Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 23
SECT. XXIII. Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39. 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 believe…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 …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 onelyonly 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 foreign not foreign 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 vai… 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 ve…b in either part of, v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse foreign and foreign, and neither used above once, so that he might have said, he useth two verbs in two tenses, but neither change…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 onelyonly 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 foreign, which may be questioned whether it be the same with foreign, in the text. But Master Sidenham addes.
2. How unequal would the distribution …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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 a… 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; onelyonly 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 Burgersdicius Inst. log. l. 2. c. 5. Keck. Syst. Log. l. 1. part. 2. c. 3. and others. Scheibler Top. c. 29. n. 36. bounds it with sundry cautions. And indeed we must cashier many received divisions if that rule hold as e. g. in morality of good into honest, pleasant and profitable, in divinity of the law into moral, ceremonial and judicial, of the divine persons into the Father, Son and holy Ghost, of the Bookes of the Old Testament into Moses, the Prophets and the Psalmes and so blame Christ himself. What Master Sidenham infers, so that it is most clear the words must be understood, as they are translated, is not denyed by me, and yet the words, [Acts 2.39. as many as the Lord our God shall call] limit the first part of the v. Nor do I deny the promise is to you Jewes, and your children at present, to express the Apostles meaning in the sense I have given, nor do I gainsay what he addes, and to those afar off also and their children, when God shall call them, if he mean it of the calling the chileren as well as the parents; though withall it is to be noted, that in the text there is no mention of the children of those afar off. But what he saith further, else (that is, if the promise be not to the children of those afar off when God shall call the parents) calling can with no sense be applyed to any tittle of the former part of the verse, without you make it monstrous, and unlike it self, is either false or unintelligible by me. For though the promise should not be to the children of those afar off, when God called the parents, yet this is in my apprehension good sense, The promise is to you being called, and to your children being called, nor is any monstrosity or unlikeness to it self more in this sense then if the term [called] were applyed only to the latter part: But there would be non-sense, if the distribution were reduced to dichotomie as Master Sidenham would have it, and the proposition would be false, that the promise (which Master Sidenham makes to be of remission of sins, Christ and his Spirit, justification, sanctification, and all graces) is to them or their children without calling, or though God should not call them.
There is some more of the like stuff in that which followes. 2. It's against another rule about distribution which is, that partes divisionis ambulent equali passu, that the parts of a distribution should be equally set together. Now here will be a mighty inequality, as to the communication of the promise; if the words should be taken in their sense, the Jewes will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles, if children be not equally added to both, the Jewes had the promise made to them, and their children at present, these afar off shall onelyonly have the promise to themselves, but not their children.
Ans. It is one of the vexations that befals men that write bookes that they are necessitated to answer such silly scriblings: But so we must do or else the world will be befooled with that which is most vain. The objection to which this Author answers is, that the latter clause, as many as the Lord shall call, is a limitation of the verse, and no more are under the promise, and so children, if God shall call them, shall also enjoy the promise; now that which he contends for is, that [children] is to be added equally to both parts of the v. (which was not in question) but shewes not the promise to be to the children if God call them not, which is the thing in question. And as he shootes besides the mark, proving what was not to be proved, so his argument is nothing to that he takes on him to prove. He sets down a rule in Logick, which I find in Scheibler, …op. c. 29. n. 39. with this explication, hoc est, sumantur ex eodem genere. But in this sense it seemes this Author meant it, that the thing divided be communicated equally to the parts of the division, it is not true. For then the division of being into substance and accident, God and the Creature, with many more, were not right divisions. But were his rule right, as he means it, (as it is not) yet it is nothing to his purpose. He would prove, if children be not equally added to both parts of the v. Acts 2.39. then the Jewes will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles (which might be granted without absurdity) for there would be a mighty inequality, as to the communication of the promise, which is against the rule of Logick he mentions, as if the promise or the communication of the promise were a whole divided into parts, and one part were the Jewes and their children, and the other were the Gentiles and their children, which were ridiculous; nor do I know any other way he can understand his arguing from this Logick rule, but that it will appear alike frivolous. But the Reader (I doubt) will think I insist too much in answering such trifles. I go on therefore.
3. Saith he, consider, how comes this word (your children) to be kept in, for what end and use, if it were not to shew some spiritual priviledge they have with their parents, when God calls or converts the parents? what stands it for but a stone of offence to consciencious hearts?
Ans. 1. he asserts in this passage that (your children) is kept in to shew some spiritual priviledge they have with their parents, when God calls or converts the parent? but a little before he observed a change in the tense in both parts of the verse; in the first part unto the Jewes, he speaks de praeseuti, of the present application of the promise, and supposeth under the call of God already; here (your children) is to shew a speciall priviledge, when God calls or converts the parent, which intimates that he had not then called or converted the parent. and therefore the one passage crosseth the other.
2. He had said before, that (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, and yet here he refers it in a necessary sense, as he conceives, to the parent.
3. If the special priviledge to the children doth suppose the parents call, why not also the childrens call?
4. Yea the special priviledge in the Text to the father and child is the promise, and that Master Sidenham makes to be of justification, sanctification, and all graces, and can he imagine this promise to be to a child barely on the parents call without his own personal calling by God? I think he durst not assert it: If he did, I am sure it is false as being contrary to Rom. 8.30. and therefore of necessity to make his own exposition good, we must limit the former part of the verse, in what is said both of parent and child by the words [as many as the Lord our God shall call]. As for his questions, why [your children] is in the verse, it hath been answered, because of their imprecation, Matth. 27.25. to which he replies thus:
To see the sad shift of errour is wonderful: Can any man imagine, that the parents could doubt more, or so much of their childrens being accepted, and saved, when God should call them who were innocent, and only under the sudden rash curse of their parents, when they saw that the promise was to themselves, who were the actual murtherers of the Lord Jesus.
Answ. To me who am so well acquainted with the shifts of Paedobaptists, it is not wonderful to see the shifts of errour. This very reply what is it but a vain shift? For he supposeth the children were innocent, which he cannot prove, and that the curse was sudden and rash, which seems rather to have been deliberate, and that they saw the promise was to themselves, and Christ offered pardon to themselves, when there was nothing but horrour on their consciences for crucifying Christ till after Peters speech to them, and that if the parents were not imagined to doubt more or so much of their childrens being accepted and saved as themselves, then there was no reason to insert [your children] by occasion of the imprecation, Matth. 27.25. whereas if they doubted any whit, yea if for the present they did not think on that curse, yet might afterwards as there was cause they should, there was reason enough for Peter to insert those words whether they tended to take away a present, or possible fear in them concerning their children. But there is more of his trifling yet behind.
2. Saith he, Such a consideration would rather sadden them then refresh them, to mention the calling of their children: For they might more doubt of that, then of any thing, whether God would call them or no, and be as far to seek as ever they were, that they would have but cold comfort upon this account; this was enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye.
Answ. The phrase [and be as far to seek as ever they were] intimates the Jews had attained some comfort before this speech of Peter (which is manifestly false from the Text) and that telling them that the promise was to their children if called by God would rather sadden them then refresh them, it was cold comfort, enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye: which is in effect all one as if a man should say, when a man is in a swoon hot water will rather sadden him then refresh him, or when a man is sad, it is cold comfort enough to break his heart to give him a cup of Sack. But Mr. Sidenham will not be thought sine ratione delirare. For, saith he, they might doubt more of that, then of any thing, whether God would call them or no. What? was it likely they should doubt more of their childrens calling and pardon, if they were called, then of their own pardon, who were then under horrour of soul for their own grand crime of killing Christ? or if they did thus doubt, would it break their heart to be told that there was a possibility and hope that the promise was to their children, who might be called? I have heard that if it were not for hope the heart would break: but I never heard that the telling of a person of a thing of which there was hope, though he might doubt of it, would break his heart. But Master Sidenham addes.
The old way of conveying the promise is cut off, no promise but to called ones: our poor children are uncalled, and God knows whether ever they may be called of God: thus might they reason.
Ans. Its true, they might thus reason: But that they did, or by Peters words, as expounded by me, were likely to reason thus, is against reason to imagine. The old way of conveying the promise I imagine he means the giving the initial seal to their infants, that is, Circumcision. Now will any sober man think that in that perplexity they were in through conscience of their guilt, and danger of wrath impending on their children by reason of their impious curse, when Peter tells them to stay them from despair, that yet in Christ sent the promise was fulfilled for remission of sins to them and their children, if each of them were called of God, that is, did repent and believe, that they would repel this comfort by questioning the losse of Circumcision, and bemoaning the want of it to their infants? I know the Jews were zealous after for Circumcision and the Law, even those who became Christians, yet sure in that perplexity there was not the least thought of such a poor priviledg as an initial seal, but of the freedome of themselves and children from their guilt and curse. But I would know where this doctrine is, that Circumcision conveys the promises, or is the old way of conveying them, and what Scripture saith the promise (of remission of sins here meant, as Master Sidenham himself expounds it) is to any but called ones. Paul saith, Rom. 8.30. whom he hath called, them he hath justified. Hos & non alios, saith Augustine, and Orthodox Protestants, as from the Text may be evinced, sith all these agree to the same persons to be predestinate, called, justified, glorified. Is this such doctrine as were enough to break their hearts? But let's hear him out.
But when he includes them in the same promise with parents, and exhorts the parents to repent upon this ground, that the promise is to them and their children; this savours like a Gospel comforting-exhortation, and could not be but of great efficacy upon their spirits.
Answ. Me thinks it should be comfortable to them, that the promise was to them and their children upon condition of calling, that is, sanctification, repentance, believing: It is Antinomian doctrine, not Gospel, to say, justification is to a person uncalled, that afore he believes he is justified actually before God, even while he lives in the height of sin. It is true the promises of the land of Canaan and other benefits were to Abrahams natural seed: but the Gospel-promises of remission of sins and everlasting life in Christ, were never to Abrahams or any believing parents natural seed as such, but only to Abrahams spiritual seed elect and true believers. Master Sidenham addes.
4. What strange mysterious tautologies would be in this one verse? if that last sentence should refer to all the former expressions, we must read it thus to make out their sense. The promise is to you parents of the Jews, when God shall call you, (and they were then under call) and to your grown children, when God shall call them; and to all which are afar off, when God shall call them: Can any man with his understanding about him think the holy Ghost should faulter so much in common expression of his minde, when there was no need of adding of calling to any part, but to those that are afar off, who never were yet under Gods Gospel call?
Answ. There's neither tautology, nor mystery in limiting the promise to the called of the Jew parents and children, nor doth any thing make it seem strange, but ignorance. Tautology is not, sith the Propositions are three distinct ones in words and sense, it is not the same to say, the promise is to you called, the promise is to your children called, the promise is to all that are afar off called▪ you, your children, all that are afar off being different tearms. Mystery is no more, if it be added to the former part of the verse then to the latter. The calling in the latter part of the verse can be understood of no other than effectual calling, whether inward onelyonly, or both inward, and outward, for to none other of the Gentiles is the promise of remission of sins. And for the same reason the limitation is necessary to be added to the former part of the verse; nor can any good reason be given why the promise should be to the Jews and their children without calling by God, and not to those afar off without it; The Jews were then under call, but were not then called, nor doth Mr. Sidenham say they were, and therefore Peter might aptly enough say to them, The promise is to …s many of you as the Lord our God shall call. The manner of expression is usual to put after a distribution of persons the limitation in common. There is the like, Acts 3.24, where as many as have spoken limits the Prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after. Had Mr. Sidenham understanding in him of these things, he had not charged my exposition with making the Holy Ghost faulter in common expression of his mind. Such censures ill become such a smattering scribler. But who so bold as blinde bayard? It follows
Lastly, saith he, the word, children, may and must he understood of little ones, infants, not of adult and grown persons, for these reasons.
Answ. Boldly said like a young hotspur. Belike then when persons are ten, twelve, or more years old, they cease to be their parents children and seed. But I am willing to hear reason: 1. saith he, the word here (foreign) properly signifies an off-spring, any thing brought forth, though it be but of a day, of a moment old: Thus when a woman is said to be in pain, and to bring forth, this word is used, John 16.21. Luke 1.31. Matth. 1.16. Luke 1.57.
Answ. How heedlesly did this Authour scribble when he said, this word (which can be no other then foreign) is used, John 16.21. Luke 1.31. Matth. 1, 26. Luke 1.57. when it is used in none of those places, though the verb whence it comes is used in them. But were it used there, yet the reason is frivolous: foreign signifies a thing brought forth, ergo foreign children, Acts 2.39. may not, must not be understood of adult and grown persons. He might as well have said, it must be understood but of those that are in this moment brought forth, not of an infant of a day old, and that the person brought forth is only the mothers foreign, or child, because she only brought him forth, not the father. I did think till I met with this new Master, that the Holy Ghost spake properly when he called persons grown to ripe age their fathers foreign or children, Ephes. 6.1. Col. 3.21. &c.
2. Saith he, Its an indefinite word, and therefore may not be restrained to grown children, except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase.
Answ. Mr. Sidenham alters the conclusion he undertook to prove, and concludes that which he findes not denied: His reason is as well against his own conclusion: Its an indefinite word, and therefore may not be restrained to infant-children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase. And indeed the reason is good only thus. Its an indefinite word, therefore its to be restrained as the subject matter directs. But Mr. Sidenham shifts as it may serve his turn. His conclusion set down at first excluded adult children, because he knew the promise had not then been to them without calling, and so his project of drawing thence a priviledge for infants intituling them to baptisme had failed, but here his proof coming short he alters the conclusion into that which might be granted him without detriment to the cause.
3. Saith he, It must needs be especially meant of little ones, because they are distinguished from themselves, who were men of years. Now when we distinguish between men and children, we suppose the one adult, the other under age, and not grown up; and it is contrary to all ways of expression to think otherwise.
Answ. Belike then we must think that where it is said, Matth. 10.21. the fathers shall deliver the children to death, and the children shall rise up against the parents, and Luke 1.17. to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, it must be especially meant of little ones, because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years, and to think otherwise if the Dr. of New-Castle say true, is contrary to all ways of expression, which you may imagine he knew.
4. Saith he, It cannot be rationally conjectured otherwise, because the Apostle doth join them with their parents in the same promise, and not leave them to stand by themselves, as grown persons must.
Answ. Belike then if any understand the promises to Abraham, and his seed, to David and his seed of any other then infants it is not rationally conjectured. I have done with this Writer about this Text, of which he vainly talks, as he doth in the rest; so that all things weighed, this text of Scripture if there were no more, holds forth (not to be seen) the sameness of the promise to believers of the Gospel, both Jew and Gentile and their children, as ever it was to Abraham and his natural seed.