The Plea of the Children of Believing Parents, Section 6
SECT. VI.
TO return to my Author: His Sixth Queſtion is, Whether Baptiſm did ſucceed in the room and uſe of Circumciſion? He ſaith, By no means.
But the Body of our Learned and Pious Divines ſay, It doth, and our Divines have ſpoken to it ſo often, that I am loath to ſay any thing to it. Shortly my thoughts were theſe:
1. Circumciſion came in upon Faith: Abraham believed, then he was Circumciſed: And ſo doth Baptiſm.
2. Circumciſion did ſign Chriſt to come in the fleſh. So ſaith my Author; and Baptiſm ſigns he is come in the fleſh.
3. Circumciſion did ſignifie [you may ſay Seal] the Righteouſneſs of Faith: So doth Baptiſm.
4. Circumciſion ſignified Sanctification: ſo do Baptiſm.
5. Circumciſion ſignified and ſealed the Covenant between God and the Seed of Abraham, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. So doth Baptiſm.
6. Circumciſion did oblige Iſrael to walk with God: ſo Baptiſm obligeth us.
7. Circumciſion did diſtinguiſh Iſrael from other Nations: ſo Baptiſm diſtinguiſheth us.
Circumciſion reſpecting Chriſt to come, and Baptiſm Chriſt come. Hence the Jews though circumciſed, yet coming under a new Diſpenſation, ought to be baptized: much more reaſon for this, than for Timothy, who being a Diſciple, Acts 16.1. no queſtion was baptized, and yet after that circumciſed by Paul, v. 3.
Circumciſion (ſaith my Author) was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moſes: but Baptiſm is contrary.
Anſ. 1. For the Moral Law, the Rule of our Obedience, Baptiſm doth not ſolve us from that, but bind us to it: for Sanctification is held forth in our Baptiſm.
2. As for the Ceremonial Law where Christ was ſet forth in ſhadows, no wonder, though when Chriſt is come, and the ſhadow's gone, that Baptiſm was contrary to it. Evangelium relatum & Revelatum. But what doth this hurt us?
3. Paul did not Circumciſe Timothy, with that reſpect to Circumciſion; the Jews did. The Jews did look to be juſtified by the obſervation of the moral and ceremonial Law both, Gal. 5.3. the 4th verſe unties the knot. The falſe Apoſtles urged Circumciſion, Acts 15.1. according to the Law of Moſes. [But Circumciſion is not of Moſes, but the Fathers, ſaith our Lord, John 7.22.] If you Circumciſe thus, and ſeek Juſtification thus, you are fallen from grace, Gal. 5.4.
My Author goes on; Circumciſion initiated the carnal Seed into a carnal Church, and gave them right to carnal Ordinances: But Baptiſm was to give the ſpiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the ſpiritual Church.
Anſ. 1. Theſe Carnal Ordinances had their Spiritual ſignifications as well as ours.
2. The Element in Baptiſm, Water; do but waſh the fleſh, and may be ſaid to be Carnal too in ſome ſenſe, 1 Pet. 3.21.
3. There was a Spiritual Seed admited alſo into that Church by Circumciſion, as well as now by Baptiſm, how many Saints were in that Church?
4. Chaff, Droſs, Canaanites are no Spiritual Seed, yet ſuch have been admitted into your Spiritual Church, by Dipping. Mr. Hutcheſon writes true and can teſtifie it.
5. Define a Church, and you ſhall find all the Cauſes in that Church [a difference only between a Church, and ſuch a Church] take it in the ſtricteſt notion. 1. The efficient Cauſe is God, that is here. Deut. 7.6. Ezra 9.21. 3ly, The formal Cauſe joyned in Covenant, with God and one with another, Deut. 29.12. Zech. 11.10, 14. Exod. 24.8. [Beſides their Circumciſion.] This ſome Brethren make the form of a Church: here it is. 4ly, Final Cauſe, To walk with God, and keep his Ordinances: it was here, Exod. 24.7. Mr. Baxter hath ſpoken ſo much to this, that I ſay no more.
Women were not circumciſed, ſaith my Author.
Anſ. No, how could they? 1. The Apoſtle gives you an anſwer, 1 Cor. 11.3. 2ly, Rivet ſaith well; Sed quia in viris actinum, ut loquuntur, generationis & propagationis hominum eſt principium, quo tranſmittunt corruptionem in poſteros, ſignum ideo obtinuit in praecipuo ſexu, ita tamen, ut foeminae viris annexae & in iis cenſerentur, qui familiorum capitae debebant eſſe.
For Acts 38.39. which my Author oppoſeth, and brings in Biſhop Taylor, [a man croſs to the Doctrine of the Church of England in point of Original Sin.] And Dr. Hammond on his ſide, telling us, It is an Ʋncludent Argument to infer Baptiſm from hence. [I do not wonder that Anabaptiſts make ſo much uſe of Dr. Taylor.]
Anſw. With the Biſhop's favour, there is a difference between theſe two Phraſes, The Children of Iſrael, and this; You and your children. Here is a Copulative Conjunction which is not there. They were the wounded Perſons to whom Peter ſpeaks, that asked him a queſtion, but their Children did not ask, nor were preſent with them moſt likely.
Calvin ſaith, Notandi autem, &c. But the three degrees are to be noted, to whom the Promiſe is made, 1. To the Jews. 2. To their Children. 3. To the Gentiles.
As for Dr. Hammond, though I honour him much for his great Learning one way, yet I think as to an Argument, whether it be Concludent or not, other men may know as well as he. Voſſius, Rivet, Calvin, Gerhard, Aretius, and the Aſſembly of Divines, [though ſlighted by him] do all conclude Infant-baptiſm from hence; they could judge of a Concludent Argument.
1. What this Promiſe is, I ſee there are very different Apprehenſions. Some take it to be that in Joel 2.28. So Dr. Hammond, and divers others. The Dutch ſay, Joel 2.28. & Gen. 17.7. Ahapide ſaith, The Promiſed Seed in whom all Nations ſhould be bleſſed. Thus Aretius, The Promiſe of the Meſſiah, and the benefits that come by him, made to Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 13. To which the Apoſtle, Rom. 9.4. hath a reſpect, the Promiſes belong to them. Thus Aretius, and Horino inclines this way.
2ly, whatever the Promiſe be, it was that which the Jews and their Children were now under, [For to you do the benefit of that Promiſe appertain if you will lay hold of it, ſaith Dr. Hammond on Text.] The Promiſe did appertain to them, both Parents and Children, but not to the Gentiles as yet till they be called.
3ly, That foreign is a general word I grant, ſeven or eight times uſed for little Children in the New Teſtament. Fit mentitio liberorum foreign ſine diſcretione aetatis, ſaith Voſſius. Let your Children be little or great, to your Children the Promiſe doth belong, as well as to you. Matth. 27.25. His Blood be upon us, foreign and upon your Children; were not there the Children diſtinct from the Parents? and do not Children there ſignify their little ones, their poſterity, of what Age ſoever? would Biſhop Taylor deny it? and 'tis probable that God brought this Imprecation to mind, and Peter may aim at that.
Be the promiſe what it will then, I would try for one Argument from hence.
They that are Church-Members ought to be Baptiſed.
But Children of Believing Parents are Church-Members.
Therefore, they ought to be Baptiſed.
The Major, the Doctor, nor any elſe will deny.
The Minor, I prove thus.
They to whom Promiſes do appertain, they are Church-Members.
But to the Children of Believing Parents Promiſes do appertain. Therefore,
The Major is plain, no Promiſe belong to any perſon out of the Viſible Church. Epheſ. 2.12. while the Epheſians were out of the Viſible Church, they were Strangers from the Covenants of Promiſe. Rom. 9.4. the Promiſe did belong to the Jews, not to us Gentiles, till grafted into Abraham's ſtock.
The Minor is proud from the words of the Apoſtle, The Promiſe is to you, and your Children, we are under the outward diſpenpenſation now; you nor your Children ſhall loſe your Title to it, by Repenting and Believing, but then you ſhall feel the ſaving benefit added to pour outward Title. Again,
Will you reſtrain the promiſe to the gift of the Spirit, as the Verſe before; Dr. Hammond moves the Queſtion? what kind of gifts theſe were, inward or outward, for both theſe are promiſed indefinitely to Believers. Joh. 7.38, 39. there the inward gifts, enabling humble ſincere Chriſtians, for the Duties of a Chriſtian Life, called, The Renewing of the Holy Ghoſt. Tit. 3.5. joyned to the Laver of Regeneration; he concludes 'tis beſt to comprehend both. Thus Dr. Hammond on the Text.
Let me add, If the Spirit be here meant, it muſt be ſo underſtood, that it may be the benefit of as many as ever God ſhall call to the Worlds End, be they never ſo many Millions; the words foreign and foreign will force it. The Promiſe is to All, as many, be they never ſo many, if called. There are many called, few choſen, but if called, there is an outward Title to it, and to their Children, elſe the Sentence is not full; and I proved before we are fellow-Citizens of the ſame houſhold, grafted into the ſame ſtock, Jew and Greek all one: The Jews and their Children were under it, when not effectually called. The Promiſe is to you and your Children, now they were Children of the Covenant. Act. 3.25. nor can there be any reaſon given, why the Children of the Believing Gentile ſhould not be included, and meant here, as well as of the Jews. Hence, ſince the Doctor thus interprets the Promiſe of the Spirit.
They to whom the Promiſe of the renewing Spirit doth belong, they may be Baptiſed.
But to the Children of Believing Parents, the Promiſe of the renewing Spirit doth belong, as it did to the Jews. Therefore the Children of Believing Parents may be Baptiſed.
That there can be Regeneration without the Spirit, no Chriſtian will affirm. That there can be a Heavenly Inheritance without Regeneration the Scripture denies. That the Spirit of God cannot Regenerate an Infant, he muſt be a ſtrange Chriſtian, [if any at all] who dares ſay it. If John was filled with the Spirit, from his Mothers Womb, God can give his Spirit to other Infants, though in a leſs meaſure.
As to the Text 1 Cor. 7.14. that Text hath been ſo cleared by our Divines, that I wonder my Author ſhould not be fatisfied, but to come up with his Ligitimacy, as if that were the ſenſe of Children being Holy. When as
1ſt. The Apoſtle is not writing to a Corinthian Husband, that had two Wives, but only one Wife; as 12, 13, 14. v. ſo that if that Text, Mat. 2.15. could be brought to prove a Matrimonial-Holineſs, then they were Holy, and Children Holy, before the Goſpel came; but this is a Holineſs ariſing from one of the Parents, being a Believer: Beſides, Joſeph, Benjamin, Solomon, and divers others, were never called Baſtards, or thought to be ſo, though Jacob and David had more Wives then one.
2ly, Then all the Children in Corinth, though the Parents were lawfully Marryed, were Baſtards, before the Goſpel came.
3ly, When then the Apoſtle writes to the Saints in Corinth. 1 Cor. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 1.1. the meaning is, to you that are Legitimate, and not Baſtards in Corinth. What difference between foreign there, and foreign here? Neither do your examples from foreign and foreign help you at all.
For 1ſt. By an Antiphraſis, or Euphemiſmus, the words ſignifies the quite contrary, Bleſs, and Curſe, Holy, and Ʋnclean; [or Sodomite, as we Tranſlate.]
2ly, The words are ſo uſed in an oppoſite ſenſe, in ſeveral other Scriptures, that prove one another.
3ly, The ſenſe of the Text forces us ſo to render their ſignification.
1. But then you muſt Tranſlate foreign by ſome word which is quite contrary to Holineſs, ſo that one expel the other: Contraria ſunt pellentis naturae, but Legitimacy and Holineſs are not contraries in reſpect of this Subject, for he may be Legitimate and Holy too, I know: you muſt then read elſe were your Children unclean, but now they are unclean. This is good Senſe.
2. As the word Holy, is never taken in the Holy Page for Legitamacy, nor can you juſtify it by any Text, as we can the former, clearly by ſeveral Texts. A Seed according to God's Inſtitution in Marriage, according to his appointment, Ordination in Mat. 2.15. and the Holy Seed. Ezra. 9.2. differ very much: beſides, as I ſaid, the Children of the Corinthians were Holy, if that were the Senſe before the Goſpel came.
3. Nor is there the leaſt preſſing neceſſity why it ſhould not be taken, as in the Scriptures I mention. Nay, there is a presing neceſſity to force that it cannot be meant Legitimacy, becauſe it follows upon the Faith of one Parent, which Legitimacy doth not.
For foreign which you ſay alwaies ſignifies Authority, yet 1 Cor. 11.15. [I ſuppoſe you mean the tenth] it ſignifies a Vail.
Anſ. Who tranſlated the word ſo? I have viewed nine Tranſlators, and they render it Power as we do. A Metonimy of the Subject, we know there is the meaning being, a covering in ſign that ſhe is under the Authority of her Husband. Gen. 24.65. A Phraſe whereby the thing ſignified is aſcribed to the Sign, the propriety of the word is here meant and intended; that ſhe ſhew her ſelf to be under Authority. The Acthiopick Tranſlation, to give the Senſe, turn the Subſtantive into a Verb; but hower, this doth not at all ſuit your deſign. In the word Holy, here is no Metonimy, Sign, or thing ſignified.
I ſee nothing of moment more to anſwer, and I doubt not my Author hath been better anſwered by others, though I ſaw none, till I had done.