Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 5
SECT. V. Acts 2.38, 39. Proves not either the identity of Covenant now with that to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. as it comprehends his natural seed, nor the connexion between it and Baptizability.
NOw to go on to the proof of our second proposition in the argument, which is, that the reason of the command for signing, &c. even this promise I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, continues in full force under the Gospel, I refer you to that Scripture Acts 2.39. to make it good. The promise is unto you and to your children. What promise? Why this must needs relate to a former engagement, yea and too made unto them to whom the Apostle Peter spake, viz. Jews, and I know not to what engagement this can have reference, if not unto Gods promise made to Abraham, of being his God and the God of his seed after him. Certainly he is one of those that are blinde, and yet have eyes, who sees not from this text, that this very promise is in force and appliable to Believers under the Gospel, and if this stand good, then the command for signing our Infants with the first signe of the covenant of grace, viz. Baptism, stands good too, for this promise is the reason which God gives of his precept; God will own a Believers children, therefore he will have them markt for his.
Answ. I grant the promise I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, doth still continue in force, God is still the God of Abrahams seed, that is his spiritual seed, elect persons, and true Believers; and he will be again the God of Abrahams natural seed when the natural branches or posterity of Abraham, the root, shall be grafted in again.
But I deny that which Master Drew means, and in the page before expressed, that God doth as truely say to every believing Gentile now, I am thy God, and the God of thy seed, as he did to Abraham the father of the faithful; yea or that ever God meant by that promise to assure Spiritual or Evangelical blessings to all and every of Abrahams natural posterity, the Apostle determining and proving the contrary, Rom. 9 6 7, 8, &c. and restraining that promise in the Evangelical sense onelyonly to the children of Abraham, which were elect by God. Nor is there a word, Act. 2.39. to make it good in Master Drew's sense. For, 1. Master Drew proves not that the promise Act. 2.39. must needs be the promise Gen. 17.7. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. His argument is, It must needs relate to a former engagement to the Jews, and therefore to that Gen. 17.7. But this is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative, it relats to a former engagement therfore to this, which Logicians deny to be good proof.
But saith he, I know not what engagement this can have reference to, if not unto the promise Gen. 17.7.
I answer, though he know not, and so may be one of those, that are blind and yet have eyes, (which he chargeth on his opposits) yet others see other promises, namely that to David of raising up Christ to sit on his throne mentioned Acts 2.30. or the promise of the Holy Gost mentioned V. 33. or the promise of blessing mentioned Acts 3.25. Any of which may be the Promise meant Acts 2.39. more probably then that Gen. 17.7. 2. Where it is said (The promise is to you) if we either consider the scope of the Apostle or other parrallel texts Acts 3.26. Acts 13.32, 33. (the promise is) is as much as to say, the promise made to David Acts 2.30. or to Abarham Acts 3.25. is fulfilled in raising up Christ, or the Promise of the spirit is fulfilled in the shedding forth of its gifts, (of which Promise mentioned V. 17.18. Piscator and others understand it) and that for you, that is for your good blessing, and your children and all that are afarr off as many as the Lord our God shall call, not as M. Drew means, there is a promise of being a God to you and every one of your children continually to be fulfilled as soon as ever they are in being.
3. It is false which M. Drew presupposeth as if the meaning were (the Promise is to you) that is (the Promise of being your God is to you believers and to your children) that is to all your Infant children, as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles. For 1. that speech is made to the Jews (as M. Drews own words seem to import (onelyonly and their children, and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is false that when it is said (the Promise is to you) the meaning is to you as believers. For neither were they then believers, as I prove in my Ample disquisit: Sect 5. nor is it certain whether some of them were ever believers, the occasion and scope seems to intimate rather that they were considered there as persons who had crucified Christ 3. Neither is it true that the Promise is to their children, that is to their infant children as their children, M. Gataker discept: de bapt: Infant: vi. & …. pag. 12. saith thus, To the obtaining the promise as well repentance as partaking of baptism at least in this place is exacted; so that hence the promise of remission of sins cannot be proved to be made to Infants when they are entered by baptism, unless also they repent. 4 nor do I know how it can be true, which M. Drew sayes, in any sense for his purpose, that God hath promised to every believing Gentile now to be the God of his seed as he did to Abraham, by which he would expound the words Acts 23.9. the promise is to your children. For in respect of spiritual blessings accompanying salvation it is not true, every believers child is not elect, in the Covenant of saving grace, a child of the resurrection, nor in respect of outward Ecclesiastical privileges. Neither did God Promise Circumcision to every child of Abraham, not to the males under 8. dayes old nor to the females, nor hath it any colour to interpret I will be the God of thy seed, that is they shall be circumcised, much less that God promised to every Gentile believers child he should be Baptized or have right to Baptism, sure not to professed unbelievers, to abortives or still born Infants. For my part with all M. Drews light I cannot understand how according to M. Drews exposition the promise Gen. 17.7. is inforce and applyable to believers under the Gospel as he saith.
Nor do I conceive it true which he ads. If this stand good then the Command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good to; For were it granted that it were true, that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now, I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles, yet there is not a word in that text or any other to prove that therefore every believers Infant child is to be baptized, it being false that the Covenant of grace doth of it selfe intitle to Baptism as I have proved in my Examen part. 3. S. 1. in my letter to M. Baile or Additions to my Appology Sect. 3. in the Ample disquisition Sect. 5. where also it is proved that though the promise Acts 2.39. be alleged why they should be baptized V. 38. yet not as the reason of their right to Baptism as M. Drew makes it, but as a motive encouraging them to it as their duty, and in performing of it first to move then to repent and then to be baptized. The reason, is not as M. Drew makes it. The promise is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized, and the minister ought to do it to you and your Infants; but this, the promise is to you and your children, therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins: nor is there a word in the text or elsewhere to prove that dictate of M. Drew, God will own believers children, therefore he will have them markt for his, even in infancy by baptism, more truely saith M. Gataker discept: Infant. de bapt▪ infant. vi. & E…f…c. pag. 9. Acts 2.38, 39. is nothing found concerning Infants to be baptized, In that they are Commanded to repent and to be baptized unto the remission of sins, it is altogether like to that saying of the Lord Christ, he that believeth and shall be baptized shall attain salvation Matth. 16.16.
But M. Drew thinks to take off the exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth priviledge of believers children under the Gospel. The first exception is that the promise is of extraordinary gifts of the spirit, and he answers. This doth not sute with the promise made Gen. 17.7: which was to be performed to Abrahams children, and yet they had not those gifts.
But 1. this Answer goes upon his mistake that the promise Acts 2.39. must be that Gen. 17.7. 2. he supposeth that the promise Acts 2.39. must be understood so as to be made good to Abrahams seed afore Christ: But if so, it were false in his sense, for all Abrahams seed had not the birth priviledge of the first seale not the females any of them, nor any of the males till the eight day.
2. He saith, it cannot be true of extrao…dinary gifts, sith then all believing Jews must have those gifts, which they had not, and all believers might pray for them.
To which I say if the promise be so understood, you shall all have sueh gifts. I acknowledg it were not true Exam. part. 3. Sect 6. But in this sense it may be true even of those gifts, the promise of sending the spirit in extraordinary gifts is fulfilled to you and your children and all that are afarr off even as many as the Lord our God shall call, that is for their and your benefit, in that by those gifts the Apostles were inabled to publish and propagate the Gospel, which is a benefit to all that are called.
The Second exception is that the words (as many as the Lord our God shall call) expound the Apostle meaning, which is this, their children should receive the promise if the Lord called them, To it he answers 1. that this particle (even) with that which follows (whom the Lord our God shall call) has relation to the next foregoing sentence viz. those that are afarr off for the explanation of that not unto this sentence (to you and your children) so that the Apostle speaks thus, The promise is made to you and your children for the present, and when the Lord shall call those that are a far off and strangers to the Covenant of promise, they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as you and your children are now.
To which I reply, M. Drew gives no reason, why the limitation should be ment onelyonly of those afar off, and not also of them and their children 2. nor doth he answer the reason given to the contrary, that the speech were not true, if it be so expounded as that the sense be, that God would be a God to those Jews he then spake to, though they were not called to the knowledge and belief of Christ, and so salvation by another then Christ contrary to the same Apostles words Acts 4 12. To me saith M. Gataker discept. debapt. Inf. viz. and e…fic. pag. 253. the Covenant of grace Act· 2.39. seems onelyonly to be with them that have embraced the Gospel. Now if the words (as many as the Lord our God shall call) must limit the words (to you and all that are afar off) it is incongruous to the use of speaking not to apply it to (your children) in the middle. Yea without the limitation it would not be true that God hath promised to be a God to their or any others children. For God is not a God to any but those he calls either outwardly or inwardly at least. 3. His Paraphrase (when the Lord our God shall call those that are afar off, they and their children shall be heirs to the promise as well as your children are now) is an intolerable abuse of adding that of which there is not a word in the text, which doth not mention at all the children of them that are afar off though called.
2. saith M. Drew if the Appostle had meant to apply the promise onelyonly to those who should be called of God to believe, then it had been needless to have made any mention at all of children.
To which I reply there was great reason why he should mention their children with them, because they had wished Matth. 27.25. Christs blood on them and their children. To take away the horrour of soule, and fear of the curse on them and their children caused by the conscience of their crucifying Christ and imprecation to them and their children, and not to assure them of such a poor empty Eclesiastical outward priviledge as paedobaptists imagine to belong to believers infants, was that speech of the Apostle intended in like fort as Joseph did in the like Gen. 45.3, 4. &c. Gen. 50.20. For this end was sutable to the occasion of their question Ver. 36.37. and to the Apostles answer, and it seems probable tthe Apostle saith (to you and your children) but not, to all that are afar off and their children, because those afar off had not wished Christs blood on them and theirs as the other had done.
3. Saith M. Drew, it utterly overthrows the Apostles scope which is to shew the Jews shall be bettered rather then worsted by believing in Christ, which they would hardly believe should he have left their children (who were alwayes till now reckoned in Covenant with them) in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world, which had been a bad argument to bring in the Jews, cold comfort to hear that their children should be made as much aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel by their Fathes embracing the Gospel, as the very Pagans. Surely this would stave off the Jews from Christ rather then bring them on.
To which I reply, The Apostles scope is plain to direct them what to do being oppressed with the horrour of their sin in crucifying Christ and wishing his blood on them and their children, and Ver. 39. is a notice to them to repent and be baptized in the name of Christ. To imagine the Jews then either thought of a priviledge for their children answerable to circumcision, or that Peters scope was to satisfy them about it, is such a toy as is fit for children rather then men of understanding. It had been alike comfort unto the Jews at that time to tell them of their Infants right to baptism as for a man to tell an arraigned malefactor, expecting to be condemned and hanged, that his little child had a new Coat given him, vain words and bug-bears fit to affright children with, of a childs being out of the Covenant for defect of tittle to baptism, of being in worse case then the Jews, in as poor a condition as the most barbarous heathens in the world, aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel, debarred a priviledge the deprivation of which would have staved off the Jews from Christ. Children may be in covenant as much as the Jews, no whit worsted in their condition in a better condition, then barbarious heathen infidels, though title to baptism be not aserted to their infants. If by (the commonwealth of Israel) the Jewish civil or Eclesiastical estate, be understood those that Peter spake to, must expect to be alienated from it if they would be Christians. They knew Christ was cast out, and might know he had told them it would be so with his disciples. If by (the Common-wealth of Israel) be meant (the true Christian Church) the defect of Infant-baptism neither expressly nor by consequence made them aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel. Such conceits arise from paedobaptists mistaken suppositions. Nor can I imagine but that had the Jews understood that their children were in that condition, worsted for want of a priviledge equal to their circumcision they would have been glad to accept of Christ to take away that horrour that then lay on their Spirits.
The third exception is, that it is not said the promise is to the Gentiles and their children; now if this be not made good the argument fals, because we are Gentiles by nature. To which he answers 1. If believing Gentils live under the same Covenant that Abraham and his seed did (which has been proved) then though they were none of his seed, tis safer to apply the whole promise to them, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, then to cut off and circumcise the tenor of the Covenant, and to say unto believers now, God onelyonly is your God, not the God of your children; is not this to make a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant? and to rob believers of one of the most precious comforts they have by promise, even Gods owning their seed. Which they cannot be assured of as the Jews were, without the children be admitted to the first sign or seal of the Covenant, which is baptism now under the Gospel, as I shall prove by its succeeding circumcision by and by.
To which I reply, The Covenant Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. is mixt and in respect of the temporal promises believing Gentiles live not under the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17.7. but in respect of the spiritual part, that is, they are justified and saved now, or God is a God to them as they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29. But neither did God promise to be a God in respect of Gospel grace, to Abrahams natural seed as such, the contrary is delivered Rom. 9.7, 8. nor now to any believers seed as such, but the elect whether believers or unbelievers children, as is proved at large by me Exam. part. 3. Sect. 4. not by denying the Covenant of grace to be made with a believer & his natural seed do we cut off or circumcise the tenor of the Covenant, or make any alteration, much less a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant, the Apostle expressly determining, and whole Juries of the ablest Protestant writers even paedobaptists expounding Rom. 9.8. as resolving, that the Covenant Gen. 17.7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed, was not made to all Abrahams natural seed, no not to the circumcised, not to Ishmael and Esau, but to the elect onelyonly, and therefore there is no safety to apply the whole promise, I am thy God and the God of thy seed, to every sincere believer and his child, it being expressly contradictory to Rom. 9.8. which determines some onelyonly to be children of the promise. And yet we need not say as M. Drew injuriously makes us say, God onelyonly is your God, not the God of your children, but onelyonly this: you may assure your selves that he is your God, for ye are believers and so Abrahams seed; and ye may hope by reason of general indefinite promises and frequent experiences that God will be a God to your children. But God hath not promised that he will be certainly a God to every, or any one of your children definitely, but is at liberty to shew mercy to your children, or to an infidels, as it shall please him. And this you must be contented with, sith God afforded no more to Abraham himself, when he had made Isaac the child of the promise and not Ishmael, nor to Isaac when he loved Iacob and hated Esau. It is fit you should remember God to be no debtor to you, that he is the potter, ye and yours are the clay, and accordingly acquiess in his will blessing him for his love to you which is the most precious comfort you have by promise, and not being anxious concerning your children. Nor is there any truth in it that either the Jews were assured that God would own their seed, that is, be their God, nor that by being admitted to circumcision they had that assurance, nor that without admission to baptism we cannot be assured of our children that GOD owns them, nor that baptism succeeds circumcision, or if it did, such assurance as Mr. Drew speaks of cannot be inferred thence. So that all this passage is but a fardel of mistakes. Lets consider the next. 2. saith M. Drew, Are not Gentiles the seed of Abraham? Then I would fain be resolved in this whether Christ took upon him onelyonly the nature of the Jews, or of the Jews and Gentiles both? If only of Jews, how must the Gentiles be saved? If of both, then how you will construe this text Heb. 2.16. He took upon him the seed of Abraham, if you will not allow the Gentiles by any means to be Abrahams seed.
Answer. I grant believing Gentils are Abrahams spiritual seed descending from him as the Father of the faithfull by imitating his faith. And as for M. Drews frivolus or captious question, which goes upon a supposition as if Christ might take on him the nature of the Jews only, & that the nature of the Jews were one and the Gentils another, I tell him (though I think such a Dr. might have resolved himself) for his resolution that Christ took on him the nature of both, that is the same specifical essence or kinde of being, that both had, to wit the being of a man common a like to Jews and Gentiles, meaning by nature his individual, and numerical Existence, which is all one with that, our Lord sprang out of Judah Heb. 7.14. not from Levi, or from Lot, and yet the Gentils are saved by his name, he dying and arising again both for Jews and Gentils. And for the Construction of Heb. 2.16. thought there are learned men that expound foreign thus, he takes hold or helpeth the seed of Abraham, that is believers of Gentils as well as Jews, yet I think the meaning there to be no more but this, that he took on him or received the nature of man by a natural descent from Abraham 1. because the seed of Abraham is opposed to Angels, and therefore Abrahams seed signifies the nature of man contradistinct to Angels. 2. because the author saith ver. 17. thence he ought to be like to his brethren, to be a mercifull high Priest, which comes not from his helping believers, but his assumption of the humane nature, whith fits him to be like to men and to be a mercifull high Priest. And therefore I like best the reading of our transtators in the text, not that in margin. And thus haye I answered M. Drews douty question in which he would so fain be resolved. But what is this to prove that Acts 2.39. the promise is not yet to the Gentils, that are called but also to their children I see not, it being neither proved that Acts 2.39. the promise is the promise Gen. 17.7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed, ot that the children of Gentils called, are in that respect Abrahams seed.
M. Drew adds, But yet further 3. Tis plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham; yea and a surer heir to the promise, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, then carnal descent from Abrahams Loyns doth. Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and onother from Isaac; all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7. But in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Isaac was his special seed, and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel, for ver. 8. they which are the children of the flesh, these are not (that is not in so peculiar a manner) the children of God as the believing seed, for the children of the promise are the seed, the seed by way of eminencie, that is the prime seed. and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explaines and applyes this to our purpose Gal. 4.28, 29. The Galatians were Gentils, but being believers, we saith the Apostle, as Isaac was, are the children of promise, and so the special seed of Abraham: the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are, but by faith they became his prime seed, and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was, who is said in the next ver. to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are. And, sirs, shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed? The Appostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29. If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise, which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham; for if it be not ours so fully as it was his, then we are not heirs according to the promise; if our seed be exempted it fals much short of what was said to him, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed. And mark, friends, I beseech you, that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8. In thee shall all Nations be blessed; not onelyonly his natural seed, that was but one Nation; but all that were of the faith shall be blessed, as children of what nation soever ver. 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10, 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised. And truely I wonder since the G…spel is so clear that believers are Abrahams children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledge wherewithall he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed, as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities.
Answer. the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God. To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it. That of Ro. 9.7, 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God, but that in Isaac his seed should be called. And the same is determined Gal. 4.28. that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman, and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit. And Gal. 3.29. is meant of those onelyonly that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver. 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8. in thee shall all nations be blessed, he infers ver. 9. onelyonly of believers, so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham. And Rom. 4.10.11. Abraham is said to be the Father of believers, or as it is ver. 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised. Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say, that elect persons onelyonly are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7, 8. when they dispute against Arminians, should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not, is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7. when they dispute for paedobaptism, though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall, it being not true of Ishmael, Esau, and thousands of others of both of Abrahams and other believers seed, God hath not nor will be a God to them.
Tis true believing Gentils are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had, but it is false, every believer is heir of every priviledg. Abraham had; none besides him is Father of the faithfull as Abraham, or hath Gods promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual, yea or to his natural. None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25. nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abrahams seed Rom. 11.28, 29.
The imagined priviledge that God would be the God of his naturall seed was never promised to Abrahams natural posterity, as such. Yet it is false, that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abrahams natural seed.
For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abrahams posterity, yet he hath to some, which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child. M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise, robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7. perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham, by Abraham were meant every believer, and when he saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed, it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not.
About which he and other paedobaptists, particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people, and lead fond parents, who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise, by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed, that God will be a God to a believer, and his child, and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy, are saved by the parents faith, and by this there is assurance of their salvation.
But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11, 17. that the term graffing, shews believing Gentils come in with their seed, or twigs that grow from them, else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off,
But I have so fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to election, and that none but elect persons are ingraffed according to the Apostles meaning, and that ingraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition, being the first part of this Review in the ten first Sections, that I think it unnecessary to say any more to what Master Drew here speaks. And for what he saith, If believers Infants were taken in under the legal administration, and left out in the Gospel-administration, the covenant dispensation under the Gospel is more uncomfortable th…n that under the Law, it is but a vain speech, as if the circumcision of Infants were such a matter of comfort, that the having of no priveledge under the Gospel did recompense the loss of it without Infant-baptism, as if Infant-baptism were of so great comfort to parents, that without it other comfort concerning their children were nullified, whereas these things arise upon mistakes, as if Baptism were administred according to a persons interest in the covenant, and circumcision was so, and that the denying Infants Baptism, is putting them out of Covenant, which is but ungrounded talk, as shall be further shewed in that which follows.
Yea when the Paedobaptists answer the Papists, who would have the work of outward Baptism to take away original sin from the Infant-baptized, they say onelyonly that it seals the covenant, but doth not seal the fruit of the covenant, but upon condition of Faith and Repentance; so that the Infant hath no benefit by the covenant, or the seal without Faith or Election; and so much benefit hath any unbeliever or his Infant; yea the unbeliever hath more advantage then the Infant, for the unbeliever hath the moral use of the sealing of any baptized person, which the Infant hath not. When they talk of the covenant to Infants of believers they say it is but condicionally that they do believe that God will be their God, and in the same manner the covenant belongs to all men in the world, to unbelievers and their Infants, and when they speak of the benefit of Baptism, they say it onelyonly seals the covenant, not the persons partaking the fruit of it (excepting he be an elect person dying in Infancy) which yet he may have without the seal) till he believe, yet he hath not the moral use and comfort of it till he understand and believe, at which time the Baptism in Infancy is altogether unknown to him. So that indeed the comfort which Paedobaptists give to parents, is either the same I give, without Infant-baptism, or, if parents did examin it, it would be found delusory. What Master Drew speaks about Baptisms succession to circumsion, and his imagined full proof from thence for Infant-baptism, I shall put off till I review the Dispute about Master Ms. third Concl. This is enough to satisfie that Master Drew's reasons are blunt and not sharp as was supposed.