant with him in respect of his act of promising though they may be said to bee in Covenant or under the Covenant in respect of their own act of promising I grant the command is to persons whether they believe or not obey or not for that is not an enunciative speech that signifies any thing true or false but is in the imperative mood and extendeth to all men whatsoever so as whosoever doth not as the command bids sins But when Mr. Rutherford saith the promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not whether ye transgress or transgress not if an Anabaptist falsly so called may have the boldness to tell a Professour in Divinity in an University in Scotland of ignorance I should tell him he is mistaken in saying the promise is to you whether you believe or no the threatning is to you whether you transgress or no. For
they being enunciations in the indicative mood if meant so should bee false which to impute to God would asperse him with falshood and injustice which is horrendum dictu And in my apprehension it savours of ignorance which Mr. Rutherford saith pag. 91. Nor is it true that the promise is made to the aged upon condition of believing The promise is made to them absolutely whether they believe or not But the blessing of the promise and Covenant of grace is given and bestowed onely conditionally if they believe The promise is absolutely made it 's called conditional from the thing corditionally given For either I have lost my wits or else a conditional promise is a conditional pâ—oposition expressing something that shall be if some other thing bee put and sure a conditional proposition is so termed from the words not from the event A promise is a promise absolute or conditional as soon as the words are spoken long before the thing promised is given yea though it be never given The giving or not giving upon performing or not performing the condition may make the promise true or false determinately but not conditional or absolute I forbear to uncover any further Mr. Rutherfurds nakedness in this speech and reset him to Mr. Baxter to correct him for that speech nor is it true that the promise is not made to the aged upon condition of believing And as for his speeches of the saving of infants of believing parents dying in infancy and our giving evidence thereof there is so much said before of it especially against Mr. Baxter Sect. 73 74. and elsewhere that I need say no more here As for what he saith of our want of warrant to pray for them without their being in Covenant though it hurt not me who grant of so many as are elect that they are in Covenant yet I think I have a warrant to pray by a general command 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3. and in faith by a general promise Matth. 7.7 8. the knowledge of Gods goodness and the goodness of the thing asked In the rest of the Chapter Mr. Rutherfurd endeavours to find a way according to which infants of believers may be said to bee within Covenant and the words Acts 2.39 meant of them and their title to Baptism thence inferred for which end hee useth many words with distinctions which are vain without good sense or good consistency or any thing to his purpose Four ways he conceives infants of believers may be said to be in Covenant 1. In that God maketh the promise of a new heart to them but this he grants is true onely of the elect and not of all commanded to be baptized Acts 2.38 39. And pag. 86. he granted persons invisibly in Covenant without profession are not warrantably to be baptized 2. In that God promiseth forgiveness of sins and eternal life upon condition of repentance and faith Thus infants may be in the Covenant of grace but no otherwise then or rather not so much as professed unbelievers to whom it is tendred who yet are not to be baptized and if the promise be meant so Acts 2.39 it proves not a right to Baptism thence till the condition be performed which when infants declare they do I shall baptize them 3. That they are in Covenant because they are under the command for thus he speaks pag. 94. The Covenant must be considered in abstracto and formally in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace and so it contains onely the will of precept In which he is mistaken 1. in that he saith the Covenant formerly in the letter is a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such a speech is not the Covenant in any sense much less formally in the letter in abstracto such a speech as this men are saved if they believe or the way of saving men is upon condition of believing is not the Covenant sith it is not a promise but a Covenant is formally a promise or an aggregate of promises 2. In that he saith the Covenant formally contains only the will of precept whereas the Covenant formally contains not at all the will of precept the will of precept containing onely the command of what should be done by another but the Covenant is a promise of what the Covenanter will do the one is exprest in the imperative mood the other in the indicative nor is the will of precept in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such an expression is no command at all but a declaration of event 3. In that he saith so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace which he seems to mean thus they all and they onely But sure either infants are not at all this way in the Covenant of grace who never hear the command propounded to them or if they be they are no more in it then the Americans out of the visible Church who never heard of Christ nor so much as professed unbelievers to whom the Gospel hath been preached and therfore this way infants have not right to baptism So that this speech of Mr. Rutherfurd hath as many of his expressions nothing but ignorance and impertinency 4. A person may be said to be in Covenant in that he is really covenanted and engaged by his consented profession to fulfil the Covenant as Mr. Rutherfurd speaks pag. 92. This way I grant intitles to Baptism but sure infants are not so in Covenant nor is the meaning so Acts 2.39 where the promise is Gods promise to us not our promise to God nor is this the Paedobaptists plea when they argue infants are in Covenant therefore to be baptized for they mean by being in Covenant that God hath promised to be a God to them as the seed of believers Gen. 17.7 And therefore Mr. Rutherfurd hath not yet shewed any way according to which infants of believers are intitled to Baptism by vertue of the Covenant of grace or from Acts 2.38 39. notwithstanding all his blooding of it to use his own term Let 's view what is in Ch. 14. Neither is it true that God saith persons should be circumcised because of Gods promise Gen. 17.7 Nor that women were circumcised in the males nor was Peter sent to baptize all the circumcised nor are infants to bee Baptized by the ground of Circumcision nor is there any thing Acts 2.38 39. that saith because the same promise is made to fathers and to children must infants bee baptised Neither do I know what Mr. Rutherfurd understands by Theological essence or formal effects nor do I conceive any truth or sense in Mr. Rutherfurds talk of Circumcision and Baptism being the same in the substance nature and Theological essence and in the formal effects much less that the Lord hath any such argument Gen. 17.7 And though I should grant all are to bee
neither did Christ baptize any at all in his own person the Evangelist John 4.1 2. expresly affirming that though the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples then John yet Jesus himself did not baptize but his Disciples did baptize nor did the Disciples baptize any infant at all as may bee gathered from the whole N. T. 2. The word which Irenaeus expresseth whereby persons were born again to God by Christ is applied to the example of his age as the words and scâ—pe show Omnem tatem sanctificans â—or illam quae ad iâ—fum erat similitudinem Ideo per omnem venit aetatem infantibus infans factus sanctificans infantes in parvulis parvulus sanctificans hanc iâ—sam habentes aetatem simul exemplum illis pictatis effectus justiti subjectionis Juvenibuâ— juvenis exemplum juâ—enibus siens sanctificans domino Sic senior in senioribus ut sit perfeâ—tus Magistâ—â— in omnibuâ— non solum secundum expositionem veritatis sed secundum aetâ—tem sanctificâ—ns simul seniores exemâ—lum â—â—sis quoque fiens But hee was not in his age an example of every age by his â—aptism as if hee did by it sanctifie every age for then he should have been baptized in every age but in respect of the holiness oâ— his humane nature which did remâ—in in each age and so exemplarily sanâ—â—ifie each age to God so as that no age but was capable of holiness by conformity to his example 3 Irenaeus his words are omneâ— enim venit per semetipsum salvare omnes inquam qui â—er eum renascâ—ntuâ— in Deum infantes parvuloâ— pueras â—uvenes seniores 〈◊〉 if the meaning were that Christ came â—o 〈◊〉 all that wâ—re baptized by him or by his appointment then he came to save Simon Magus and whoever are or have been baptized righâ—ly even Judas Iscariâ—t if he were bapâ—ized But in that sense the proposiâ—ion of Irenaeus were most pâ—lpâ—bly false and therefore that sense iâ— noâ— to be attriâ—uâ—ed to his words 4. Christ is by Irenaeus said to sanâ—â—ifie as a perfect Master not onely according to the exposition of truth but also as an example to them of piety justice and subjection but this is to beâ— understood not in respect of his Baptism onely but his whole life in which he was an example even an infant for then he did willingly empty himself took upon him the form of a servant was made in the likeness of men and being in fashion a man humbled himself to death Phillip 2.7 8. By all which reasons I presume the Readers who is willing to see truth will perceive this passage of Irenaeus to be wrested by Paedobaptists against its meaning to prove an use of Paedobaptism in his time Which I have the more largely insisted on because indeed it is the onely testimony of credit which Paedobaptists have any colour from for infant baptism in â—he 2d ceâ—tury In the 3d. century it is not denied but that infant baptism and many more corruptions were yet even then it was very rare in case onely of danger of death â—ut of that case disswaded in that case allowed upon the conceit of giving grace by it and saving the infant from perishing But I shall allow Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists to say the most they can for this corruption Origen is alledged next by Mr. Cr. in Rom. 6. l. 5. homil 8th on Levitic and 18 th on Luke The Exceptions against these are 3.1 they are translations Origens Greek in the Original is lost The same may be said of St. Matthews Gospel which he writ in the Hebrew or Syriack now lost the Greek copy onely extant And of the LXXâ— translations of the Old T. which our Saviour followed more exactly then the Hebrew Original translations agreeing with the Original copy bâ—ing equally authentick Answ. 1. There is no certainty nor probability that Matthew did write in Hebrew saiâ—h the Annotator on Matth in his argument of that Gospel the new Annotations called by some the Assemblies at Westminster Pareus in his Proeme to his Commentary on Matthew with the leave of antiquity Erasâ—â—â— and other learned interpreters doubt not a little of that opinion that he wrote in Hebrew and the reasons of doubting seem not to be light which may be seen there with answer to the objections produced out of antiquity 2. Whether there were such a translation by LXX Jews as Josephus relates of Aristeas l. 12. antiq Judaic c. 2. I do not so much question as the particularities of the relation but the authority of it is much quâ—stioned of which much may be seen in Chamier paustr. cath tom 1. l. 13. and it is much doubted whether that we have be it of which I am told learned Usher hath written which I have not seen But sure our Saviour who spake in Hebrew or Syriack followed it not nor do I think it safe or right to say that the Evangâ—lists or other holy writers followed it more exactly then the Hebrew Original But sure the translation of Ruffinus of Origens Homiles is nothing like to either of these in which he confesseth he did not exactly follow the Original and it is likely for this reason Voss. thes Theol. de Paedobap part 2. thesi 8. said But we shall the less care for Origen because the things we cited are not extant in Greek But Mr. Cr. adds But 2 ly it is said that the translation is censured by Erasmus and Perkins as in something contracting adding or altering What is added is ingeniously confessed by Ruffinus the translator himself neither does acuâ—e Erasmus nor judicious Perkins nor any of the Ancients most critical impeach him in the forequoted testimonies therefore thiâ— exception is blank Answ. This exception is good notwithstanding this answer For 1. Perkins doth not onely censure Ruffinus his translation as in something contracting adding or altering but also puts Origens commentaries on the Epistle to the Romanes not faithfully translated by Ruffinus among his counteâ—feit works And Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith That a man cannot be certain whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen And because Dr. Homes saith I make no exception against the translation of the Homilie on Luke he may take notice that Erasmus in his Lukeâ— 1 speaks much against the Paraphrase of Origen on Luke and in â—is Annot. on Luke 1.3 Sic enim visus est sentirâ— quisquiâ— iâ— suit cujus extant iâ— Lucam commentarii Adamantii titulo which shâ—ws that Erasmus took not those Commentaries for Origens or at least dâ—ubted thereof And I shall add the words of Sculâ—etus in his medulla Patrum l. 6. c 2. Jam Ruffinuâ— plurium librorum Origenis interpre â—aâ—tâ—m â—â—surpavit licâ—ntiam ut ademerit adjecerit mutâ—rit quae sibi viderentur adimâ—nda adjicienda mutanda ut sâ—pâ— incertus sit lector utrum Origenem legat an Ruffinum cum Graeca Origenis opera non extent hoâ—â—e â—
phrase tingi disciplina religionis to be sprinkled with the discipline of religion meaning evidently being baptised Where the Dr. by the way doth ill render tingi by sprinkled no Grammarian doth so render it nor doth Tertullian so mean it as in the place may be observed But to the thing This cannot be the meaning of Tertullian in that place 1. The words are these ut opinor autem aliud est aspergâ— vel interciâ—i violentià maris aliud tingi disciplina religionis As I think it is one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted with the violence of the sea as Peter was when against his will he was in the sea anoâ—her thing to be baptised with the discipline of religion that is out of a willing yeilding to baptism by the learning of religion that is knowledge and profession of faith which religion prompts to meaning plainly not the doctrine or command of Christ but the learning or discipline of his own heart in the sense that Tertullian useth after disciplina verecundiae modestiae And that sense which I give the Scope leads to which is to shew neither the Apostles being dashed with the waves when the ship was almost covered nor Peters being almost drowned was Christian baptism because it was not out of a voluntary disposition from that discipline of religion which doth dispose to it but the violence of the sea 2. Tertullian could not mean as the Dr. would sith there is no such institution of Christ either expressed by the Evangelists or by Tertullian The Evangelists express no title to baptism but by the persons own faith or discipleship who is to be baptised as is proved Review part 2 sect 5. And Tertullian in his Book of Baptism a little after the words cited by the Dr. c. 12. expresseth the institution of Baptism thus Lex enim tingendi imposita est forma praescriptae iâ—e inquit docete nationes tingentos eas in nomen patriâ— filii spiritus sancti Huic legi collata definitio illa nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua spiritu non intrabit in regnum coelorum obstrinxiâ— fidem ad baptismi necessitatem Itaqae omnes exinde credentes tingebantur And after Nam prius est prâ—dicare posterius tingere and in the 18th chapter gives his reasons against the hastening the baâ—tism of infants as being not necessary which if he had acknowleâ—ged such an institution as the Dr. imagins he could not have said and directs according to the institution Let them come when they grow up when they learn when they are taught wherefore they come let them hee made Christians when they can know Christ and afâ—er prescribes How they should go to baptism with prayer fasting kneeling confessing of sins and in his Book of Repentance cals Baptism the sealing of repentance no where is any such institution of infants Baptism from the faith of one parent and therefore I conclude ex institutionis disciplina is not meant as Dr. Hammond conceives On the other side I conceive that he means by sanctos procreari real holiness future and by ex institutionis disciplina learning of the doctrine or institution of Christ. That the holiness is real saving holiness is gathered first from the joyning together designati sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis which plainly shews that the holiness meant is that by which is salvation 2. This is confirmed in that it is made the effect of being born by water and the spirit 3. Shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven is expounded by sanctus holy 4. It is opposed to that uncleanness which they had in Adam and it is expressed to bee in Christ which must needs bee a real saving holiness 5. If it bee that which is by baptism then it is not baptism it self as the Dr. expounds it but a consequent on it which is no other then saving holiness 6. This is proved from the expression of designatos sanctitatis ac per hoc salutis this is confessed by the Dr. to express the same with procreari sanctos ex institutionis disciplina but designatos sanctitatis hath the sense of designed to be holy that is a believer by education and so saved I will set down the words of a Letter of my learned and much honoured friend and quondam scholler Dr. Wilkins Warden of Wadham Colledge in Oxford who at my request imployed a friend to enquire into the sense of this passage of Tertullian and thus wrote to me As for that phrase Designatos sanctitatis salutis though this reading be approved by Pamelius and de la Cerda in their editions yet 't is corrected by Johannes a Wouwer by that famous Manuscript Copy of Fulvius Ursinus now in the Vatican which hath it Designatos sanctitati Which reading is now generally received as the most genuine as may appear by Rigaltius and Georgius Ambianus in his last and best edition of Tertullian at Paris 1648. And the most proper sense of this phrase must be such as are designed by their parents to a religious education which is likewise signified by that other expression ex instituionis disciplina So that designatos sanctitati ac per hec etiam saluti plainly expresseth that whereas the Pagan idolaters did dedicate and consecrate their children to Devils and thereby made them unclean the children of the believer were brought into the world holy both in that they were free from such pollution and also by prayer vow or resolution designed or intended to be made holy by the disciplin of Christian institution and so to be saved or to enter into the Kingdome of heaven by faith in Christ. 7. This sense is confirmed by the words hujus spei pignora the pledges of this hope which shew that the holiness and salvation meant in the words before was a thing not then existent at the childrens birth but intended and hoped for at age upon endeavours used by the believing parent 8. This interpretation of designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati is confirmed by the expressions of Hierome Epist. 153. to Paulinus where he saith Of thy second Problem Tertullian hath discoursed in his books of Monogamy affirming the children of believers to be called holy because they were as it were candidati fidei candidates of faith and not polluted with any of the filth of Idolatry Which phrase expresseth the same with designatos sanctitati and alludes to those who in Rome stood for Offices in white and notes that the infants were as it were in expectation of being believers and baptized quod veluti ambiunt expectant baptismum as Erasmus in his note on Hierom Epist. 153. to Paulinus or designed that is intended to be holy by the parents that is to be bred up to profess the faith and so to be baptized To this saith Dr. Hammond 1. This of Tertullian is not the place that S. Hierom refers to but some other in his Books de Monogamia that one
of saving faith and therefore expressed by candidatos fidei and that this holiness was such a real holiness appears by the addition ac per hoc etiam salutis there being no other holiness that could bring salvation and the term candidatos imports a suing or seeking for it as Erasmus expresseth it veluti ambiunt expectant and Dr. Hammond p. 92. himself expresseth candidatos daemoniorum candidates of the Devils ambitious to be admitted thus early into his service So that all these reasons shew that designatos sanctitatis notes the intention of the parents with endeavours to produce faith and so to bring them to Baptism Which is the more evident if it be read designatos sanctitati for that case plainly intimates a tendency to it As for designatos sanctitatis which the Dr. that he may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serve his own purpose which he elsewhere causlesly imputes to me turns sealed of holiness I crave leave to tell the Dr. that in my appehension it makes Tertullian speak non-sense and that it cannot be the meaning that it should note the consecrating by baptism it appears in that it should have been then sanctitate or per sanctitatem Besides they are said to be designatos salutis as well as sanctitatis and I hope the Dr. will not render it sealed of salvation as if it noted the ceremony of consecrating Salvation in no Writer being put for for Baptism And however here it 's a distinct thing from sanctity which the Dr. makes Baptism So that I think I may safely infer that Tertullian means by designatos sanctitatis or sanctitati rather not Baptism but the intention of the parents for of their act he speaks in opposition to the Gentile parents designing their children to Devils or as the terms are vowing deputing to them making them candidatos to breed them up in the faith and so to bring them to Baptism and Salvation which his words in his Book de Baptismo c. 18. shew he approved as best except necessity through danger of death imminent and apparent urged the hastening of it in little ones regularly he would have faith first and baptism after as the words in his Book of Baptism and Repentance forecited shew And whereas the Dr. saith in the Church writings the word believers is never bestowed on any though of mature age and knowledge till after they be baptized and so faith must be subsequent not antecedent to baptism as I set it the Dr. may perceive his mistake by the words of Tertullian before quoted Itaque omnes credentes tingibantur Lavacrum illud est obsignatio fidei and this is agreeable to Christs speech Mar. 16.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved to which perhaps Tertullian alluded when he said designatos sanctitati which Grotius follows Annot. ad 1 Cor. 7.14 or condidatos fidei ac per hoc etiam saluti or salutis The relative holiness which vessels in the Temple were capable of is far from Tertullians meaning Certainly Tertullians phrase of designed to holiness is so far from proving infant baptism that it proves the contrary sith he is not said to be designatus or candidatus who hath an Office or thing in possession but he who is chosen to it or seeks for it and so hath it onely in intention or expectation As designatus saluti is not actually saved so neither designatus sanctitati actually baptized He adds The children of believers I willingly grant are presumed to be by them intended to be bred up to the faith but if that intention of theirs bring forth no present effect if they do not bring them thus early and enter them into the Church by Baptism why should that bare intention of the parents give them the stile of holy or sanctified or how should these infant children which may die before they come tâ— those years receive any present priviledge or benefit by that which is thus far removed from them Answ. The Drs. words answer this p. 92. when he saith Whosoever is born from either parent Christian hath one priviledge by nature by his very seed that he is not so polluted as the Idolatrous heathens children by their Idolatrous ceremonies and so is in some degree holy in that respect which is a present effect opposite to the present evil effect which the heathen Idolatrous devotions brought on their children He goes on Now for the 2d part of this suggestion that what I say from Tertullian that they were holy i. e. baptized in seminis praerogativâ is a mistake I must answer by viewing of the proofs of his assertion First saith he the holiness was not onely by prerogative of birth but ex institutionis disciplinâ This is sure a strange proof It is not so because it is not onely so 'T is certain that Tertullian saith they are holy ex institutionis disciplinâ and as certain that they are as much so by prerogative of their birth the words are most clear tam ex seminis praerogativâ quam ex institutionis disciplinâ and that I never denied the second could not be mistaken in affirming the first Answ. The words of the Dr. in his 4th quaere gave occasion to think he conceived the children of believers to be termed holy by Tertullian that is baptized either onely or chiefly by prerogative of birth as that which gave them title to baptism But it seems he means that they had title to it also by the discipline of institution But p. 92. he expounds the prerogative of birth onely by their freedome from Idolarous pollution Now sure that gave not title to baptism An Idolaters child if born without those pollutions had not title to baptism he must be born according to his own exposition of the Apostles and Tertullians words of one believer therfore he must needs be mistaken in affirming the first and he must needs miss Tertullians meaning if by holy be meant baptized and says they are baptized tà m ex seminis praerogativâ if that give no title to it The Dr. expounds ex institutionis disciplinâ thus by the Doctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ by which Baptism is allowed to children born of either parent Christian. I have shewed before how short his proof is of this sense For present Tertullians words according to this exposition have an inept tautology For it is all one as to say they are baptized as well by prerogative of birth as by prerogative of birth the prerogative of birth by which they are baptized being all one with their priviledge of being born of a believer which is accâ—rding to the Dr. the discipline of instiâ—ution If Tertullian had meant as the Dr. would have it he had not used tà m and quà m but said holy by prerogatiâ—e of birth according to the discipline of institution whence it may appear that the discipline of institution and holiness is another thing then the Dr. interprets it nor by his interpretation of
the place will the place be clear For not two priviledges as the Dr. makes it but one priviledge to wit holiness which the Dr. makes to be baptism is ascribed to them by a double means freedome from heathenish pollutions and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism Whereas freedome from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism and if prerogative of birth â—e meant of federal holiness of which is not a word there and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer it is either an inept tautology both being the same or incongruous speech which should be thus mended by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture nor Tertullian Nor do Tertullians words following de Anima c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled prove that by holy Tertullian meant baptized For in the words before to which ita so refer he makes holy to be the same with entring into the Kingdome of Heaven and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius enough hath been said already Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostomes words prove that holy is as much as partaker of baptism in the Ancients language much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14 to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14 that the term young Children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy But the Dr. proves it is 1. By the authority of Tertullian who saith of infant children that they are procreated holy and Nazianzen who using this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. Noâ— is there any thing said to make it in any sort probable that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle in which is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor that hee should render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth but onely useth a description of young age which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where 2. The other reasons are farther from the thing For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers that the parents faith profits onely their infant children some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue that faith of parents profits children who were not infants The other reason runs upon this mistake which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning but is denied by me â—hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14 sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever I said holy for admitted to baptism is a sense of the word no where else found But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared both from the usage of â—he word among the first Christian writers which is answered and the Jewish of which in that which followes and saith I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy Rom. 1.7 and sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile Answ. True But doâ—h hee term any infant so in those places or give them those titles barely from Baptism doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my minde but I think as I did his interpretation new strange and absurd I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc mer. remiss c. 26. and the like is said l. 3· c. 12. Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be which the Apostle said to be in the children oâ— believers yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism and the beginning or remission of sins To this the Dr. answers T is true he saith it belongs not to that question whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism profits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven And the meaning is such sanctification except it be that of baptism cannot avail to remission of sins Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumeni mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers who being termed holy 1 Cor. 7.14 should seem not to need Baptism which Augustin answers 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification but not determining which is there meant 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni it belongs not to that â—uestion of Baptism not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of except it be that of Baptism it cannot avail to the remission of sins c. to wit mentioned ch 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant onely of baptism of infants of believers by vertue of the believing parents faith As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them SECT LXXXXII Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus First then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a
less reasonable account given then of putting it in the present tense in English 2. That the enallage or change of tense is frequent ch 11.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense for the future and here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the next v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter for the present and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here not hath been but is sanctified or if in the preter tense yet that to be understood of a past thing yet continued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 3.18 notes an act still continued in force To these two I reply briefly and first to the former the same which hee had mentioned before and excepted against as an excess in my paraphrase but both there and here without the least cause For in my paraphrase I look upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a verb of the preter tense and as such onely adapt the sense to it referring it not to future hopes but to past experiments or examples onely because examples are rhetorical syllogismes and what hath been frequently experimented may also reasonably be hoped I suppose that the Apostle so meant these examples as grounds of hoping the like for the future not making this of the future any part of the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter but explicating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rational importance which is somewhat more then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles speech and supposing this conclusion to lye hid under this premise as it is ordinary in all discourse to set down the â—remises distinctly leaving the conclusion by every ones reason to be drawn from thence without setting it down explicitly Answ. That the Dr. in his paraphrase qu. 4. § 31. of his letter put so much as I have noted Review part 2. sect 26. of which there is nothing in the text expressed is not justified by this plea. For what ever addition a paraphrast be allowed yet sure no paraphrast is allowed to express that which he conceives it deducible from the sense of the words in thirteen lines and the sense it self onely in three and especially when he layes that in his paraphrase as the ground of his argument for his position which hath not a word in the text to leade to that inference Sure I had great cause to except against his paraphrase which was so monstrous as to be defective in letting down what was the chief thing to be heeded in the Apostles speech to wit the relation of husband and wife and so extremely exuberant as to express that as done often which is mentioned in the singular number onely and ascribe the sanctifying to the conversation not at all expressed and put in a long inference that hath no intimation in the text and mention an act of the Church of which there is no inkling there or near it or any where else in Scripture and so many wayes corrupting the sense as I shew ubi suprà especially in the main supposing a mention made of a husband converted by the wife and yet the husband expressed by the Apostle as continuing an unbeliever and a husbands being sanctified by the wife which is ever ascribed to Gods spirit never to any Apostle to make that which is used as a reason of lawfulness as if it were a motive from an advantage to make that as a Rhetorical motive which is a Logical proof to make that which was a rare contingent event which might and it's likely did as often fail as a convincing argument to settle the conscience in the lawfulness of cohabitation with other faults as being so audacious an attempt as I think no approved writer can bee shewed to have made nor any considerate Reader will allow of Nor would it ever have come into my thoughts that so learned a man as Dr Hammond is should have vented such a conceit as this is in his Letter and Annotations did I not finde him set to maintain what the Church of England that is the Prelates held or appointed as others what the Scottish or New-English Churches approve of As for his excuse of his dealing in his paraphrase it is too narrow a plaister for such a sore For neither is any thing 1 Cor. 7.14 set down as an example to move the will the judgement being before setled nor any Rhetorical syllogism used but a Logical as the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Rom. 11.6 1 Cor. 15.14 18 29 c. shew nor doth the Dr. prove but suppose the Apostle so meant nor doth he answer the allegations I bring to the contrary Review par 2. § 26. And his words here do imply as if this were the conclusion that it is probable and a ground of hope that the unbelieving yoke fellow will be converted by the believer cohabiting and this the premise for it hath often so come to pass whereas there is not the least intimation of that conclusion in the text and it is manifest by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that v. 14. is a proof of the determination or conclusion v. 12 13. concerning the lawfulness of married persons living together in disparity of religion not of Dr. Hammonds imagined as tacitely implied conclusion But hee saith Wherein that I was not mistaken I had all assurance from v. 16. where the argument is prest and the conclusion inferred more explicitely For what knowest thou O wife whether thou shalt save thy husband and the like mentioned in the paraphrase from 1 Pet. 3.1 Answ. Dr. Hammond had no assurance from v. 16. that the unbelieving husband is oft converted by the wife the thing being expressed so doubtfully as an uncertain contingent though possible and so with some hope sperable Hierom. com in 1 Cor. 7.14 In dubium quidem â—osuit sed semper ambiguam melius evenire credenda sunt much less that there is a conclusion of the probability of the converting of the infidel yokeâ—fellow v. 14. deducible from the example and experiment of what was done in time past v. 16. being neither explication nor proof of what is said v. 14. but a motive to make the thing determined as lawfull v. 12 13. more swasible or a motive to what is said v. 15. that God hath called us in peace In my apprehension if v. 14. were as the Dr. meanes the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified that is converted by the wife often and therefore it is probable or there is a ground of hope or it is to be presumed it will be so for the future the Apostle had said the same v. 14. which is said v. 16. and so there would have been a meer tautology in the Apostles speeches which is not to bee conceived As for 1 Pet. 3 1. though it shew such an event possible yet not frequent nor is there in Peters words the least hint that Pauls words 1 Cor. 7.14 are
experience pastâ—nely a sense is brought in as I have shewed in my Examen par 3. sect 8. in the first part of the Review sect 19 c. in the second part of the Review sect 26. which is neither agreeing with the words nor pertinent or accommodate to the matter of the Apostle speech 3 However the Dr. believe yet it is shewed here and Review par 2. sect 6 that to refer the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14 to past experiences is not natural For the Apostles speech being a reason not of the commodiousness of living together in disparity of Religion for if it had been of iâ— they could have better resolved themselves then the Apostle yea they could have refuted the Apostle and reâ—â—â—ied his reason against him we find it not so by experience but of the lawfulness the reason must be conceived to import right not event and so the speech is not of what hath been which onely mentions experience but of what is de jure or is lawfull and as Piscator rightly Schol. in 1 Cor. 7.14 Sanctificatus est id est usus illius ut sanctus conscientiam uxoris non ladens concessus est And in this manner it is usual to express such sentences in the preter tense yet to be expounded by an Enallage as in the same Chapter the next v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the preter tense yet rightly rendred is not under bondage v. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereiâ— difference v. 29. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is short 1 Cor. 8.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is known 1 Cor. 4.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 am justified 1 Cor. 15.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye do stand v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are perished 1 Cor. 16.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opened Tit. 1.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are defiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usually is written Matth. 13.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is given Yet saith the Dr. I may in the 2 d. place ex abundanti add thus much more that the utmost he can pretend to by the enallage whether of the preter for the present or of the preter understood of a past thing yet continued is as commodious foâ— my interpretation as the preter is For if it be in the present then the importance will be that it is a matter of present daily experience if in the past continued then that it is matter both of past and present experience that the unbeliever is thus wrought upon by the believer and brought into the Church by Baptism and this a just ground of hope that so it may be again in any particular instance and so a competent motive that the believing wife should abide with the infidel husband and not depart as long as he will live peaceably with her And this sure was S. Hieroms understanding in the words newly cited the Apostle makes instance produceth example that this hath and doth ordinarily come to pass And to that also agrees the 16th verse For how knowest thou c. Answ. 1. If it be in the present tense the importance will not be that it is a matter of present daily experience unless it be proved the term sanctified notes an iterated event which I conceive and think I have proved to import right or lawfulness so as that the sense is the unbelieving husband is sanctified to or in respect of his wife as Beza Piscator Grotius c. do conceive that is lawfully used which is the onely sense that fits the determination of the Apostle which is not of the conveniency or commodiousness or advantage in living together but of the lawfulness v. 12 13. Nor if it be in the past continued will it fit the Drs. sense For the Drs. sense is as if sanctification were the same with conversion but that is an act transeunt past and not continued and if it include baptism as the Dr. would have it the sense should be The unbelieving husband hath been converted and brought to baptism and continues to be converted and brought to baptism by the conversation of the wiâ—e which cannot be said of the person said to be sanctified Yea there is no less then an implicite contradiction in the words so expounded for then it should be thus meant The unbelieving husband remaining an unbeliever as the Apâ—stles speech supposeth else it were not apposite to the case v. 12 13. is and continues to be wrought upon by the believer and brought into the Church by baptism Yet were this exposition allowed it would no whit avail to the Drs. purpose unless the futurity of the same act were implied in that imagined sense of the Dr. For it is not the event past that is the motive of cohabitation but the hope of that which may be And yet the Dr. tels us in his paraphrase he looks upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a verb of the preter tense and as such onely adapts the sense to it referring it not to future hopes but to past experiences or examples Yeâ— he saith the Apostle produceth example and to that also exactly agrees the 16 th v. For how knowest thou c. which doth not at all mention an example or past experience which could not be not done being once done but onely an uncertain and doubtfull futurity So that in this again the Drs. speeches do enterfere and his speech is most false that the words v. 16. do exactly agree with the meaning of the forepart of the 14th v. as the Dr. expounds it I omit that there is not a word that intimates the bringing into the Church by baptism and iâ— there were it would import a strange experience of a wives bringing her husband into the Church by baptism which cannot be avoided by saying through her perswasion it is done by another For the Text expresly assigns the sanctification what or however it be to the wives individual person if then to her as an agent it is done by her But I have said so much here and Review 2d par sect 26. of this exposition as me thinks should make this exposition of the Dr. to be exploded by the learned Yet he writes further thus As for Mr. T. his instances of Enallage though now I may safely yeeld them all and rather gain then lose by them I shall yet in the last place add my sense that no one of them is any way convincing that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not c. 11.24 for his passion was now so near approaching that it might very fitly be represented as present and so that be the force of the present tense Answ. This instance is convincing that enallage of tense is sometimes used it being used in this place as Piscat scholie in locum Enallage temporis metaphora And the Drs. reason doth no whit weaken the allegation of it for that which notes Paulo post futurum a future near approaching is not without an enallage expressed by the present tense And
for the enallage in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive with the Drs. good leave that usually the Greeks express by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what the Apostle doth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so there is an enallage of tense or mood and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15. if an enallage be not conceived then it must not import the present tense at all whereas the Dr. grants it notes the preter tense yet continued which is all one as to say it notes the present tense which without an enallage it could not do As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 3.18 I wonder the Dr. would intimate as if it were produced by me to the prejudice of the preter tense when my very words say expresly it notes a past thing yet continued and bring it to that purpose But how this is far from being still perfectly agreeable to his notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbeliever oft hath been and daily is converted and brought to baptism by the believer is apparent in that the continuation of the condemnation Joh. 3.18 is onely in respect of legal force and vertue but the sanctification 1 Cor. 7.14 is as he expounds it a meer transeunt act that imports no legal right force and vertue and therefore cannot be said to be continued as the other can And how vain the Drs. sense is and how justifiable my interpretation is by an enallage is shewed before SECT XCIII Dr. Hammonds rendring by 1 Cor. 7.14 is reselled and my rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justified SEct. 3. The Dr. omitting what I said that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred in it serves my turn not his unless it be proved it must be rendred by and his supplement by the company and conversation of the believer proved saith somewhat to my reasons of adhering to the reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 7 14. by to 1. because this seems to me the fairest easiest and most congruous sense But 1. he tels me this is the begging of the question that it is such must not be here supposed when it should be proved To which I reply 1. if it be the fairest easiest and most congruous sense it is some proof 2. That it is the onely sense which can stand with the words and scope of the Apostle and is avouched so by learned men ancient and later Protestants and Papists is shewed at large in my Exercit. sect 5. Examen par 3. sect 8 Review par 1. sect 11 c. here sect 76 c. Refutat of Dr. Savage his position in Latine sect 9. Antidote sect 7. besides what occurs in my Apology Postscript Plea which is abundantly sufficient for acquitting me from begging the question which he doth so importunely urge 3. That the Dr. rather begs the question then proves his interpretation hath and will appear in this and the former view taken of it But the Dr. sullies the beauty of my sense of the Apostles words thus The fairness of the sense simply taken is not attempted to bee proved which yet doth stand in great need of it For beside the redundance or unusual sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some other parts of the rendering are none of the fairest As 1. the believer may abide as if it were simply free to abide or not abide whereas in the present case when the unbeliever is willing to abide with the believer the believer is by the Apostle counselled at least if not commanded and that is more then a liberty that he may To him the Apostle saith and his sayings have sure authority with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him not put away Nay the interdict of Christ belonging to all but that one case of fornication Mat. 5. and Mat. 19. it is evident that by force thereof the believing man must not put away the unbeliever that is guilty of no more but unbelief And accordingly the preface 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But for the rest or for the other questions v. 1 6 8 10. say I not the Lord must be applied not to the immediate consequents of the believers not putting away the unbeliever that will stay with him for that had been determined by Christ in the negative but to v. 15. If the unbelieving depart i. e. if the unbeliever will not dwell with the believer except the believer forsake his or her religion what shall be done then And to that the Apostles counsel is that marriage inslaves not the believer so far All which is a competent prejudice to that part or Mr. T his sense The believer may abide For if that bee it even when the unbeliever is willing to abide then she may also depart if shee rather chuse which will be found contrary to Christs precept Answ Nil tam recte dictum quod non possit malè interpretando depravarier as the Dr. doth here 'T is true I did in the second part of this Review Sect. 26 p. 319 320. say and gave reasons of it that the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.12 13. did dot forbid leaving each other but resolve onely the lawfulness of living together but this did not intimate as if the believer were simply free to abide or not abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow willing to live with her that when the unbeliever is willing to abide the believing wife may also depart if she rather chuse but this that notwithstanding the continuance of the unbelief of the husband the wife might live with him it was not unlawfull So that I asserted not a liberty of leâ—ving him upon any cause but a liberty of continuing with him notwithstanding that reason â— and therefore the Dr. did ill to paraphrase v. 12. be ought not to put her away v. 1â— let her by no meanes separate from him And I gave some reason from v. 15. where the permitting to depart is a matter of liberty as the word is not in bondage shews and yet the word is as much imperative as v. 1â— 13. And I might have added that v. 18. let him not be uncircumcised let him not be circumcised are there expressions of liberty not of duty as the reason v. 19. shews and yet are as imperative as the forms used v. 12 13. See before of this p. 624 625 626. 'T is true to be circumcised might be forbidden elsewhere as Gal. 5.2 3. and might be then unlawfull and so it might be forbidden in other texts for the beliver to leave husband except in case of fornication but in these texts liberty onely is expressed in the one of living together notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party in the other continuing in that state of circumcision or uncircumcision as they were in when they were first called to the faith of Christ. And this I think the Dr. should prefer as the most suitable to his own exposition sith the frequent conversion of the infidel by the believer v. 14. is
no fit reason to make it an unlawfull thing for her to depart but onely it may be some motive of her will to continue as the Dr. makes it And I conceive v. 17 20 24. are to be so expounded sith it is clear that to be a servant or unmarried are some of the callings there mentioned as v. 21 27 28. shew but if it were a command of duty meant v. 17 20 24. the servant must remain a servant contrary to v. 21. and the unmarried not marry contrary to v 28. And v. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seek not a wife being as prohibitive a form as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 12 13. an unmarried man should be forbidden to woe a woman contrary to v. 28. which exempts marriage from sin So that indeed all these imperative speeches v. 12 13 15 17 18 20 21 24 27. are to be expounded as resolutions of liberty and so precepts of indulgence not absolute prohibitions or injunctions of what may in no case be done or must be done as precepts of empire And it is as when a person scrupling whether shee may be married to a Priest woing her is resolved thus let her not forsake him she is not commanded to marry him but resolved she may so it is in this case Which being rightly understood there is nothing opposite in my speech to Christs speeches Matth 5. or 19. about not putting away except in case of fornication nor the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.10 Nor need I trouble my self whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the other questions v. 1 6 8 10. though I think it should have been then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor whether it be to be applied to v. 15. as the Dr. would though it bee in my apprehension very unlikely Secondly saith the Dr. In this rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is englished not by is or hath been sanctified but â— by is as if he were sanctified which indeed acknowledgeth that he is not truely in any respect sanctified and then sure this will be a strange construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbeliever is not sanctified but is as if he were sanctified when yet litterally it must be rendered the unbeliever hath been or to gratifie Mr. T. is or continues to be sanctified For what is this but to interpret an affirmative by interposing a negation he is sanctified by he is not For so assuredly he is not if he onely be as if he were Answ. According to me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered or englished is or hath been sanctified but is expounded is as if hee were sanctified as 1 Cor. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered or englished were baptized yet by Grotius expounded annot 1 Cor. 10.2 baptizali sunt id est quasi baptizati sunt Which me thinks should be no strange construction to Dr. Hammond who by his answer to Dr. Owen ch 5. § 1 2. seems to be acquainted with Grotius his annotations and other writings and to account of him as a very pious learned judicious man In this exposition of Grotius there is as much an interpretation of an affirmative by interpâ—sing a negation as in mine the like I may say of other passages in the New Testament as when it is said Heb. 11.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dead or killed of Abraham then alive Matth. 12.49 he that doth the will of his father in heaven is Christs mother who never bare him in the womb Matth. 12.5 they prophane who did holy service Matth. 19.12 they made themselves Eunuchs who were not gelded The Dr. adds With this let any man compare the interpretation I have given the unbeliever hath been sanctified by the believer i. e. examples there are of such as have been thus converted from their unbelief and this sense inforced by the interrogation v. 16. For what knowest thou O woman whether thou shalt save the man c. And by S. Peters aphorism of daily observation 1 Pet. 3.1 the husband that obeyes not the word i. e. the unbeliever may probably bee gained by the conversation of the wife and then let him impartially pass judgement which is the fairest and easiest rendering Answ. Content If he will but take notice of this one thing besides many more that the unbelieving husband mentioned 1 Cor. 7.14 is said to be sanctified even then when he was an unbeliever Which is proved from the text 1. The unbelieving huusband and wife v. 14. are the same with the unbelieving husband and wife mentioned v. 12 13. for the expression v. 14. is relaâ—ive to v. 12 13. otherwise it were impertinent to resolve the question and the particle for v. 14. shewing it to be a reason of the determination v. 12 13. plainly proves it to bee meant of the same persons who continued unbelievers 2. From v. 15. where the resolution of the doubt is continued But if the unbeliever depart let him depart which is not to bee expounded of him that was an unbeliever but is not but of him who is when he departs which is confirmed in that he is opposed to a brother or sister who if he were converted should be a brother 3. From v. 16. where still the unbeliever mentioned v. 12 13 14 15. is supposed to remain an unbeliever else why should his saving be made doubtfull and contingent And if the Dr. stand to his own conceit as if v. 16. exactly agreed with v. 14. it must be so construed by himself 4. His own Tertullian who saith ex sanctificato alterutro sexu not utraque and Hierome and all other that add fidelem v. 14. and all the interpreters I know that do make the sanctifying to be v. 14. in disparity of religion do agree in this that the unbeliever v. 14. is meant of one that continues an unbeliever otherwise he should not be distinguished from the believer who was also an unbeliever formerly Which if but observed I dare put it to any Reader of ordinary capacity to judge between us whether the Doctors sense be not so far from being the fairest and easiest that it is indeed a foul one such as doth imply a contradiction to the Apostles words the Dr. supposing the unbeliever v. 14. once such but not so then the Apostle supposing him to continue so the Dr. expounding it thus He that was once an unbeliever another then the unbeliever meant v. 12 13. hath been sanctified by the believing wife that is converted and the Apostle He that is still an unbeliever the same mentioned v. 12 13. is sanctified and whether mine The believer may abide with the unbelieving yoke-fellow For though he be an unbeliever yet in or to his wife he is as if he were sanctified it 's all one in respect of lawfull omitted by the Dr. conjugal use as if he were sanctified be not the fairest easiest and most congruous sense that is to be given of those words 1 Cor. 7.14 The Dr. goes on thus His 2d reason is because
though the Dr. deny it yet I aver that the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to as a sign of the Dative case is found more then once in the N. T. The truth of this I must now examine by the proofs offered for the affirmation And his first proof is from Matth. 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This saith he cannot be eluded because the same speech is Mark 9.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and rendred by Beza in the former place fecerunt ei they did to him 2. Whereas the Dr. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon him or against him it had been meet the Dr. should have given one instance at least of such construction which saith he I do not believe he can do To this I answer 1. By two ready instances in one verse Luk. 23.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they do these things our ordinary English reads in a green tree but the sense and propriety directs us to on the green tree what shall be done on the dry here is the very phrase that is used in that place of Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Answ. I did aver more then the Dr. sets down that the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to may with good congruity and Grammatical analogy be affixt to it 1 Cor. 7.14 and I used these words left out by the Dr. whereas he saith meaning the Dr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on him or against him and that this is an ordinary acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I grant that it is an ordinary acception to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not in the sense hee here conceives to wit as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes on or against a person Now the Doctors instance is but in one verse and therefore shewes not the ordinary acception and then whereas I expected an instance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it notes on or against a person hee brings an instance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on a tree and this is not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against which had been more for his purpose but for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on though in the sense of on him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet the Dr. brings no authority but his own for this his conceit of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for on Luk. 23.31 I add that though the Latin and English translators I have yet looked into do render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 23.31 by in not on super or contrà which are the Drs. notions yet I find Diodati in his Italian translation reading al legno verde al legno secco which I take to be as much to as if it were expressed by ligno viridi and ligno sicco or arido without a preposition and if so the Dr. hath brought a text which further confirms my conceit against himself In which I am the more confident because when an object patient or a subject suffering is expressed with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is either never or very rarely said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Luk. 1.25 49 68. 2.48 6.11 23 26 27 31. 8.39 18.41 20.15 Acts 4.16 9.13 Luk. 1.38 14.12 19.9 Acts 2.43 7.40 20.3 22.6 17. omitting other writers Which is an argument to me that Luk. 23.31 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is redundant and that it is best transiated to the dry to the green and so the Dr. hath given an instance for my notion not for his own He saith further And then for S. Marks using in the parallel place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that proves not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rendundant in S. Matthew or that it was a bare signe of the Dative case it being free to S. Mark to use any other expression different from S. Matthew so he retained the sense as it is clear in this place he doth doing injuries to him being all one in effect with upon or against him though the phrases are not the same which no way inferrs that when the change of the phrase changes the sense it were lawfull so to vary it as in the place we have in hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is on both sides supposed to do Answ. The Dr. omits these words of mine However if he could yet me thinks it should satisfie that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is a sign of the Dative case because Mark who seems to have abbreviated Matthew so expresseth it and the common use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whe◠it notes dealings of man to man whether good or bad is usually expressed by the Dative case as Matth. 7.12 18.12 20.32 21.36 40. 25.40 45. to which the Dr. makes no answer and that which he saith here doth confirm my notion For if it were free to Mark to use any other expression different from Matthew so he retained the sense and yet he doth not use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but put onely the Dative case to express the same that Matthew did it appears that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are to the same sense and phrase to express injuries done to John Baptist and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Matthew is redundant and nothing expressed by it but what is expressed in Mark in the Dative case without it What the Dr. means when he saith 't is on both sides supposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changes the sense and so it is unlawful to vary it I do not understand our present question is not whether it bee lawfull to change a phrase when the sense is not changed and unlawful when it is but whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 17.12 bee redundant and a signe of the Dative case this is yet unanswerably proved to bee by this that Mark. 9.13 the same phrase and matter is expressed without it and there it notes onely the Dative case and that is the usual manner of expression without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be taken as redundant and a sign of the Dative case onely Matth. 17.12 The Dr. goes on A second instance which he conceivs cannot bee eluded is Col. 1.23 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was preached to every creature and this he proves to be the onely rendering 1. Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preach is commonly with a Dative case of the object and though 1 Tim. 3.16 it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
real saving holiness intentional as Rom. 11.26 the Jews uncalled are holy designati sanctitati ac per hoc etiam saluti conceive they have as good proof for it as the Dr. for his 5. Baptism is not proved to be the lowest degree imaginable of relative holiness in the Christian Church nor the lowest degree of visible profession For 1. there is a lower degree by freedome from Idol pollutions such as Tertullian mentions c. 39. de animá 2. There is a degree of holiness by vow or prayer such as Hannah devoted Samuel by 1 Sam. 1.11 which Josephus Antiq l. 5. c. 11. terms consecrating or sanctifying to God as the Greek version terms Numb 6.2 3. the separating of the Nazarite by vow a sanctifying and the Apostle prayer in the use of food a sanctifying it 1 Tim. 4.5 3. There is a lower degree of visible profession in the catechumeni not yet baptized then Baptism is 4. There is a lower degree of sanctification of them according to Augustine l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. cited before by the Dr. here p. 63 64. when â—e said Catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi orationem impositionis manuum puto sanctificari whence the Dr. himself saith there that some kind of sanctification which the unbaptized might have by prayer and imposition of hands of which we sometimes read in the Ancients as hath elsewhere been shewed 6. Nor is it proved that a person may not have the higher degree of holiness in the Cnurch without Baptism Sure a person may be converted regenerated afore Baptism and so holy And it is yet a question whether all the Apostles and Prophets in the Church were baptized though I doubt not they were and that regularly they should be yet the very questioning it shews the argument not to hold irrefragably that he that is not baptized hath no part of relative holiness in the Church of God or that all superiour degrees of Apostle Prophet c. in the Christian Church are founded in that Lastly it is apparent that the holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is not Baptism in that it is from the birth and so afore Baptism and from the parent not from the Minister may be though the child be never baptized is derived from the lawfulness of marriage society not from the belief of one or both parents and therefore not Baptism as the Dr. so far as I know without any example ancient or modern makes it He adds My second followes from the notation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 10.14 for those that must not be received into the Church as on the other side Gods cleansing is Gods reputing him fit to bee partaker of this priviledge whereby it appears how fitly receiving and not receiving to baptism are exprest by holy and unclean To this he answers by acknowledging the conclusion viz. the fitness of the expression All his exception is against my premise the notion of unclean Act. 10. which saith hee signifies there not onely one out of the Church but also one that a Jew might not go into or eat with To this I reply that my conclusion being granted I may safely part with that which inferred it as when I am arrived at my journeys end I have no further need or use of my horse or guide that brought me thither Let it be remembred that holy and unclean fitly express those that are received or not received to baptism and then I am sure I have not offended against the propriety of the words by concluding from this text that in the Apostles time the believers children were received to Baptism And if I have as little offended against the rational importance of the words in that place as I hope hath formerly appeared that I have then I hope I am perfectly innocent in inducing my conclusion As for the use of the phrase Act. 10. though now I need not contend yet I may add that the notion of not entring to and eating with containing under it this other of not baptizing for sure he might not baptize those to whom he might not enter and the baptizing Cornelius and not onely the entring to him being the end for which Peter received that vision I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism and the holiness on the contrary reception to that priviledge Answ. 1. I granted the fitness of the expression onely conditionally if the holy Ghost had so thought good but denied the holy Ghost did so and therefore he may offend against the propriety of the words notwithstanding my concession and hath as much need of his horse to get to his journeys end as if I had not yeelded so much 2. How much he hath offended against the rational importance of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.14 is shewed before 3. Were the fitness of the expression absolutely granted yet with the Drs. leave I conceive he needs to contend about the use of the phrase in his sense or else he will not be able to infer any thing for his purpose sith it is not the fitness of an expression but the use of words which must direct us in our expositions as being vis norma loquendi 4. That the use of it Acts 10.14 is not for the Drs. purpose is manifest For 1. the Dr. thus expounds common or unclean by not received to Baptism now if this were the notion of unclean Acâ—s 10.14 then when Peter saith I have never eaten any thing common or unclean hee meanes hee never eat any thing nor received into the Church by Baptism and when v. 15. it is said what God hath cleansed that call thou not common the meaning is what God hath baptized reject thou not from Baptism which is too ridiculous an exposition to be urged 2. If it be said that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or covered sense doth import it neither is that true For 1. it is certain that in the latent meaning the Apostle discerned by the vision that which is common or unclean to be meant v. 28. of one of another nation and the eating keeping company or going to which is also gathered from Acts 11.3 where the thing objected was that he went in to the uncircumcised and did eat with them So that from hence it is manifest that the proper notion of unclean is in that place according to the subsense which the vision aimed at one that being uncircumcised might not be gone into to talk with familiarly and and eat with though he were one that feared God Which cannot bee meant of want of baptism for so the clean to wit the unbelieving Jews were unclean they were not baptized with Christian baptism but of exclusion from familiar society and converse 2. On the other side by Acts 10.15 What God hath cleansed that call thou not common Peter v. 28. shews he understood allowance
to go to him preach to him eat with him as one accepted of God v. 35. So that the cleansing is the taking away of that restraint which was upon the Jewes of converse with the Gentiles Which being considered if unclean Acts 10.14 were to be expounded in the same notion which the Dr. imagines to be 1 Cor. 7.14 not admitted to the Church by Baptism then when God bid Peter count nothing common or unclean he bid him count no Gentile unbaptized and when he said what God hath cleansed it should be whom God hath baptized or admitted by Baptism into the Church And when the Apostle according to the Dr. useth unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 in the notion in which it is used Acts 10.14 he should mean your young children were such as a man might not go into converse with talke with familiarly eat with which certainly being meant of infants as the Dr. conceives is so ridiculus an exposition as a sober man would not put upon any profane Author much less on the sacred writers As for that which the Dr. saith that the notion of not entring to and eating with contained under it this other of not baptizing for sure hee might not baptize those to whom he might not enter it is so frivolous as that it is unfit for a man that takes on him to make Annotations on the New Testament For if this were good reasoning it would follow on the contrary every ones going in to and eating with one were baptizing and sith others then Apostles or preachers were to go into or not they were to baptize or not to baptize and all that men might not go into or eat with as excommunicate persons they must bee unbaptized and by the same reason sith sure a Minister may not admit to the Lords Supper nor a Bishop ordain him for a Priest to whom he might not enter the notion of not entring to and eating with contained under it this other of not communicating and not ordaining and consequently holy contains under it communicating and ordaining and so your young children are not unclean but holy should bee by this very reasoning expounded they are admitted to the Lords Supper and ordained Priests And what he adds And the baptizing Cornelius and not onely entring to him being the end for which Peter received that vision I still adhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place signifies one peculiarly that must not be received into the Church by Baptism and the holiness on the contrary reception to that priviledge may as well serve to prove unclean hath the notion of one excluded from the Lords Supper or heaven and holy on the contrary the reception to these sith these were the ends of Peters going in as well as baptizing and so to say your young children are holy shall be as much as your young children are admitted to the Lords Supper and to Heaven These conceits of the Dr. go upon two gross mistakes 1. As if unclean were used in a sense suitable to the Ecclesiastical practise in the Christian Church whereas it is used according to the use and conceipt of the Jews peculiarly 2. As if the notion of a word did exâ—end to the Concomitants and ends of the act expressed by it which if true then election regeneration should have the notion of justifying and glorifying preaching the notion of adoption and sanctification But enough of this raw conceit of the Doctor he goeâ— on thus My third reason saith hee being taken from the use of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sanctifie for washing any part of the body and on occasion of that mentioning a conjecture that the use of holiness for baptism might perhaps intimate that the primitive baptiâ—ms were not always immersions but that sprinkling of some part might be sufficicient he hath a reply to each of these To the former that if this reason were good then the husbands being sanctified by the wife must signifie his being baptized or washed by her to the latter that I have in my writings so oft acknowledged the Baptism of the Jews and Christians to be immersion of the whole body that I ought to be ashamed to say the contrary and that I can hardly believe my self in it To these I answer first to the former 1. That I that affirm sanctifications among the Jews to signifie washings do also know that it hath other significations and that that signification is in each text to bee chosen which seems most agreeable in all those respects which are to be considerable in the pitching on any interpretation consequently that the wives baptizing the husband being a thing absurd and utterly unheard of in the Church of God whether in the Apostles or succeeding ages this sense may not reasonably be affixt to it whereas the baptizing of infants being by the ancients affirmed to be received from the Apostles it is most reasonable to understand the words of this though not of the other and so to apply the observation as it is visible I did to the latter not former part of the verse Answ. This is no answer but a grant that the sanctifying 1 Cor. 7.14 cannot be meant of Baptizing sith it is absurd so to expound it and consequently a yeelding the argument from the calling the Jews washings sanctifications to have no force Nor doth he at all help himself by saying it is most reasonable to apply it to the latter part of the v. For there is no reason in it that because the Jewes use the word sanctification for Baptism therefore holy which is another word and in another predicament then sanctified which is in Passion and the other in quality or relation and not sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 is as much as Baptism and because the word sanctifications hath other significations then washings and may not be understood of Baptism in the fore-part of 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore holy no where proved to be as much as baptized is as much as admitted to the Church by Baptism and because the Ancients mention infant Baptism to be received from the Apostles as they do other unwritten traditions of observing Easter Lâ—nt giving infants the Communion c. therefore holy 1 Cor. 7.14 must be without any example in Scripture or Father of that use of the word bee expounded thus admitted in the Church by Baptism But yet the Dr. is loth to confess his errour but adds And yet 2. if we shall distinguish of the notion of by and expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the woman of the perswasion that the woman hath used to bring her husband to baptism and not of her ministry in bâ—ptizing wee may very conveniently so interpret the former part of the verse also that by the woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbelieving husband hath been brought to baptism viz. by being brought to faith to which this priviledge belongs Answ. 1. The Dr. brings no example of such a notion of by or of such a use
subdivision and notification of several Sects among the Jewes as there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity but use not new Baptism to discriminate them I am sure contradict the Apostle if they do Answ. How sage the Drs. observations of making Disciples as all one with receiving to discipleship of baptizing after the Jewish pattern c. are is seen before This observation is not denied by the Dr. nor any thing said by him to evacuate the use I intended to make of it to shew that to be a disciple doth not noâ—e the comming to God to enjoy benefits as the Dr. made the notion of a Proselyte to import for then persons should be termed disciples of the Priests which is not so but to learn and so the disciples of Pharisees were those who learned their opinions That which the Dr. saith is not true that by Baptism persons were admitted to discipleship nor that disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces were but a subdivision under Disciples of God or Christ for their disciples were no disciples of God or Christ nor pertinent to the avoiding the use of my observation 'T is true there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity and of them I know none so great as that of the Prelatists who will neither hear the Preacher who preacheth the faith of Christ nor joyn in prayer unless the Common Prayer Book be used nor own them as Presbyters who were not ordained by a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter nor joyn with that society as a Church lawfully constituted where there is not Episcopal government which I take to be a manifestly unjust schism and recusancy I know none that use new Baptism but Paedobaptists who therein contradict Christs institution and the Apostles practise Pistobaptists or baptizers of Believers of age upon their profession of faith use the old Baptism which Christ appointed and the Apostles practised not to discriminate them from others but to do their duty and to supply a defect in infant sprinkling The Dr. saith His second observation is that the Holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs Proselytes but his Disciples that saith he we might not confound the notions of these termes But I answer 1. That those Texts that express the Christians entring into discipleship by comming unto him of which there are good store do in effect call them Proselytes for a Proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediately from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto Answ. 1. I think this not true sith the texts which express the comming to Christ do mean by it believing in him as Joh. 6.35 shews but that is not in effect to call them Proselytes in the Drs. sense nor is the notion of a commer unto and a disciple all one sith a person may come to a person yea to learn and never yet be his disciple And secondly saith the Dr. that if this word whether in it self or in the Verb from whence it â—omes had never been used in the N. T. yet would it not thence follow that we might not confound the notions of Proselytes and Disciples Ans. Nor do I make it any demonstrative argument but probable as it is probable that the Holy Ghost calls not the Christian society the Synagogue nor the preachers of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priests that we may not confound them I have often given a firm reason why infants capable of coming to Christ blessed by him and affirmed to be qualified for the Kingdom of heaven should be denied water to be baptized even this that neither Christ appointed it nor the Apostles baptized them though he did the other to them The Christian Church or Minister might not deny baptism to infants if they were qualified as Cornelius and the Gentiles that came with him were Acts 10.46 47. 11.18 What I said of infants being unqualified for Baptism till by hearing they own Christ as their Master is fully proved in the â—d part of this Review sect 5 c. and it is therefore too too boldly said by the Dr. that it is a begging of the question without the least tender of proof Whether or in what manner the little ones mentioned Deut. 29.10 did enter into Covenant is so fully discussed before Sect. 44 45 61 66 67. chiefly this last that I need here add no more Either in one of those Sections or some where before in this part of the Review I have proved from the Text and Commentators that those that were not with them that day v. 15. were unborn chiefly in that v. 2. Moses called unto all Israel and they are said v. 10. all to stand there that day and therefore I might more justly wonder though it be no wonder that the Dr. thus abuseth me that hee should have the face to say I impose on the Reader He tels me there is no mention of any act of the Fathers engaging them under a curse or oath but onely of Gods oath which he maketh to them v. 12. But he might have seen v. 14. these words Neither do I make with you onely this Covenant and this Oath but with him also that is not here with us thâ—â— day which I know not how it should be meant of any other then the unborn for none but they of Israel were then absent and entering into an oath and curse as they did Nehem. 10.29 And for what hee adds If they had thus adjured or laid oath or curse upon their children yet would this make no difference betwixt their and our entring into Covenant we by the oath of Baptism which iâ— laid on the child by him to be performed when he comes to ability unless he will forfeit all the benefits of his Baptism do in like manner adjure our infants though while they remain such they hear it as little as the Jewish infants did But sure there is a great difference between the solemn adjuration of Moses and all Israel binding their posterity and recorded in the book of the Law and the obscure charge of an ignorant officiating Priest to three Gossips whereof some are so ignorant that they know not what the Christian faith is at a Font which hee terms the oath of Baptism which is seldome either heeded or remembred by any present And whereas he saith my rejecting his inference that by parity of reason infants may be entred into discipleship and baptized to be a denying the conclusion when the premises cannot be denied It is not true for the consequence is plainly denied and the reason is given of that denial and each branch proved in the Book before sect 5 c. And therefore I shall say no more to this section it being pity to use the Drs. words to lose time on such trifling conceits empty of all proof as this Dr. hath dictated for infant Baptism He said better Pract. cat l. 5. § 1. The Apostles
relying on this Councel shewed their darkness Answ. Mr. M. p. 38. of his Defence Though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement yet he relied not uâ—on his reasons to make good infant Baptism this to him is no new doctrine he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church which in that point be followed faithfully Ref. It appears by the words of Augustine ep 28. ad Hieronâ—m where he alledgeth this very thing for infant Baptism that Cyprian said not that the flesh but the soul unbaptized should be lost that he relied on his reaâ—ons and the like is apparent where he and Hierome set down his words and argue from them tom 7. l. 3. de pecc mer. remis c 6 contra Julian l. 1. c. where Augustine hath these words Sed Cyprianus dicit periâ—e parvulum nisi fuerit baptizaâ—us quam vis ei non propria demittantur sed â—liena pecâ—ata But Cyprian saith a little one perisheth unless he be baptized although not his own but anothers sins are forgiven him My 3d. Excepâ—ion was That Fidus started the question out of a Judaizing conceit that the law of Circumcision which was not to be till the â—th day was to be considered and that the footstep of an infant being in the first days of his birth is not clean which shew a relique of Judaism in him To this it is said 1. That Cyprian did not concur with him nor the Councel Refut 1. However it appears that the Baptism of infants was then practised upon the superstitious conceit as if we were to do in Baptism as the Jews did in Circumcision 2. Nor doth Cyprian appear by hiâ— Ep. 7. l. 4. and elsewhere to be free from thinking the ceremonial Law to direct us about Baptism 2. That other learned men as Athanasius Nazianz. August Chrysostome reasoned from Circumcision to Baptism Refut No doubt of it for as in the controversie about Easter so in other things they appeared too much to imitate the Jewish ceremonies by which the simplicity of the Christian service was altered My 4th Exception was That the resolution of this Councâ—l was the spring-head of infant Baptism Answ. Before that time Baptism of infants was in use Refut Yet it was not determined before but disswaded nor was any authority of any Councel which was as a spring head to it whence it continued a stream afore that nor doth Augustine in his allegatiâ—ns for it find any higher spring of it then Cyprian and his Councel My 5th and chief Exception was Tâ—at the Councel determined the baptizing of infants upon these errours which are now rejected by Protestants as Popish 1. That they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it denying Gods grace 2. They thought the souls to be lost which were not baptized 3. That therefore not onely infants of believers but all infants were to be baptized Mr. M. acknowledgeth the two first to be rightly gathered from the words of the Epistle but that he also urged that Baptism comes in stead of Circumcision and if some arguments were used by the Ancients which were not good the truth is not to be rejected when some oâ—her are Ref. 1. The Council determined infant Baptism on no other argument 2. If infant Baptism could be proved by other arguments I should yeeld to it however the credit and authority of this Councel is taken away by reason of the falshood of the grounds of their determination 2 ly For the 3 d. inference though he lays it down in general terms that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ Yet what he saith ought to be understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common Ref. 1. The words are as express as may be We all judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied by not baptizing them nulli hominum nato to none born of men as much as in us lies if it may be nulla anima peâ—denda est no soul is to be lost for want of Baptism 2. The very words Mr. M alledgeth for a restriction to the Church are against it they are thus Sed putamus omnem omnino hominem admittendum ad gratiam Christi cum Petrus in Actibus Apostolorum loquatur dicat Dominus mihi dixit neminem communem dicendum immundum But we think every man altogether should be admitted to the grace of Christ when Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and saith The Lord hath said to me that no man should be termed common and unclean Which is meant of all men not onely of the Church And this enough to answer Dr. Homes who in his animadversions p. 138. finds not that passage in Cyprian which I alledge and p. 139. saith Cyprian doth not say infants perish if they be not baptized though Augustine expresly saith the contrary and p. 13â— takes on him to defend the sayings of that Councel as having no errour or hurt to say that Baptism gives grace instrumentally and that without warrant wittingly to deny Baptism is to deny Gods grace But Protestant writeâ—s generally as Austin before judge the words to have a further sense and the words of the Epistle plainly shew that they held by the very Baptism infants had remission of sin and were saved and without it were lost and to deny them Baptism was to deny them Gods grace That which he saith of me â— 139. That I would not have it that Cyprian doth at all put in original sin among his arguments for baptizing of infants is not true I onely denyed that he put it in in the manner Mr. M. conceived What I said of the absurdity and nakedness of that Epistle hath no more immodesty then is common to Writers Protestant and Papists who charge Fathers and ancient Councels with errours blemishes and ofâ— times with harder censures if I had given that Epistle a â—arter censuâ—e I had done right that I spake was soft enough considering the great hurt which hath come to the Church of God by that Epistle which determined childrens baptism by childish reasons Next to Cyprian of the Latine Fathers are recited Ambrose and Hierome and Paulinus by Dr. Hammond whose words with Augustines and such Councels as were in their times in the 4th and 5th Century I shall forbear to reciâ—e it being acknowledged that in those ages it was practised and by reason of Augustines esteem Baptism of infants was practised in following Ages almost without controul and in process of time that which was before Augustines dayes a rarity became so frequent as that it almost swallowed up the right Bapâ—ism which appears from the words of Walafridus Strabo placed by Usher at the year 840. in his Book de rebus Ecclesiasticis c. 26. who is termed by Mr. George Gillespie in his Aarons rod blossoming p. 567. a diligent searcher of the ancients which were before him and of the old Ecclesiastical rites
16.15 v. 32 33. shew that by the house are meant persons of age and by so expounding we diminish not Gods word nor make exception that God hath not made nor imply a contradiction nor incur a curse as Mr Cr. after his vein of pratling writes All that Mr. Cr. saith in opposition to what I said of baptizing believers in the first ages continued without any infant Baptism proves not my words an untruth nor a frontless assertion and is answered before sect 88 89 9â—â—n which and sect 90 91. all that he brings to evince my 7th and 8th untruth as he terms my words is examined I justly account infant Baptism a Popish abuse it being derived from these principles unwritten tradition and necessiâ—y of it to save an infant dying which are judged Popish errours And for answer to what Mr. Cr. saith of my 9th untruth as he terms it I refer the Reader to the 9th Section of my Praecursor not refelled by Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 7. Mr. Cr. excepts against me for saying 1. That the Epistlers assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain 2. That Anabaptism is true Baptism 3. That the true cause is the light shining from Scriptures and other Authors 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now What he saith against the first is but a repeating of the reasons without any confirmation but some light Poetical pedaâ—tiâ—ue expressionâ— which deserve onely neglect Against the â—d he gives his reasons against reiteration of Baptism which are nothing â—o me who asserted not thâ—â— baptizing twice was true Baptism but baptizing â—f persons of age professing â—aith though in infancy imagined to have been baptized is true Baptism Yet do I see no force in the reasons he gives For 1. in the institution of Baptism Mat. 28.19 the precept is to the baptizer and I presume he doth not think the baptizer is not to reiterate his act of baptizing yea doubtless he is to baptize as oft as there are Disciples made by him And as for the act of the baptized which is implied it is true neither is it determined to be once or twice and may therefore seem to be left to liberty That he allegeth Whatsoever is not of faith is sin is clean mistaken by him the meaning â—eing onely what a man doth with a doubâ—ing conscience is sin to him so by this reason rebaptization is a sin only to him that doubts of it And when â—e saith Whatsoever is not grounded on the Scripture is will worship I presume he means it of that which is used as worship and determined to be but once But then the question is only begg'd not proved that Christ hath determined Baptism to be but once In that which he saith of Act. 19.3 which is an instance of being twice baptized I find nothing brought by Mr. Cr. to avoid the force of it For to be baptized into Johns Baptism can be no other then to be baptized with water according to the proâ—ession of Johns Disciples and this was true Baptism from Heaven not differing in the nature of it from Christs as say Protestant Divines and it is certain that to be baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus iâ— to be baptized with water into the profession of him as Act 2. â—8 41. 10.48 the giving the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed v. 6. to have been by laying on of hands and this was on the same persons v. 6. who were â—aid to hear and to be baptised v. 5. and these were not all the people mentioned v 4. buâ— twelve onely v. 7. and therefore it is far more probable and in mine apprehension certain as the Ancients did conceive that those twelve were baptized with water twice once according to the profeâ—â—â—on Johns Disciples made at Baptism and the other according to the Christian. Nor am I moved by the observation of Marnixius â—pâ—roved by Beza in hiâ— annot in locum and followed by many others That the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily answer each other and therefore â—he words v 4 5. be Pauls For 1. the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put oft and the matter requires it should be so conceived here either as an expletive that is without force to which in the vulgar translaâ—ion nothing answers as it is Act 3.21 22 c. oâ— an adverb of affirmation or if it be a conjunction diâ—cretive that which answers to it is not that v. 5. there being no good sense to say John verily baptised with the Baptism of repentâ—nce saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after that is on Christ Jesus but they hearing this c. there being no apt discretion made in such speech if the particles be discretive the other part is concealed and should be to thiâ— purpose But the Baptism we use is into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit or into the name of the Lord Jesus already come And for this reasâ—n the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be expounded as our interpreters when or as a meer expletive as in the vulgar 2. The words Act. 19.5 do give an obvious plain sense on the other side as the words of Luke thus When the twelve mentioned v. 7. heard this of Paul that it was Christ â—esus to come after John on whom John would have his Disciples to believe when he baptized them with the Baptism of repentance then they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus with express profession of him Nor is it true that there is express Scripture Ephes. 4 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism against the iteration of the same Baptism For as one Faith notes nâ—t one act of believing but one kind of faith from the unity of the object bâ—lieved which may be and is one faith though an hundred times iterated so one Baptism notes not one act of baptizing but one kind of Baptism distinct from Pharisaical Baptism into the observance of the Law fâ—r righteousness termed one by the profession of the same Doctrine or Lord though it be an hundred times iterated The same man baptized an hundred times and an hundred men once onely baptized each of them have one Baptism in the â—postles sense if they be baptized with the same profession and the same person though but once baptized yet if with another profession hath not that one Baptism there meant One Baptism is not as much as once baptized and no more but Baptism into one profession and no other The 2d argument is of no force Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it we are caâ—nally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once Faith though it admit of gradations begins but once Baptism that matriculates us into Christs School is to be performed but once Answ. The Scripture no
belongs not to one of them must needs belong to the other and a topick rule out of Cracanthorp and some other instances about divisions in all which there is nothing but vanity For let Propositions be immediate yet wâ—â—n they are opposite as these are some infants are to be baptised some not the one follows not from the other but the contrary rather except in those termed subaltern which are rather subordinate then opposite His instances of consequences upon a sufficient division they are all impertinent here where there is no division of term but the same terms are in both Propositions In his answer to my instances he would make a difference between the Propositions about infant Bapâ—ism and the Lords Supper and ordination to be Bishops that the one is in a capable subject not the other but he shews not that an infant is capable of Baptism any mâ—re then of the Lords Supper or a boy of ordination nor if they were doth the force of the argument â—old more in the one then in the other and therefore it 's his ignorance to say noâ—ut â—ut it is whether this â—llation be good Some are not therefore some are to be baptised which if right it will follow in the other instances of Communion and oâ—dination as well as in it That which he saith of my grant of the capacity of Baâ—tism because I grant they may be elected and believe and would if I knew it of infants baptize them follows not for though my ignorance hinders not their capacity in themselves yet it hinders their capacity from mee I being not warranted to baptize any believer till his faith be manifested to me Sect. 2. Mr. Cr. goes on to scribble after his usual manner He had thus dispuâ—ed To whom belongs the essence of Baptism they may be baptised But to some infant belongs the essence of Baptism Ergo. To this I said This Proposition the essence of Baptism belongs to infants may have two senses He replies as if I distinguished of a two fâ—ld essence of Baptism which he terms a Chymaera the essence of a thing being but one and indivsible whiâ—h shews hee hath some smattering in Metaphisicks but is impertinent to the thing in hand For be it all granted yet a Proposition which speaks of the essence may have a two-fold sense and the senses I conceived of his words were rightly set down and more favourably to Mr. Cr. then his words did deserve For this Proposition To some infants belongs the essence of Baptism must have one of those senses or a worse to wit either that infants are in the definition of Baptism so as that there is no Baptism but of infants or that Baptism is of the essence of infants so as that they are no infants without Baptism which are absurd And to speak truly the whole argument is ridiculous take it what way he will except he give the same sense which I did and then the minor and the conclusion are all one and the major meerly tautological To whom the right administration of Baptism belongs they may be lawfully baptized But to infants c. Ergo In the other sense it is more vain For if the essence numerical of Baptism belong to infants then not a moral right is asserted but either a present or a future event and so the minor Proposition should be Some infants are baptized which is a thing discerned by sense or shall be baptized which were a prediction but nothing to the point about moral or legal right To understand it of the specifical essence makes no sense but what is worse His proof from the definition is also as vain For it is a proof of the same by the same But he tels me It is not all one as to argue infant Baptism is Baptism therfore it is right baptism but it concludes infant Baptism is baptism therefore infants may be baptized which is the question by this inference put out of question To which I reply this talk 〈◊〉 to me like the words of a crazed man there being no question between uâ— about the baptism of infants whether they may be baptized that is whether this may be done to them so as that they be passive subjects of it I never denied that infants may be thus baptized but the question is whether it may be lawfully done by him that doth it and then to say they may be baptized is all one as to say infant Baptism is right baptism and so his argument from the definition is that which he denies not to be vain infant Baptism is baptism therefore it is right Baptism But he thinks to prove from the definition that infant Baptism is right Baptism and he sets down his conceits of Baptism that it is a relation whose fundament is the Divine institution inâ—olding infants in all nations in severall families which if he oncâ— pâ—ove he needs prove no more but here he doth not attempt it but excepts against me for denying Baptism to be a relation but an action or passion with a relation superadded and he brings against me sayings of Divines who call it a signe which I deny not in respect of the use but that shews not the nature of it no more then Circumcision is in its nature a relation because it is a signe of the Covenant in its use the carrying a scepter is in its nature a relation because in its use it is a sign of royalty What he saith that I tell not whether it be action or passion and not to be placed in one category is to be placed in none is answered by his own confession that in Baptism is included baptization which is both action and passion which is enough to shew that Baptism is in its nature either an action or a passion and may be put in either predicament and that in different respects a word may be put in divers predicaments and his talk false that nothing formally can be placed in two categories and the rest of his talk about the genus of Baptism being a signe and other passages to be but mistakes But he attempts to gain his â—urpose by this argument Every Sacrament is a relation But Baptism is a Sacrament Ergo. To which I answered both premises â—ight be dâ—nied and as a reason of the denial alleged â— That the term Sacrament being but a term invented by Latin Fathers may be laid asiâ—e He replies that the 12. Tables and Tully mention it therefore it was long before the Latin Christian Fathers True but not in the sense in which Baptism is termed a Sacrament But if the word Sacrament be laid aside because a Heathen word then should also the terms Bishop Preâ—byter Deacon be laid asâ—de also Answ. No fâ—r they are Scripture terms not so the tâ—rm Sacrament in the Ecclesiastical sense Yet again then Trinity Unity Humanity Antipaedobaptist must be laid aside Answ. It followes not yet what â— said of Sacrament I say of them they may
be laid aside when an argument is drawn from them as here from the word Sacraâ—ent He adds Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the original Answ. It is but never in the use in which the term Sacrament is used as now it is defined 2. I alleged that there is no common nature of Sacraments not as Mr. Cr. of a Sacrament express'd in Scripture This he saves is untrue in the sequel For what consequence There is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more then in this There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture therefore faith is not an infused grace Answ. It was not my sequel but this therefore the term Sacrament may be laid aside and no good argument is from the definition of a Sacrament to prove Baptism to be a relation The term grace or grace of God I do much question whether any where in Scripture it be applied to inherent quaâ—ities in us or good acts proceeding from us and I conceive that the use of it in that manner hath occasioned or strengthened the errour of justification by inherent righteousness because we are said to be justified by grace and do wish that when approvers of Preachers are directed to examine persons of the grace of God in them the thing had been otherwise expressed and that such an expression as the gift by grace or the like were used yet I deny not there is in Scripture a common nature of those gifts by grace in us which accompany salvation and that faith is a gift by grace infused inspired or wrought by the spirit of God Mr. Cr. saith further untrue in it self for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together a common nature of Sacraments compared together And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture Rom. 4.11 a seal of the righteousness of faith This is the judgement of the Ancients and the most of the Divines of the reformed Churches Answ. That neither the text Rom. 4.11 nor the Ancients do so define a Sacrament is shewed before and however the Divines of the Reformed Churches do define thence a Sacrament as the seal of the Covenant yet not as there it is expressed a seal of the righteousness of faith But of this I have said enough before sect 31. What I said of Austins definition of a Sacrament that it is a visible signe of invisible grace as imperfect which I proved by instances was without a miscellany of absurdities â—f the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove were a signe or seal of Christs office of Mediatorship and not of his righteousness of faith yet it was a visible signe of his holy qualifications Luk. 4.18 Joh. 3.44 and so of invisible grace and consequently a Sacrament by Austins definition Christs washing his Disciples feet shewed his love and humility ergo by Austins definition must be also a Sacrament and holding up the hands in prayer shews faith in God kissing the Bible in swearing shews appealing to God as Judge or hope in his word which are invisible graces according to Austin and according to his definition Sacraments And though it be added in the Common Prayer book Catechism ordained by Christ yet it is not so in Austins definition used by Mr. Cr. in the dispute and if it had holding up the hands in prayer had been a Sacrament being apâ—ointed 1 Tim. 2.8 And for the addition in the Catechism as a means to receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof I know no Scripture that ever made Ciâ—cumcision the Passeover the Lords Supper or Baptism meanes to receive invisible grace and how faâ— and in what manner it assures I have before sect 31. and elsewhere shewed Enough of Mr. Crs. vain praâ—â—le in this section Sect. 3. Mr. Cr. quarrels with my reconciliation of my own words denying all invisible Churchmembers were to be baptized but affirming it of viâ—ible He tels me 1. This distinction is not fitly applied for the proposition was meant of visible Churchmembeâ—ship But 1. however it were meaâ—t the expression was God appointed infants Churchmembers under the Gospel and this might be understood of invisible as well as visible Churchmembership and therefore it was fitly applied to take away the ambiguity of the expression 2. It was fitly applied also to â—lâ—er my meaniâ—g and to free my words from contradiction 2. He tels me my proposition is not true for all visible Churchmembers are not to be baptized then all baâ—tized before they being visible members were to be baptized again But what is this but wrangling sith the proposition was his own and I granted it with that limitation in his own sense of them that were not yet baptized He tels me of the state of the question between us which is impertinent to the present business of cleering my words He adds Invisible and visible members differs as Genus and species all invisible members are visible but not all visible members invisible the invisible being extracted out of the visible now if all invisible members be also visible it will inevitably follow they may be baptized whether visible by profession or by prerogative and promise of parents or sureties of infants But what a dotage is this Doth visible Churchmember praedicari de pluribus specie differentibus in quid If it be asked what is an invisible Churchmember will any that is in his wits say hee is a visible Churchmember Is not this a contradiction to say all invisible members are visible How is it proved that any are visible members of the Christian Church but by profession of faith The like dotage is in what he saith after that there is an intrinsecal connexion of thâ—se termes actually to receive into Covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel that they are as essentially coincident as to bee a man and a reasonable creature which makes this proposition to be aeterâ—ae veritatis those whom God did actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel For is the one to be defined by the other Do not these terms express existences restrained to hic and nunc for sure actual receiving and appointing are singular acts in tiâ—e not essences If these speeches of Mr. Cr. be according to Metaphysical and â—ogical principles I am yet to seek in them as having not heard or read of such principles before And if God did promise before the Law foreâ—ell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel or appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel without faith or profession of â—aith then infidels are actually in Covenant under the Gospel and so justified then is Mr. Baxters dispute against Antinomians about the condition of the Covenant and justification false and if they be Churchmembers without faith or profession of faith and to
conceive by the date of his Epistle however whether alive or dead a man very reverend and however he conceived of me one of the most learned and accurate writers specially in such things as this of his age and while he slights him discover so much folly and ignorance in Hebrew and Greek as an ordinary â—rammarian or student in the Bible would hardly have shewed certainly it 's unsuitable to his undertaking of a Schoolmaster The phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is word by word the son◠〈◊〉 hundred years for without of it would be non-sense it being the sigâ—◠〈◊〉 Genitive case nor is old substracted but included in that expression it being the Hebrew expression of old or aged as M. Gataker shews from Gen. 11.10 21.5 5.32 7. â— 12.4 16.16 17.1 25.20 26. 37.2 41.46 45.26 and elswhere and the same he might have learned from Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 5 â—2 c. Hebr. son of 500. years that is going in his 500. year An usual speech in the Hebrew Scripture of mens age or of beasts Gen. 17.1 Exod 12.5 And for he and when how can they be said to be superadded when the very term shall die is all one with when he shall die which shews it is not for Mr. Crs. purpose for then it should have been shall be born as an hundred years old as well a churchmember as if he were but is agreeable to the Prophets meaning to express long life And therefore his jeer of excellent Arithmetick shews his folly in deriding that which was right And for his prattle it shews his excellent ignoranâ—e of the Hebrew and Greek of the â—ible Buâ—torf Thes Gram. Hebr. l. 2. c. 3. p. 360 in that piece which is termed by Amama c. admirandum opus 〈◊〉 nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius periphrases Hebraismos facit insâ—gnes ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 filius areus Iob 41.19 id est sâ—gitta similes innumeri Sic Iâ—â—an 17.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Latinos Horat. 1. carm od 14. Terrâ— filius should one scribble as Mr. Cr. doth here Here 's a new creation of a new generation son of the bow of perdition of the earth who evâ—r heard such a syntax did the son beget tâ—e bow perdition the earth or the bow perdition the earth the son or whether is elder Would not a Scholler say he played the fool For this I leave him to Mr. Vaugâ—ans correction But he seems to be more considâ—rate in what follows According to which interpretation the words must carry this sense There shall no more infants diâ— when they are young nor an old man till he 〈◊〉 filled his days for he that now is a child shall not die till he be an hundred years old I wonder in what age this was performed that no man died till he had compleated his century no mortal disease nor use of Physitians but every man might certainlâ— know the day of his death Answ. The words contain not such an absolute universal longaevity as Mr. Cr. would make to be the consequent of our interpretation but a length of days opposite to former troubles v. 16. in which so many died by war famine and pestilence which therefore comparatively is reckoned as universal as in like manner Ieremiah ch 50.20 speaking of the same times saith the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for there shall be none that is as formerly to provoke God to cut them off by gâ—ievous deaths as before the captivity And according to this iâ— that of Zech. 8.4 and I said without any vaunting Nebuchadnezzar like language as Mr. Cr. abusively chargeth me with Isa. 65.20 was rightly made by me answerable to Zech 8 4. which doth not intimate that the Text was made by me and not by the Holy Ghost but made answerable or correspondent which arrogates no more to me then if I had said made clear made manifest c. Nor is any experience or History contrary to this that the Iews after their return from Babylon 〈◊〉 prosperity increase and long life in Canaan a great while together and were honoured by divers Persian Kings Alexander the Great and some of the â—recian Kings and the Nations near them iuâ—ject to them The Contents of the Chapter were never by any Synod or Parliament interpretatively entitled to the Church of England nor are to be accounted any more valid then Mr. Gatakers notes who though a single man yet had his notes approved by other Annotators and in some sort by the Assembly at Westminster Yet the Contents of the Chapter being v. 17. The blessed estate of the new Ierusalem and in the Margin at v. 19. Revel 21.4 being put shew that Mr. Crs. conceit is no more favoured by them then mine And the speech being to be understood comparatively to the former times was true of the Jews after their return from the captivity at Babel V. 25. expâ—essing the Jews peace notwithstanding the Samaritan neighbours was true at the same time although both were accommodated to the Gospel times and the calling of the Jews yet to come Nor is it any strange thing in that Prophet to make thâ— restitution of the Jews from Captivity as answering to making new Heavens and Earth as Isa. 51.16 44.24 25 26. 45.12 13. Yet I deny not that 2 Pet 3.13 Revel 21.1 the words are rightly applied to some other great work of God resembled by this and to be yet accomplished That the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.2 were actually baptized or washed under the cloud it raining upon them and in the Red Sea the water touching their feet at least after the dividing of the waves in such a sudden passage and blowing upon them with thâ— sprinkling thereof is no where set down Exod 13. and 14. Nâ—r will such wetting be ever found in any Greek Authour to be termed Baptism formally and therefore it can be no other then similitudinary Baptism which is there meant as the eating Manna and drinking Water was a similitudinary partaking of the Lords Supper and Grotius did rightly expound 1 Cor. 10.2 were baptised by were as if they were baptisâ—d and yet Isa. 65 20. is not rightly so expounded shall die as an hundred years old there being no need of such an interpretation nor any thing leading to it in the Text but the expression is of long life nor if it were meant so iâ— it proved that infants must be Churchmembers and capable of some seal under the Gospel unless there were no other wâ—y then that in respect of which he might be as one an hundred years old Had Mr. Cr. sought the clearing of truth he had been willing to read out the whole that his dealing might not be taken for deceitfull By my refutation of Dr. Savage in Latin some years since Printed it may appear whâ—tâ—er Text Dr. Savage or the Dr. of the Chair did avoid my argument The rest of M. Crs. argumenâ—s are the same with what others have urged and have been answered in this and the former parts as this Review nor do I find that Mr. Cr. hath added any thing of moment to them to which I need make further reply As or his â—â—â—nts quips misrecitals or mistakes of my words mis-reports of my actions together with his own mistakes in Logick Grammer Divinity thâ—y are otherwise discernable then by a particular answer in Print to each part of his Book I presume the Christian and equal Reader will think it unnecessary to make any more reply to what iâ— written of infantâ— Baptism till some thing be found written which better defends it then those have done who are here answered If any other think it fiâ—â— I should answer him also in particulaâ— he may conceive that if I did pâ—rceive any thing that might not have an answer in that which is already written or had in it any difficulty I should have done it But being conscious to my felâ— that I have not declined the answering of any out of contempt of the person or sense of the difficulty of doing it but because it is thought that I have been too large already and that to answer every meer quirk of wit is unnecessary as knowing that however light witâ— that love to shew their skill in disputing be taken with them yet solid conscientious men will be led onely with good proofs out of Scripture which may shew the institution of Christ I do here supersede from this work and commend it to his blessing of whom and through whom and for whom are all things to whom be glory for ever AMEN FINIS Mr. Gatakers Annot. on Jer. 31.30 The former Covenant comprehended together with those spiritual promises which yet were the principal part of it many temporal blessings as the possession of the land of Canaan and multiplicity of issue and outward prosperity Gen. 15.5 7 18. 17.2 7 8. Psal. 105.8 Deut. 28.1 19. Whereas this later runneth wholly upon the Spiritual and Celestial blessings Rom. 3.24 25. 5.1 2. Eph. 1.3 Heb. 8.6 See Ainsworth Annotations on Gen. 21.12 Vide Gatâ—k Discept de vi effic inf baptism pag. 243.
that Author to be afore the 3d. century and consequently not that Dionysius the Arâ—opagite mentioned Act 17 34. as some Papists would have it but are by learned men both Papists and Protestants refuted whereof may be seen Magdeb. centur 1. l. 2. c. 10. Scultet med Patrum l. 11. c 9. Perkins prepar to the demonstr of the probleme 2. Though Dr. Hammond conceive that that Author is to be placed in the 3 d age by reason of some words of Photius which for want of books I cannot examine yet Salmasius ad Colâ—ium saith p 1â—9 quamvis subdititius ille Dionyâ—â—us Areopagita sit auctor nec antiquior quinto seculo p. 441. quem certa fides est scripsisse circa finem quinti seculi And that which Scultetus ubi supra observâ—s that in his book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he writes many things of Temples of â—ltars of Holy places of a Quiâ—e of consecration of Monks of the tonsure and shaving of heads iâ— me thinks a good argument that the Author was somâ— idle dreaming Monk no elder then the 5th century and is so far from being accâ—unted a Wâ—iter of esteem among Divines that he is rather censured as one who by his curiosities hath corrupted Divinity 3. Whether those who deemed infanâ— baptism unreasonable were infidels who derided it or Christians who scrupled it is noâ— câ—eared by the Dr. Nor is it aâ—pareâ—t that by Divine guides are meant the Apostles 4. Bâ—t if it were that Author makes it no other then an unwritten tradition if he did he would â—ave alledged some Scripture for iâ— and the words our Divine Officers being instructed not as Dr. Hammond translates it by Divine tradition but unto or of the old tradition have brought down unto us do shew that he counted it a tradition unwritten and delivered from one Officer to another until that time Now it is granted that in the end of the 3d. and following ages infant baptism and in like manner infant communion were counted traditions Apostolical to save infants from perishing and such seems to have been the opinion of that Author Pamelius annot 89. on Cyprian de lapsis Tractat hunc locum D. Augustinus Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Haud obscure autem hic quomodo suprâ— indicatur vetus Ecclesiae consuetudo communionis parvulorum qualem etiam indicaâ—e videtur Dionysius Areopagita sub finem Eccles. Hierarch sua adhuc aetate D. Aug. Epist. 107. ad vitalem All which being consideâ—ed this testimony is so far from being a most convinciâ—g â—estimoâ—y of the derivation of infant baptism from the Apostleâ— â—hat considering upâ—n what ground they observed it and how much vanity was in the Ancients in their retaining many fond customes and fathering them on the Apostles and when common defending them by Scriptures perverted it is a convincing testimony that infant baptism was no more froâ—â—he Apostles then infant communion both meer corruptions taken upon mistakes and defended by abuse of Scripture Mr. M. Mr. Cr. Dr. Homes Dr. Hammond alledge Gregory Nazianzen his 40th Oration about baptism in which he adviseth the baptizing of infants which saith Dr. Hammond is a plain testimony of the Churches doctrine at that time the 4 th century about the year of Christ 70. he flourished and died in the year 389. Against this sundry things are objected 1. that the same Author saith as I find his words in Chamier paustr. cath tom 4 l. 5. c. 9. § 66. where he gives instance in his 40th Oration of baptism of those who decease without baptism Neither can they receive it either perhaps by reason of infancy or some altogether involuntary chance by which it is that even they who would obtain not that gift From whence it is manifest that in Gregory Nazianzens time infants did decease without baptism and that they could not receive it by reason of infancy Nor is this objection salved by making the reason of these childrens not receiving baptism because that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their children to baptism because they dwelt among infidels or Paynims where they could not enjoy the benefit of the word and sacraments for themselves or their children therefore they were necessitated to put off the baptising of their children which seems to be Mr. Ms friends evasion in his Defence p. 24. in that he applies this passage in Nazianzen as well to the hinderance of the baptism of children as of elder persons For the words of Nazianzen shew that as some deceased without baptism by reason of some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unvoluntary accident whether by the hand of God or men so others he saith deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely by reason of infancy and that by reason of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were not in power or capacity to receive it Which is a plain testimony that however in câ—se of apparent daâ—ger of death then infants miâ—ht receive baptism according to his opinion yet ordinarily they were not in the power or capacity to receive it and so did sometimes die without it 2. It is objected and thereby this observation is confirmed that when he comes in the same Oration to set down what he would have done about infants baptism he resolves 1. that they should be baptized if danger did urge it that they might not miss of the common grace intimating thâ—t otherwise they should 2. He gives his judgement for others that they should wait longer 3. The reason he giveth of this longer waitiâ—g is that they may hear some mystical or spiritual thing may be taught to answer somewhat and if they understand not fully perfectly and exaâ—â—ly yet they are instructed and informed 4. That not as Dr. Hammond to give colour to his conceit of sanctifying to be the same with baptizing 1 Cor. 7.14 by this means they may be baptised souls and bodies for if this were good reading 1. they should baptize themselves 1. they should bapâ—ize â—heir souls which were ridiculous but so as that they sanctifie both souls and bodies by or with the great mystery of initiation Which shews he conceived 1. that by baptism benefit did come to infants though they perceived it not 2 that it sanctifies their bodies 3. that it is beâ—ter done when children are taught to answer 4. then they sanctifie soulâ— and bodies 5. that danger of death was a forcible impulsive to move to the baptism of inâ—ants 6. that without baptism infants should misâ— oâ— the common 〈◊〉 To 〈…〉 Dr Hammond thus 1. It is clear that it no way prejudgâ—s â—he doctrine and practise of the Church formerly set down 〈…〉 him that infant children indefinitely considered might be bâ—ptized and if dangâ—r apprâ—acâ—ed must how young soever they were which is as contrary to the Anâ—ipaedobaptist and so to Mr. T. as any thing Answ. 1. The phrase the doctrine and practise of the Church is according to the Prâ—latical language I think as
much as the doctrine and practise of the Prelates 〈…〉 to the Scripture language is non sense the Church beiâ—g the number of persons taught and on whom bapâ—izing 〈…〉 not the personâ— teaching or practising who are stilâ—d â—he Elders of the 〈◊〉 in Sâ—â—ipâ—ure 2. That the Elders of any Church 〈…〉 Nâ—â—â—ianzen taugâ—â— that infant children indefinitely considered might be baptised and if dâ—â—ger â—pproached must how young soever they wâ—â—e 〈…〉 not pretended of any besides the Coâ—ncel mentionâ—â— in Cypâ—ian Epist. 5◠〈…〉 whicâ— it is true determined in opposition t◠〈◊〉 his scrâ—ple the lawfulness of baptizing any day but not of any infants who were likely â—o live without apparent shew of danger of death but â—aâ—her â—he contrary is manifest from their reason wâ—y they would hâ—ve them baptâ—zed any day afore thâ— 8th bâ—cause the son of man â—am to save mâ—ns souls as much as in us lies if it may be no soul is to be loâ—â— and therefore to be baptized any day afore the 8th Nâ—w this 〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 onely of those infants who being in apparent danger of dâ—ath would be lost if not baptized Nâ—w it is true 〈…〉 and it is as contrary to the 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 position of the Papists thaâ— baâ—tism confers 〈…〉 that infants dying unbaptised peâ—â—sh and if 〈…〉 this doctrine and practise of the Church yet it doth prejudice the doctrine and practise of Protestant Paedobaptists who contrary to Nazianzens mind would not have infants baptized in that case onely or for his reason but would have infants baptized out of the case of imminent and apparent danger of death and not deferred upon a pretence of a Covenant right and visible Churchmembership as their priviledge not as necessary to avoid the danger of perishing 2dly saith Dr. Hammond that it is but his private opinion pretending not so much as to any part of the Church of that or former ages to authorize it Answ. 1. That Tertullian did in like manner determine as Nazianzen did that infants were not to be baptized but in case of imminent and apparent danger of death will appear in the examining of his testimony among the Latine Doctors 2. I know no reason why the counsel and opinion of these two should not as well be counted the doctrine and practise of the Church and to be of equal authority as Cyprians and his Councels Augustines and Hieroms 3dly Saith Dr. Hammond that the state of children being so weak and uncertain that 't is hard to affirm of any that they are not for the first three years in any danger his councel for deferring will hardly be ever practical to any Answ. The counsel of Nazianzen to baptize in case of danger was not of infants that are in any danger but of urgent or pressing danger as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 press urge or impel shews And thus it is practical as the use of private baptism in those places where it is used doth sufficiently shew Fourthly saith he that the deferring of which Nazianzen speaks is most probably to bee understood of those whose â—arents are newly converted and themselves doubt whether they shall be yet baptised or no for to such he speaks in that place from p. 654. A. Answ. The reasons being general this restriction appears groundless not is the Drs. conceit of any validity that because four pages before â—e speaks to them therefore that counsel of his concerns their children onely Lastly saith he that the deferring till three years old if it were allowed would no way satiisfie the Antipaedobaptists pretensions and so still the former passages ought be of force with all and no heed given to the whispers of Mr â— and others as if that holy Father disswaded Baptism in any age unless in case of danger when he clearly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him in the tenderest age be Baptised and consecrated to the spirit Answ 1. Why hee should call my words or writings whispers any more then his own sith they are audible enough were it not that I speak to deaf men who will not hear I do not deprehend I imagine they are louder then the Doctour would have them 2. Thaâ— men should not give heed to my words as well as the Doctours if they seek the truth impartially I know not sith where truth is sought both sides are to bee heard 3. It is true the deferring Baptism till three years old will not satisfie us as sufficient to rectifie the abuse of infant baptism is granted no nor till thirty except the person become a disciple and believer in Christ But it satisfies us in this that Nazianzens judgement was that little ones should not be baptized till they come to some understanding of the thing signified by baptism unless in case of imminent and apparent danâ—er of death though we conceive he allowed too short a time to instruct theâ— 4. If the word consecrated be meant of baptism and from the nayles signifie tender age yet it is not likely he meant this tender age of infancy sith hee made persons uncapable of baptisme by reason of infancy judged it better to have them first instructed If he did he would have it to onely in case of danger of death imminent But saith Dr. Homes p. 142. 1. If Greg. Nazianzen doth give reason why infants should bee baptised in case they are not likely to live to be of ripe years it is so much the better for us â—nsw I suppose the Doctour doth not think with Nazianzen that the danger of deaâ—h is a sufficient reason for the baptiâ—zing an infant for that ariseth from the Popish conceits of regenoration by Baptism ex opere operato and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing And therefore Nazianzens reason must bee the worse for him sith it thwarteth his opiâ—ion of baptizing upon an imagined priviledge of Covenant holineâ—s and his practise of doing iâ— ordinarily to infants of Churchmembers out of that case And it would bee considered that where the ground of a practise is disclaimed the alleging of the practise correspondent to that ground and no further is impertinent for confirmation of the practise of the same thing in a different manner and upon a different ground as the Protestant Divines tell the Papists that their alleging the ancients commemoratiâ—n of the dead proves not the Popish prayiâ—g for the dead to be ancient as Dr â—sher at large in his answer to the Jesuits challenge sith the Popish praying is upon the opinion of Purgatory and for them that are there the Ancients for the Apostles Martyrs c. who are past Purgatory and for their resurrection in like manner concerning the allegations of the Ancients Monkery which either was necessary onely by reason of the incessant persecutions of those times or if voluntary yet with labour of their hands and so different from the Popish Moâ—kery which is idle besides Gods appointment volâ—nâ—â—râ— superstitious upon an imagined perfection in that