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
the other of the Chaldee Paraphrase R. Solomon Symmachus that they are called Sons of God because Sons of Potentates or Judges of which Mr. Cartwright ubi supra and that of others Sons of God that is eminent men because I think the other is more right however they are not called Sons of God that is visible Church-members by their descent but by their profession which is not to be said of infants It is true Ezek. 16.28 21. the children of Israel are said to be born to God that is of right as their Land was the Lords Land Hos. 9.3 and this did aggravate their sin that those that were of right his were sacrificed to Idols now this was by reason of that peculiar interest which God had in that people vers 8. But that what is said of the sons of the Jews is true of all the infants of believers or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Christians to visible Church-membership and the initial seal as they call it is yet to be proved Of Mal. 2.14 15. I have spoken sufficiently in the first part of this Review Sect. 13.26 of the Ample Disquisition to which I add that in the second Edition of the New Annot. these words are added suitable to my Exposition of a legitimate seed All other seed is spurious not a lawfull seed nor such fathers are lawfull fathers who so pervert the order and Ordinance of Matrimony God puts his mark of infamy upon the seed it self Deut. 23.2 which shews that with Calvin that Authour understood by a Seed of God a legitimate seed That which is said Psalm 22.30 A seed shall serve him it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation hath no shew of any thing for infants visible Church-membership it cannot be expounded of infants while such for how can it be said They shall serve the Lord But it notes onely a continuance of the Church promised in a people who should when some decease stand up after them to serve the Lord. The impertinency of that Jer. 30.20 is shewed before As little to the purpose is that Psalm 116.16 He doth not say he was the Lords Servant as he was the son of his handmaid and it was to express his mean condition or humility as Mary Luke 1.48 not his privilege and his subjection to God not his right he could clame from God yet if there were any privilege imported in this title son of thine hand-maid Mr. Church must prove it to be Church-membership and that not proper to him as a Jew but common to all Christians ere it will serve his turn which he cannot do Enough is said before in the Ample Disquition to prove that 1 Cor. 7.14 children are not denominated holy because they appertain to the Church The remnant to be called holy Isai 4.3 are either such Jews as in the captivity escaped alive who should be holy in respect of their worship not serving Idols but the living God or such converted believers in the Christian Church as should be written in the Book of Life which makes nothing to infants Church-membership The Church is not called the circumcision Rom. 3.30 15.8 but the Jewish people The Christians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Christian because the Hebrews children were of the Church Jewish God now not taking one whole Nation for his Church but Disciples of Christ in all Nations Abraham is said Rom. 4.11 to have received the sign of circumsion a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised but that any other mans circumcision was so to him much less that every infants circumcision was such to them I reade not sure the tenour of the words imports no more than this that Abrahams circumcision in his own person was an assurance to all believers though themselves uncircumcised of righteousness by faith to be imputed to them also What Divines though of never so great esteem thence infer of the nature of circumcision that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith of all Sacraments that it is their nature to be seals of the covenant of grace that to whom the covenant belongs to them the seal belongs and consequently to infants are but their mistakes not the Doctrine of the Text. Of Mark 10.14 enough is said before Of infants may be the Kingdom of God yet they not in the visible Church The speech out of the Church is no salvation is true of the invisible Church of the elect and is so expounded by Dr. Morton Apol. Cath. and others of the visible it is not true Rahab had been saved though she had never been joyned to the visible Church of the Jews What I said that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Christ Mark 10.14 were the infants of Christian disciples or believers is true for it is not said their Parents brought them and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Christ yet it is uncertain whether they believed him to be the Christ or some eminent Prophet as Matth. 16.14 Luke 7.16 The Daughter of the Syrophoenician was called a Dog Matth. 15.26 not because she was not a believers childe but because a Gentiles childe not an Israelitess Though Diâ—t 30.6 Isai 44.3 Circumcision of the heart and the spirit be promised to the seed of the godly yet it is not promised to any but the elect as the fuller promise Isai. 54.13 is expounded by Christ himself John 6.45 and therefore not as Mr. Church saith to children as they are the children of Gods People if as be taken reduplicatively for then all the children of Gods People should have the spirit promised Nor is the spirit promised to them in their infancy and yet if it were till they shew it we have no warrant to take them for visible Church-members or to baptize them without special revelation It is largely proved above that Acts 15.10 no infant is called a Disciple There may be hope of infants salvation they may be of the body of Christ though they be not of the visible Church Our infants and our selves though believers are yet Heathens that is of the Nations by birth and had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Canaans childe Matth. 15.26 if we had then lived but in the sense as it is now used and as it was a Title of infamy and rejection Matth. 18.17 we are not to be called Heathens that is infidels and whose society is to be shunned nor our infants who are neither infidels nor believers they being not capable of faith in that state ordinarily as in Logick they say a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blinde nor seeing there being a middle of abnegation of either extreme by reason of the incapacity of the subjects so we may say our infants are neither infidels nor believers What Mr. Church allegeth out of Rev. 22.15 serves onely to beget hatred towards Antipaedobaptists for without there is
in the covenant Gen. 17. which I have refuted The Gentile proselytes were to be circumcised because of the command though it were not known that each or any proselyte or his seed had interest in the Covenant As for Mr. Gs. reason of his obsevation it should seem by it he meant otherwise than he expressed to wit Circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because of the temporal promises which I grant and yet hold the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. a mixt Covenant and that persons were to be circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Mr. G. goâ—s on To the other part of my exception against the connexion between the seal and covenant as they speak that many were not to be circumcised to whom all or most of the promises of the Covenant did belong as the females comming from Abraham he saith For females we answer That God under that administration was pleased in reference to some things pointed at by the seal to appoint a sign of which women were not capable so were they particularly excluded from being sealed with the Sacrament of initiation under that administration To which I reply 1. That women are not capable of circumcision is contradicted by those that say that at this day in some parts of the world women are circumcised Aethiopes Christiani mares octavo ab ortu die circumcidunt feminis etiam aliquid amputatur ut Abrahami et aliorum sanctorum patrum exemplo ardentius in similis sanctitatis studium incitentur Quarto deinde a circumcisione die mares octavo autem foeminae salutaribus aquis expiantur Eucharistiam â—o die infantes initiati in mica panis assumunt Osorius lib. 9. rerum ab Emmanuele gest Zuinger theat vit Hum. vol. 27. l 3. tit bapt pag. 4172. Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. l. 4. c. 4. Anno Christi 1187. Jacobitae baptismo ciriumcisione utuntur circumcidentes masculos femellas Hornbeck Append. ad disp de bap ve thes 8. Solebant Aethiopes cum baptismo etiam circumcidere baptizatum mas an femina esset circumcidebatur Doctor Field of the Church 3. book chap. 1. Speaking of the Jacobites in Syria Sixtly they use circumcision even of both Sexes and of the Habassines They are also circumcised both male and female The same hath Heylin in his Geography describing Syria and Ethiopia and before him if my memory deceive me not Brerewood in his Enquiry of Religions So that it is but a just of Mr. Blake that women could no more be circumcised than barb'd if these authors be of any credit But were it true that women were not circumcised because uncapable yet would God doubtless have appointed such a sign as they were capable of if it were true that all that were in covenant must be signed But if it be true which Mr. G. confesseth That the females though in covenant were particularly excluded from being sealed with the sacrament of initiation under that administration then the connexion between the seal initial and the covenant is not proved from circumcision And as for that he saies That in reference to some things pointed at by the seal God under that administration was pleased to appoint a sign of which women were not capable it is a plain confession that God appointed circumcision for an end not common to believers at all times or to such as were in the covenant of grace but proper to the posterity of Abraham and therefore though the covenant were granted to be the reason of circumcision yet it follows not all must be baptized barely from the covenant of grace because they were circumcised by reason of interest in it sith this was not true and as Mr. Geree confesseth Circumcision was appointed in reference to some things proper to that time But he hopes to salve the matter thus So actually they were not circumcised yet were they reputed as circumcised as appears both by the place alleged by Mr. M. Exod. 12.48 and where the house of Israel is said to be circumcised and also by that of Samsons parents being displeased that he should take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.3 For unless the Israelitish women were reputedly circumcised in the males circumcision could make no difference between wife and wife yea our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised To which I answer To be reputed as circumcised may be understood thus they were mentioned as circumcised and this sense is false for then it should be an errour sith they were not circumcised nor is in the text Exod. 12.48 any thing to that purpose for the speech no uncircumcised person shall eat the passeover is to be limitted by the matter of them that ought to be circumcised and that Judge 14.3 of taking a wife of or from the Philistines uncircumcised as if thereby were intimated that an Israelitess woman was reputed as circumcised or that our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised if women were not reputed as uncircumcised proves it not For the terms ciecumcised and uncircumcised are spoken of the people who are said to be circumcised from the chief part not from all parts I remember not where the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised but to be uncircumcised in heart Jeremy 9.26 yet were there such a place it must be understood of all that were to be circumcised Or else the meaning is they were reputed as circumcised that is they were admitted to the passeover if their males were circumcised notwithstanding they were not in their proper persons circumcised which sense is true But then it serves not the turn to avoid the force of the instance brought to shew there is not a necessary connexion between interest in the covenant and the persons right to the initial Seal in his own person which Mr. G must prove to make good his Major For he would have infant-females actually baptized because in covenant and his proof is They that were in covenant were circumcised which must be meant of all in covenant and of actual circumcision in their own persons or else it can prove but a particular of some and their virtual baptism to wit female infants But Mr. G. thinks to prevent this objection And whereas you object that you may as well say that children are virtually baptized in their parents I deny it because you have not the like proof for the one as we have for the other Besides women that are said to be virtually and reputatively circumcised in the males were not actually to be circumcised at all they were excluded which you do not nor cannot say of infants when they are grown up you confess they may and ought to be baptized Answ. That which I said was only by way of inference upon Paedobaptists suppositions if virtual circumcision were all that might be claimed by virtue of the covenant it would not help Paedobaptists who would from the covenant prove a right
natural seed many Gentile believers have had their children persecutors not visible Church-members and may have still yea in that sense which Mr. Geree himself expounds it it was only verified of the natural posterity of Abraham yet not of every particular child of his but of the nation till Christs comming As for the dictate of Mr. G. they that do the works of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the covenant it intimates some promises of the covenant to be essential some not some ordinary some extraordinary parts of the covenant But these are new distinctions with which I meet not elsewhere nor know I how to understand what promises he makes ordinary nor what extraordinary what essential parts of the covenant what not That Covenant being but once made in my conceit therefore had all the promises of the same sort whether ordinary or extraordinary and a covenant being an aggregate of promises contains the promises as the matter and the making together as the form which are the essential parts of the Covenant there 's no promise but being the matter of the covenant is an essential part or rather all the promises together are the matter and each promise is an integral part of the whole number of promises And therfore his speech is not easie to be understood I grant that they who are of the faith of Abraham may claim the promise of Justification and other saving blessings But for visible Church-membership of natural posterity or other domestique promises made to Abraham neither the natural posterity of Abraham nor the truest believing Gentile can lay a just claim to them but that notwithstanding that promise God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile or Jew Infidels his people his visible church and to settle his worship with them Mr. Geree writes thus and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our seed was not personal and peculiar to Abraham but propagated to his seed may hence appear because the same in effect is promised to other godly Jews which is here promised to Abraham Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Answ. The promise to Abraham according to Mr. Gs. exposition was That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privilege of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Sure this is not the same in effect with that Deut. 30.6 which is nothing of external privileges of a Church but of circumcising their hearts and the heart of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they might live which can be true only of the elect Besides it is promised to them at their return from captivity and upon their returning to the Lord and obeying his voice according to all that he commanded them that day they and their children with all their heart and all their soul v. 2. which sure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an external privilege to infants of meer reputed believers even in their infancy Mr. Baxter himself in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. hath these words The text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant-state but in their adult Deut. 30. For first verse 2. the condition of the promise is expresly required not only of the parent but of the children themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same acts which are required of the parents viz. to return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of the heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act ver 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God so that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving Mr. G. yet adds And thus much that place Act. 2.39 doth hold forth and contribute to infant-baptism to shew that children are comprehended in the Covenant with their fathers and both these last promises being of Evangelical privileges they must needs be communicable to all under the Gospel-covenant so then it remains that God still is in covenant with every believer and his seed Answ. That Acts 2.39 neither shews that children of believers are comprehended universally and necessarily with their parents nor contributes ought to infant-baptism is shewed in the forepart of this Review s. 5. and notwithstanding any thing said by Mr. Geree it yet remains to be proved that God is in Covenant with every believer and his seed The rest of that section of Mr. Geree is about my expounding Mr. Ms. second conclusion which I shall review as far as is meet when I come to it I have dispatched at last the answering those that argue syllogistically from the covenant and seal for infant-baptism But most go another way by laying down conclusions and framing hypotheses and I proceed to take a view of their writings SECT XVII Mr. Cottons The Assemblies and London Ministers way of arguing for Infant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the methode of the future progress in the Review expressed MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue ch 3. goes this way and expresseth himself in four things That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace to him and his seed Gen. â—7 9 10. 3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to believers and our seed 4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith chap 25. art 2. assert That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion and cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezekiel 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 and 17.7 of these one of the Texts to wit Gen. 3.15 I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism to my remembrance except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditional covenant made with all Adams posterity I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men or by excellency of Christ or of true believers which are all the senses I conceive yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professours of the true Religion as such and not as of humane kinde should be meant by the seed of the woman or that the bruising of the
more than for women now to eat the Lords Supper unless it be founded upon circumcision yet in practice we know they did eat it and if they eat it not as circumcised persons tell me by what right they did it Answ. I have proved Examen part 3. S. 12. pag. 112. Postscript to my Apology S. 11. that 1 Cor. 11.28 10.17 and 12.13 Acts 20.7 are express precept and example for womens receiving the Lords Supper And for eating the Paseover there is an expresse precept That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it Exod 12.47 in which women were meant and they were to eat according to the number of the Souls v. 4. and no leaven was to be in their habitation v. 20. therfore either women must eat the Passeover or else they must not eat bread so that we need not go to circumcision for womens eating the Passeover Yea if we use no other way than that of Mr. M. it will not be proved that women ought to eat it For Exodus 12.48 no mention is made of any circumcised who are to eat it but males and though it be said no uncircumcised might eat yet it is not said all circumcised must eat much less they that are only in some sense counted circumcised But Mr. M. seeks to make his advantage of this point thus If you say they were included in the Houshold Exod. 12.3 4. every houshold was to eat the Paschal Lamb and there was no exception of women I reply first grant but the same consequence that when we read so frequently in the New T. that whole housholds were baptized and no exception of children that therefore all the children in those housholds were baptized and this Controversy is quickly ended Answ. If it were granted that we had no other way to prove women were to eat the Paschal Lamb which yet we need not as I have shewed but from Exod. 12.3 4. in that every houshold was to eat the Lamb and there was no exception of Women yet the consequence were not good whole housholds were baptized therefore infants because not expresly excepted For as Exod. 12.3 4 infants are excepted from being required to eat the Lamb though not in express words yet because the thing to be done was not such as could agree to infants of a few daies old suppose eight or nine So where Act. 16.15 33. and 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 the houshold is said to be baptized besides this that no infants are expressed in the same chapter or elsewhere the speech is plainly interpreted to be meant of those that heard the word and believed as Acts the eleventh chapter and fourteenth verse and ch 16. v. 32 34. and 18.8 1 Cor. 16.15 as if the holy Ghost had of purpose prevented this misconstruction and frivolous consequence of Paedobaptists But saith Mr. M. I add further it is not said the whole houshold shall eat it for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it and none but circumcised persons had warrant to eat it Answ. It is said Exod. 12.4 they shall eat the Lamb according to the number of Souls i. e. hominum Pisc. Schol. in locum every man according to his eating which is a plain precept for women to eat who could eat Yea further saith Mr. M. suppose some words in the institution should reach the Jewish women yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who should prove Proselytes to them For Exodus chapter 12. verse 48 49. there is order taken for the male stranger let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near and keep it but there is not any word that takes order for the strangers females Answer It is said verse fourty seven That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it and the Proselytes of Righteousnesse women as well as men were of that Congregation and verse fourty nine it is said One Law shall be to him that is homeborn and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you if then the Law appointed the Israelitish women to eat the same law appointed the Proselyte Women to eat So that notwithstanding Mr. Ms. vain hope my exception against the consequence of his Argument They are foederati Therefore they are to be signati stand good and it is not yet proved that bare interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of grace did intitle to Circumcision much less to baptism which were enough to overthrow his first argument But sith it is my task I will now go on to the rest of his Dispute taking in by the way Master Blakes third section of the 42. chapter of his Vindic foederis SECT XIX Mr. Blakes exceptions against my Speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled MR. Blake asserts a reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal and first he meddles with my Examen and then with my Anti-paedobaptism To my objection that the Proposition is not true that all that were federate in Abrahams family were to be signed for neither Males afore the eighth day nor females were to be circumcised besides his avouching Master Marshallâ— answer as sufficient which is reviewed before he saith Is there no connexion between them because he that receives into Covenant and appoints the seal hath prescribed a time when it shall be applyed To which I say it proves that there is not a connexion between being federate and to be signed to make this Proposition true All that are federate are to be signed barely in that they are federate For they are federate the first second third fourth fifth sixth seventh day as well as the eighth yet not to be signed whereas if there was such a connexion between them according to Gods will that the one being put the other is to be put they would be to be signed as soon as ever they are federate And if it be Gods will that they should be signed but not till the appointed time after I might say that though infants were federate yet they were not to be signed with baptism till Gods appointed time which is not till they be disciples and so infant baptism is not proved from their being in Covenant the Major Proposition All that are in Covenant are to be signed being true only with this limitation in the appointed time which is not for baptism till they be Disciples And whereas in answer to my objection that if infants have right to the seal by being in covenant then they have right to the Lords Supper he answers 1. That in baptism there is no more of necessity than to be passive This is false for baptism is enjoined as a duty and such as is to have repentance and faith antecedent Mark chap. 16.16 Acts the 2. chap. 38. Acts chap. 8. verse 37. 2. He grants that infants have true title to the Lords Supper jus ad rem not jus in re a right to it yet by reason of infancy have their actual
of the Israelites when brought out of Egypt and then God said live to them when they had been ready to perish in Canaan first and then in Egypt by oppression and after brought them to mount Sinai and entered into the covenant of the Law which Mr. C. â—ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external priviledge of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare It is neither said there to Jerusalâ—m then live nor Micah 7.20 that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded there for that end v. 18 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9 10 11 12 13 14 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2 yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4 5 about external covenant-Church-interest but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30 was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ that it should be done and now by all believers that it is done But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25 and 5.29 ther 's no mention of any Covenant nor that these were Covenant babes much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some others in respect of propogating mankind others because of Christ to come from him in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum the new Annot. follow that sense But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25 to the promise Gen. 3.15 and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed yet all this is noteâ—ing to the point Mr. C. should prove that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest nor of any generall promise to them but onely a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned Psalm 102.25 26 27 there 's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon and were the prayer of the Iews as v. 13 14 makes it probable then it seems to be meant as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28 thus The children of thy Servants shal continue This is the literal as I may call it immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God their surviving in their posterity If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles or as some would of the reingraffing of the Iewes that Paraphrase of Junius may be right â— Vera germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua tibi curae futura sunt Take iâ— of whomsoever the words may be verified it mentions no such thing as externall federall Church-interest but continuance and establishment before God that is as Ainsworth notes as much as so long as God doth dure meaning for ever For assurance whereof they had a word of faith to wit some revelation of God though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines intâ—tuling children of inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning and he begins with Gen. 3.15 to prove that it was held as Gospel that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace as if infants of believers were a Species and not Individuals or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace And then he dictates without proof that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind or if as a Church more likely as the seminall invisible than as the visible Church He interprets The Seed of the Woman not onely of the principall Seed Christ in and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers For Adam and Eve were eyed saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church If so then it is true of Cain that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed which how he did unless being of the wicked one and slaying his brother as is said of him 1 John 3.12 be bruising the Serpents head I understand not Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed but none I have met with comprehend him or any reprobate under the Womans Seed mystically understood There are Interpreters that understand the promise Gen. 3.15 as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel as John speaks 1 Epist. 3.8 and others of the elect overcoming Satan and treading him under their feet Rom. 16.20 But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest Believers it is true are called Abrahams seed but no where true believers as such are called Eves Church-seed nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise Gen. 4.25 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed Gen. 3.15 in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby sith no other overcome the Divell So that it is so far from being true
might be said to be grounded liable to repeal is in my apprehension a dream Laws repealeable determine not of essences but things to be existent to wit particular actions to bee done or omitted Nor do I conceive that the essential form of the Church is grounded upon a Covenant For though God separate or call a people to himself by a Covenant single or mutual and so may bee of the existence of a Church yet if God do separate or call by authority preaching power or any other way without a Covenant they will have the essence of a Church The Jewish Church I never conceived to be a species but an individual and of it I grant that it might be and was dissolved without the change of the nature species or essential form of the Church unto which the having of infants visible Church-members did not belong For if so without infants and that as visible Church-members it could not have been a Church What the priviledges Jewish infants had as visible Church-members except preservation as part of that people such inheritance and other benefits in part which their parents had which they must needs lose with their parents breaking off I do not well understand Nor do I know any priviledge which the believing Jews infants did lose by being left out of the Christian Church visible which they should have had if they had been taken in For the priviledges of the Jewish infants by being visible Church-members were as I conceive to cease upon the comming of Christ and the erection of the Christian Church not by any punitive execution of a Law but a wise dispensation of God as he conceived fittest for his own glory and the enlarging of the Kingdome of his Son The species as Mr. B. speaks that is the whole order rank series or sort of men in infancy was never in the visible Church but onely the infants of the Jewish Nation Nor were they cast out of the Church visible by any judiciary sentence but by altering the Church-state from Jewish into Châ—istian as God thought best 7. Saith Mr. B. Again you must distinguish betwixt breaking off primarily and morally onely by Covenant breaking and merit as an adulterous woman doth break the marriage bond and so cast out her self or else breaking off in a following act by punishment both morally and physically as a man that putteth away his adulterous wife In the former sence all the Jews that were unchurched did unchurch themselves and their children and God onely unchurched them in the later sence And therefore the children of believing Jews who did not adulterously violate the Covenant were never unchurched God casteth out none but those that first cast out themselves Answ. If this last speech were true absolute Reprobation should be an errour But perhaps he means it of casting out by judiciary sentence and so I grant it true of persons of age But in the present business the leaving out infants out of the visible Church was neither by any sinfull voluntary dissertion or transgression of Gods Law morally deserving it nor by any act of judiciary sentence legally or punitive act executing or physically ejecting But by a free act of his Soveraignty altering the Church-state from a more carnal to a more spiritual without any detriment to believers or theit children Mr. B. applies his distinctions thus Let us now review Mr. Ts. arguments 1. He saith their Church constitution is taken down and therefore their membership To which I answer 1. By constitution is meant either the essential nature or some ceremonial Accident And by taking down is meant either by repealing the Law which takes down the wholeâ—species or by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church In the first sence of constitution and taking down I utterly deny the Antecedent and may stay long enough I perceive before he prove it 2. By their membership either he means the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews which I grant or else the whole species of infants which I deny 3. Besides the argument concludeth not for what he should bring it That which it should conclude is that the mercifull gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed This is another thing from what he concludeth Answ. 1. By constitution I neither mean the essential nature nor some ceremonial accident but the composing of the integral parts which make up a Church an entire whole or totum integrale I do not find by such notes as I have of the Dispute at Bewdley January 1. 1649. that I used the term of taking down but rather the term altered which even Mr. Bs. setting down my argument shews to have been the term I used And this alteration I conceive was made neither by repealing the Law which takes down the whole species nor by meer punitive execution taking down that individual Church but by a free act of his Soveraignty as Rector or Lord who may at his pleasure alter the frame of his Church as he pleaseth As when a Lord or Governour one while takes inâ—o his house men and their wives and children another while onely single men he neither perhaps repeals a Law which made the whole species members of his house nor punisheth the individual persons that were in his house but because it likes him better to have his house onely of strong able men alters the state of his house in respect of the members so it is in this case 2. By their Church-membership I mean not either the individual infants of unbelievers unchurched Jews nor the whole species of infants but the individual infants of the Jewish Church-members whether believing or unbelieving 3. If I conclude as I did that the Church-membership of infants was altered in the visible Church Christian from what it was in the visible Church Jewish I prove the pretended gift and ordinance of God that some infants should be Church-members is repealed Let 's view his answer to my proof He proveth saith Mr. B. that their Church constitution is altered because their Church call is altered To which I answer 1. Here is still nothing but the darkness of ambiguity and troubled waters to fish in As we know not what he means by constitution as is said before so who knows what he meaneth by their Church call Is it meant first of Gods Law or Covenant enacting making and constituting them a Church 2. And if so then is it meant of the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. 3. Or is it meant of the lesser additional parts of the Law or Covenant giving them some accidentals of their Church as the land of Canaan the Priesthood the Sacrifice c. 4. Or is it meant of Gods immediate call from heaven to Abraham or any others to bring them into the Covenant 5. And if so whether
belongeth to God onely as ignorant people did use to do to the Pharisees If aâ—l natural parents be instruments of God to people the world yet Mr. Bl. will not say they are instruments to produce a holy seed to peoâ—le the Church for theâ— all children and not believers onely should bâ—e fedeâ—ally holy so tâ—at all this is meerly impertinent That all believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed is said without proof there being no such promise to them and their seed produced nor if there were did it follow they were all federally holy in Mr. â—ls sense But were this gâ—anted yet it is noâ—hing to prove the unbelieving parent to bee Gods instrument to produce a holy seed who is said and not the believer to bee sanctified and that signanter considered as an unbeliever much less every unbelieving wife though bâ—rren who hath a believing husband much less to bee specially designed for that end and therefore the sanctification instrumental which Master Bl. conceives meant 1 Corinth 7.14 is quite besides the Apostles meaning Mr. Bl. goes on thus of me The 2d argument he hath in his Apol. p. 123. where he says that the Apostles proposition understood of federal holiness were most certainly false giving in his reason for many children of both unbelieving parents are federally holy he saith that I answer they are not so at their birth My answer is if afterwards by grace they are changed this is no fruit of their birth of which the question is in this place but the work of the Gospel through grace Mr. T. says This is nothing to the purpose sith the proposition hath not those words in it nor the Apostle the Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time It seems then that the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children so born cannot bee clean at any time or else Mr. T. his exception is less to purpose who does not see that the Apostle speaks of uncleanness or holiness as as a product of their birth without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen as a mean woman given in marriage to a Senator or Peer she is enobled by her husband otherwise her issue were Plebeians yet so as they are capable of honour by the Princes munificence or their own merit It seems that proposition of Christs That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh. 3.6 will not hold unless it must for ever continue flesh and no omnipotence of God shall be able to make it otherwise Answ. It is true that it seems to me the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children born unclean cannot be clean at any time and I grant that the Apostle speaks of uncleâ—nness or holiness as a product of their birth or generation without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen and therefore of illegitimation and legitimation by birth and not of federal holiness which is no product of birth and yet that proposition That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh 3.6 will hold though after the person born after the flesh be made spirit or spiritual there being no contradiction in this that the person born after the flesh should become spiritual in his qualities but it is impossible that that which hath been illegitimate in birth should not be illegitimate in birth iâ— beâ—ng a thing past and therefore cannot by God be made not a thing past or not done for then it should be true that a thing hath been at birth and hath not been been and not been which is a contradiction Mr. Bl saith I farther add And yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth whether it bee understood of election inherent holiness or outward holiness if God please to work and declare it I would Mr T would speak whether there were ever any such a thing aâ— the child of two unbelievers at the instant of their birth declared of God to bee of those whom hee took â—o bee federally holy and of the number of his Covenant people let that proposition stand till God by such a miracle confute or contradict it Answ. 1. Though I could not speak there was such a thing yet it is enough for me to shew that and how it might be 2. I doubt not but many a captive woman gotten wâ—th child by an infidel and she her self an infidel hath been delivered in Abrahams house and those children were in Mr. â—ls sense federally holy at the instant of their birth for for they were if males capable of Circumcision on the eighth day according to the law Gen. 17.12 13. and this is to be federally holy according to Mr. Bls. doctrine who makes all to be in the Covenant at their birth who are capable by reason of their birth of the sign of the Covenant He yet saith Mr. T. adds But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoyned as husband and wife cannot be made legitimate by God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife This must conclude for his interpretation and against ours because God by his omnipotence can make our unclean ones holy and to make his unclean ones holy is without the verge of omnipotence If we should put case in Mr. T. his manner that God should appear in approbation of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society then there were a legitimation of the issue as he did the marriage of the brothers wife Deut. 25.5 otherwise against the moral law Levit. 18.16 Answ. It concludes for me if it be true which Mr. Bl. disproves not that the holiness is meant 1 Cor. 7.14 which cannot be without the sanctification there spoken of and Mr. Bls. holiness may be without his sanctification and the proposition is true of no other holiness but that which I assign If the definition of legitimation be a state of birth from parents generating in lawfull marriage though God should approve of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society there were no legitimation of the issue and yet the marriage Deut. 25.5 were lawfull and the issue legitimate I am sorry Mr. Bl. hath tyred himself and me with so many impertinent words which have shaken nothing of my Fabrick I am glad I am so near an end with him and pass from him to Mr. Sydenham who in the 7th ch of his Exercit. thus speaks The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel priviledge annexed to the state and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a natural moral or positive rule but a majori from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel For 1. the unbelieving husband is
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.