Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 82
SECT. LXXXII. Notwithstanding Mr. Cs. allegations of Acts 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11 16, … Mark. 10.14. Acts 15.10. Matth. 28.19. the N. T. appear… to be silent about Mr. Cs. additional promise, and infants Baptism.
HAving more largely noted the unproved dictates and mistakes of Mr. Carter hitherto. I shall be briefer in the rest …o what he saith pag. 81, 82, 83, 84. there needs no more to bee said but this, that the blessing upon posterity which Mr. C imagines, m…ght have been signified, though adult persons onelyonly had been circumcised, we have plain Scriptures which warrant us to alter circumcision wholly and abolish i…, besides which we know no other command Gen …7▪ 9 the texts Acts 8.12. Gal. 3 27 28. do as plainly shew that Baptism is to be of none but believers, and that but adul… persons are to … bap…ized, …s that women are to be baptized, i… Circumcision were a priv…ledge Acts 7.8. we have abundant warrant to take it away; nor doth the text Rom 11 29. hinder it, which is not meant of outward priviledges, which are common to elect and reprobate (as the priviledge of Circumcision was) but of saving grace, to wit election and effectual calling, and therefore is palpably abused by Mr. C. to prove that God takes not away the outward priviledge from his people now, which was by circumcision, we justly require a precept or example in the N. T to warrant infant Baptism, no command of a meer positive right of the Old Testament, being a rule to us about a meer positive right of the new, as is fully proved by me in the 2d. part of this Review, Sect. 2, 3.
What Mr. C. saith pag. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89. That the N. T. is not altogether silent in this matter, because of Peters words, Acts 2.38, 39. is false. For neither is there a word Acts 2.38, 39. of Mr. Cs. imagined additional promise of making every believer a blessing, so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents, nor that the application of the initial seal is to signifie this promise, nor that the application of it to infants is of the substance of this Covenant nor that the command Gen. 17.9. is yet a command that lieth upon Abrahams spiritual seed now in the New Testament, nor that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision, and is the very same in substance for us, nor if Mr. Cs. exposi…ion were granted, would any of these follow, but the contrary. For first, if the promise bee the same wi…h that vers. 17. out of Joel, yet sure it is not the same with Mr. Cs. additional promise, the promise of receiving the holy Ghost being not all one with this, that the parent believing shall bee a blessing to his posterity as Mr. C. fancies, the promise of receiving the Holy Ghost being of a thing terminated on the receiver, but Mr. Cs. additional promise of a thing convayed to posterity, the promise of receiving the Holy Ghost beeing as well, if not chiefly to the children, Acts. 2.17, 18. but the additional promise of Mr. C. is onelyonly to the parent. 2. Were the promises the same, yet this would not serve Mr. Cs. turn, but bee against him. For if the promise Acts 2.39. be the same with that vers. 17, 18. then it is a promise to children of dreaming dreames, seeing visions, and prophesying, but this cannot be meant of infant children, it neither was so fulfilled in the Apostles days, nor in any after time, it would be a prodig… to hear an infant prophesie, much less is it true of the ordinary gifts of the spirit, v. 18. 3 The limitation also is against him, For if it be true which he saith p. 88. That Peter maketh the Gentiles case parallel with the Jews, and saith that the same promise did also belong to them yet with the same limitation, namely, to so many of them onelyonly as the Lord our God shall call, implying that it is an effectual call to faith and repentance, that gave to any such a priviledge, either Jew or Gentile, and p. 87. the words of the Apostle cannot be meant, that the promise did belong to them and their children onelyonly as Jews, Abrahams natural seed, but as believers, and upon their conversion (which I conceive true) then it is false that it belongs to infants as the natural seed of their parents, though believers, and therefore the promise Act. 2.39. is not Mr. Cs. additional promise, which is of believing parents being a blessing to posterity, nor is the promise or imagined priviledge consequent thereupon, belonging to infants until they repent and believe. 4. That which hee saith p. 87. that Act. 2.38. is an invitation to repenting and believing Jews to be baptized they and their children, is so far from being for his purpose, that it is manifestly against it. For if the invitation be of every one to repent first, and then every of them so repenting to be baptized, then it is not an invitation to infants to be baptized, nor of parents to baptize them. Yea, this is so apparent in the Text that the very words are directed expresly to those persons who were pricked in their hearts, and said Men and brethren what shall we do, that they should be every of them baptized, v. 38. without so much as mentioning their children in the invitation. Nor doth any thing after done by them, v. 41. &c. shew that they understood that they were directed by Peter to cause their children, whether infant or adult, to be baptized upon their repentance and believing onelyonly. Yea, if as Mr. C. saith, John Baptist had cleared that point, Matth. 3.8, 9. that to the Jews as Abrahams seed natural Baptism did not belong, it belongs not now to a believers seed. But the truth is, Mr. Cs. exposition is in many things false or uncertain. It is uncertain whether the promise Acts 2.39. be the same with that which is mentioned v. 17, 18. or that v. 30. of which I have spoken enough before. It is false that the promise Acts 2.17, 18. can be meant of ordinary gifts. For the Apostle saith v. 16. that what was spoken by the Prophet was the thing they then saw performed, which was speaking with tongues v. 4, 11. the great things of God, which was extraordinary; and if the promise v. 17, 18. had included ordinary gifts, it had been impertinently alledged to shew the fulfilling of it then in those miraculous gifts. Nor doth Mr. C. prove it to be so meant. For 1. though the last days in Scripture signifie all that space of time from the comming of Christ in the flesh to the end of the world, 1 Tim. 4.1. 2 Tim. 3.1. Heb. 1.2. & 9.26. yet it follows not the promise is yet in fulfilling, it is sufficient to verifie the prophecy that it hath been fulfilled in any part of the last days. 2. Nor is there any thing v. 18. to prove the prophesying there to be a distinct thing from the prophesying, v. 17. or prophesying in either to be an ordinary gift, or common to all Gods servants. Nor do Rev. 19.10. compared Rev. 12.17. or Rev. 1.9. prove that every believer hath the spirit of prophecy. For Johns suffering for the testimony of Jesus may be understood, yea being distinct from the word of God Rev. 1.9. seems to be meant of his giving testimony of Jesus as an Apostle or Prophet extraordinary; and the having the testimony of Jesus, Rev. 12.17. being distinct from keeping the commandments of God, imports the testimony there meant to be of that which was testified by extraordinary revelation, against which the Dragon warred, and a blessing is to the observers, Rev. 1.3 And that Rev. 19.10. is meant of those who had extraordinary revelation, is manifest, in that Rev. 22.9. where the same thing is expressed, and there what is Rev. 19.10. thy brethren which have the testimony of Jesus, is, thy brethren the prophets, and the prophets are distinct from them that keep the words of that book. Besides, if every believer had the spirit of prophecy, then every believer should be a prophet, and should be set by God in the Church next after Apostles, afore Teachers; which doth expresly gainsay the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. and fully proves the prophesying mentioned 1 Cor. 14. to be no ordinary gift, which every believer hath. Nor doth it follow, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesie, therefore every testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesying, the speech being indefinite, not universal; and the words being the speech of the Angel, shewing wherein he was fellow-servant to John, plainly intimate he meant it of the special testimony of Jesus which he was fellow servant to John in, as the Title of the Book shews, Rev. 1.1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew to his servants what things must shortly be, and sending signified them by his Angel to his servant John. I omit what Piscator conceives in his scholie on the place, that the words are to be read in an inverted order thus, the spirit of prophesie is the testimony of Jesus, that is, which is received from him. Nor is it true, that the promise Ioh. 16.13. is to all believers, however Preachers do so often misapply it, but to the Apostles. And it may be doubted, whether the words 1 Ioh 2.20, 27. be meant of all believers, or of those that were strong or we…l instructed by John as his li…tle children, v. 14. and if it be meant of all believers, yet it must be understood with limitation of all things necessary to salvation, or of all things needfull to withstand the seducers he mentions, not a word …hat mentions their prophesying. Nor doth Joh. 7.39. prove every believer a prophet; nor may it be gathered from 1 Thes. 5.19, 20. that such preaching, which we must suppose may bring us something that is not good, is called prophesying, but that something may be termed prophesying which is not; and therefore the spirits are to be tried whether they be of God, for many false pro…hets are gone out into the world, as John speaks, 1 Epist. 4.1.
Nor is it true, that Peter exhorts the Jews, Act. 2.38. to repent, that is, to go on as they had begun. For though they had some horrour of conscience, v. 37. yet not repentance, unto which Peter exhorts, v. 38. nor doth any word used by Peter intimate that they had begun to repent. And what Mr. C. adds to the clause to as many as the Lord our …od shall call, not onelyonly to them, but also to their children, is too bold dealing with the Scripture, there being not a word in the Text which implieth that addition, and therefore is not justified by his allegations of Psal. 1.6. Prov. 10.24. What other arguments for Mr. Cs. purpose have been urged from Act. 2.38, 39. have been largely answered already. I go on.
Mr. C. adds, p. 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99. a large discourse▪ in whi…h 1. there is p. 97. a confession which doth invincibly prove infant Baptism to be will worship, and his speech false which he used p. 8…. that the New Testam…nt is not altogether silent in this matter; and it is this. Whoever shall confine himself onelyonly to the N. T. to find out the law of Gods worship and service, he shall never find it, not onelyonly as to infant Baptism but also to all other Ordinances whatsoever For if infant Baptism be not to be found in the N. T. then the N. …. is altogether silent about that matter: and if it be not there, then it is will worship, there being no law about a meer positive rite or ceremony in force to us Christian Gentiles now, which was giv…n to the Jews in the Old Testament, as I have proved, Exam. par. 3. sect. 12. pag. 116, 117. Review, par. 2. sect. 2, 3. 2. There is in the same p. 97. a false and dangerous speech, that Christ spake so little in his N. T. concerning the law which is the rule which he hath set for his service of his house; namely, because he could look upon that, for the greatest part, to be done already, to wit, in the Old Testament ▪ Which if true, then the laws about the ceremonies of the Jews are our rule, we are still under the yoke of bondage, popish, prelatical ceremonies are still justifiable, a Bishop or Archbishop above Presbyters and Bishops, appeal to Synods, their power to decide controversies, to excommunicate, a national Church constitution, are still to be retained, for these, or that which was proportionable to these, was according to the Rule of Gods house then. Nor is there a word in any of the Scriptures which Mr. C. alledgeth, for this his purpose.
Not Luke 16.16. the meaning whereof is not, as Mr. C. fancies, That in the times before John was the season to instruct men in the law, since in the Gospel; but as it is Mat. 11.13. All the prophets and the law until John prophesied, that is, foretold of Christs comming as future; but the Kingdome of God, foreign, Luke 16.16. from then is Evangelized, or told as good tidings already begu… to be, a… Diodati annot. on Mat. 11.13. Johns prerogative above the precedent prophets is, that they have onelyonly foretold and described things to come▪ but he hath delivered the present salvation, and in him is begun the Evangelical Ministery, and the legal and figurative Ministery is ceased. Yet if Mr. Cs. exposition were allowed, it prov…s not that in the Law or Old Testament the rule about the service or meer positive worship of God in the N. T. is set, but rather the contrary; for if that were the season then for it, and now is the season for another thing, it follows, that it is unseasonable to take a rule for Gods hou…e in meer positive worship from the Old Testament.
The alledging Psal. 78.1. by Mat. 13.3, 9, 35. proves not that a rule for rituals is to be fe…cht from the Old Testament, although it may be usefull for to prove doctrines about the Gospel, Gods providence, moral duties, &c.
Though it be granted which Mr. C. concludes pag. 96. the general nature of the Law to bee one and the same to the people of God under both Testaments, (which is easily yeilded sith the general nature is invariable, and the same to all for ever) yet it followes not that the Laws about …eremonies are the same to the people of God under both Testaments, if so, we are still under the yoke of Circumcision and the Legal rites, and under the Law. And indeed Mr. C. hath in this thing vented many false and dangerous speeches, that to us in Christ the Law hath been as it were incorporated with the Gospel, as thereby become part of the covenat of grace the Law given by … is called the Testa…ent of Christ, as well as …he Law given to us by …hrist himself▪ that the Old Testament, this the New, and both confirmed by his bloud; that in the type by the bloud of Bulls and Goat… th… in the answer type by his own bloud. And yet he sa…th, the Apostle R…m. 1… 6 applieth Deut. 30 …2, 14 to the Gospel in opposition to the Law, as in it self considered without the Gospel, or as a covenant of works; which words are contrary to his former. For if the Gospel be opposed to the Law by the Apostle, as it is in it self considered is without the Gospel, is a covenant of works, then the Law is not incorporated with the Gospel, or thereby become part of the covenant of grace, nor is the Law given by Moses called the Testament of Christ, nor confirmed by his bloud, but the bloud of Bulls and Goats, ill termed Christs bloud, being opposed Heb. 9.12. In like manner it is a dangerous assertion which he hath pag. 95. In the covenant of workes the Law was, Do this and live; but in the covenant of grace it is, Do this in the strength of Christ and live: which if right, we live, that is, are justified (for so his words following explain it) by the doing the works of the law in the strength of Christ; which (if I do understand it) is the very doctrine of Bellarmine, Tom. 4. de justific. l. 1. c. 19. and other Papists, saying the Apostle excludes not works done after grace by faith from justification, but afore faith: Which Protestant Divines commonly refute, as …areus in his Castigations, Ames in his Bellarm. enerv. Chamier, Tom. 3. paustr. lib. 22. c. 2. Abbots defence of Perkins, p. 502. Rivet. sum contr▪ tract. 4. qu. 10. Pemble vind. Fidei, sect. 2. c. 3. sect. 4. c. 1, 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham, who had not to glory before God, nor was justified by works, Rom. 4.1, 2, &c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former, when he saith, Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome, dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith. But of this by the way. That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house, 1 Tim. 3.15. 2 Cor. 6.16. and separate, Act. 13.2. 2 Cor. 6.17. that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament, though it were true, yet proves no more but this, that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described, the Old Testament is necessary; but not that which is to be proved, that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old.
Mr. C. adds, p 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.24. Mar. 10.14. Acts 15.10. Mat. 28.19. which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review, I need onelyonly to refer the Reader thither. Yet I add, it is but said without any proof, that 1 Cor. 7.14. that children are termed holy, because they come under the word of blessing from God, in as much as that word was confirmed not onelyonly unto Abraham, but also to all believers, Gen. 22.17, 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth, and separateth from that which is common or unclean. For 1. there's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents. 2. Nor that the scope, analysis, allusion in the Text▪ leads to such an exposition. 3. Nor doth it follow, that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth: God blessed Noah and his sons, Gen. 9.1. yet all of them were not sanctified; yea, many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons, Psal. 107.38. Ierem. 12.1. much less is it true, that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed, the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy, yet not blessed. 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing, is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere, that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere.
I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24. are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham, the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God, yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches, sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation, and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had, called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree, yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth, or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers, or that they are to be accounted holy by us, till God hath purified their hearts by faith, Acts. 15.9. And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy, so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation, till they profess the faith, such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found, and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation, without profession of faith by each person so accounted, there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples, upon their own profession so judged, no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins: But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith, though wee know not them to be inherently holy, or in the Covenant of grace.
Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy, because they are not onelyonly within the Covenant of Abraham, but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant ▪ is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled.
What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate, 1 Cor. 7.14. that it had been but affirming the thing, is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect. 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned, that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards, or that he …scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer, which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11. and 9.12. is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect. 11, &c. to the end of the Book, that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them, and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered, without shewing the insufficiency of the answers, if hee meant candidly, as one that endeavoured to cl…er the truth.
But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building, that upon this account not onelyonly children of believers, but also nations must be reputed holy, because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations; To this he answers, The case is not the same, for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation, as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing, which the Lord commandeth out of Sion. But as for nations, they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church. Therefore although such as are of the Church, and the children also of such families are holy, yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy.
Ref. I reply, the objection in form stands thus; They which come under the word of blessing from God, in as much as that word was confirmed not onelyonly unto Abraham, but also to all believers, Gen. 22.17, 18. & 12.2, 3. must be reputed holy. This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. …04. and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism, I subsume. But nations, yea all nations come under the word of b…essing from God, in as much as that word was not onelyonly confirmed unto Abraham, but also to all believers, Gen. 22.17, 18. & 12.2, 3. and if the word families bee taken (as Mr. C. seems to take it) for housholds, and all housholds, then the same objection is concerning, all in housholds, servants, wives as well as children, they come under the ble…ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition; Ergo, according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition, nations, yea all nations, families, housholds, all in them are holy and to be baptized, which being absurd his opinion is also absurd. The minor is in the texts, and Gal. 3.8. as Mr. C. expounds them, Ergo, the conclusion followes from his own principles. His answer is neither true nor pertinent. Not true, for children are not immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation, nor the people of God in the Church (meaning the visible) are immediately under that blessing, but onelyonly believers in the families or Church, as the Apostle determines, Gal. 3.8, 9. Nor according to Mr▪ Cs. exposition are the children more immediately under the word of blessing as confirmed to Abraham, then the wife, servants, sojourners, neighbours. For the children are not under the blessing but as the children of believers, and so according to his own exposition pag. 37. Gods choise shall be by Families and Nations, so that he will ordinarily cast the lot of the Saints in Neighbourhoods and places together, and if so the blessing or choise is as immediately promised to Nations, neighbourhoods, others in the same house as to children, nor are the nations in a more remote capacitie then the Saints in the families and in the Church. Nor is the answer pertinent if it were true: For the major proposition, which is his own, is not limited to them that come under the word of blessing immediately in his sense, for then hee should exclude nations, neighbourhood…, families, contrary to the text, which mentions the blessing of all kinreds and nations, and not onelyonly the children, and to his own exposition which extends it to neighbourhoods and places together.
Mr. C. not trusting to this, saith; To this I add, that children are in the power of parents and at their disposing; and so as when they, in their sanctification, or being made holy, give up themselves to God by faith, and obedience to his Ordinances, their children are therein vertually given up also, in as much as a believer in some respect giveth up to God together with himself all in his power. Now this cannot be said of any nation whatsoever.
Answ. But 1. The parents giving up all to God is not that which makes Children to be holy neither according to truth, for they are made holy by Gods act whither of Covenant or other act of consecration or separation to himself, not by mans act of giving up by vow or otherwise to God, yea if the act of mans giving up all in his power to God, makes children holy, it makes servants, cattle holy to God, nor according to Mr. C. himself, who ascribes it to Gods election, and word of blessing 2. If this be the way of making holy, by giving up all at his disposing to God, then a believer at his first conversion makes holy to God himself, for he giveth himself to God, makes holy to God persons not yet bego…ten, and so visible Churchmembers according to Mr. B. subjects recipient of the seal of the Covenant, according to Mr. C. pag. 103. yea by this reason a believers horse may bee said to bee holy to to God, and baptizable. 3. This addition takes away his former answer. For if the giving up all to God in his power at his disposing by the believer make them holy, children are no more immediately holy then servants, wife, &c. all being together given up to God in one act whether vertually or formally. 4. If a believers giving up to God together with himself all in his power, and at his disposing make them holy, then a believing …ing and State do make the whole nation holy who are their subjects and so the objection stands good, that the whole nation is according to Mr. Cs. conceit to be reputed holy
But Mr. C. saith, It will be objected yet further, that the Jews are said to be holy, even the whole people of the Jews, who now are unbelievers, Rom. 11.16. yet have they no right to baptism; and therefore that this holiness of the children, 1 Cor. 7.14. be it from their interest in the covenant of God with Abraham, is no argument for infant baptism, because the unbelieving Jews also are supposed by us to be holy upon the same account, and holiness to be taken in the same sence in both places.
Answ. This objection is mine in my Exercit. sect. 5. but otherwise then Mr. C. here sets it down. For 1 it is not there brought as an objection by it self, but as a reason of my denial of this proposition universally understood, They who are holy with Covenant holiness may be baptized. 2. I did not say the whole people of the Jews, who now are unbelievers, but the elect of the Israelites no… yet called are holy in respect of the Covenant, and are not yet therefore to be baptised. Yet neither to the objection as mine, nor as framed by himself, doth Mr. C. give a sufficien… answer. For he grants the two places 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.16. are parallel, and in that sense they have been both above alledged to prove that branch of Gods covenant with Abraham concerning a blessing upon posterity, in order to the multiplying of believers. And yet it is as true, that there is a great difference between them. Now this grant is enough to prove that persons or people may be federally holy, and yet not baptizable, which is the objection. Nor doth the difference which he imagines (if there be such a difference) in the two places, any thing at all infringe it. For whether federal holiness in one place bee ascribed to a whole people in respect of a part or to particular persons, the connexion between federal holiness and baptizability, is shewed to be null; and the major denied not true universally understood, and so the objection is confirmed by this grant, not infringed.
Yea whereas Mr. C. pretends the difference to bee great between the places, the very thing bee assignes makes no difference. He saith, The Apostle saith expresly 1 Cor. 7.14. of such particular persons that they are holy, but of Rom. 11.16. the scope of the Apostle is to set forth the kind or sort of people, namely Jewes, not the particular persons that should bee called. But herein hee opposeth himself in the words next before, where hee thus makes the Apostle to intend both; Thus wee are to understand that of the Apostle Rom. 11. when hee saith, of the people of the Jewes that they are holy, namely, what properly and peculiarly belongeth to a part, even to those of them who either then were, or afterwards should bee converted, bee ascribeth to the whole, and in respect of that part hee calleth the whole body of that people holy. Now if hee call a part holy which should bee called, he sets forth the particular persons. And 1 Cor. 7.14. sets out the kinde or sort of children as well as the particular persons, whether after Mr. Cs. opinion, the children of believers, or after mine, the children of married persons. And that which he argues makes against him for me. For if that which is ascribed to the whole people belongeth by a synecdoche to a part, even those who are or shall be converted, then what is said either Gen 12.2, 3. or 22.17, 18. or Rom. 11.16, 17, 24. of families, nations, branches, lump, may be understood synecdochically of a part of families, nations or people, and those believers as Paul Gal. 3.8, 9. determines as converts as Mr. C. and so not children of believers, much less infants necessarily included in the families, nations, branches ingraffed, lump that is holy, and consequently all Mr. Cs. arguing, made void by his own concession, which hitherto he hath framed from Abrahams Covenant to prove infant Baptism. And what he argues, That the lump which is termed holy Rom. 11.16. and the whole people termed beloved v. 28. is to bee understood of the better part, and of those that were then unborn, and of such a lump as should have a being successively, and part after part, and so cannot bee actually holy then when the Apostle spake, it doth all exactly agree with my explication of the ingraffing of the branches in my Apol. sect. 14. in the first part of this Review sect. 1, 2, &c. And doth well serve to answer the arguments for the ingraffing parent and child into the visible Church christian against the sense I give for the ingraffing into the invisible Church, by giving of faith according to election. Nor did I ever say, the Apostles meaning Rom. 11.16. was that th…se particular persons of the Jews who pers…st …n unbelief, or that the whole people of the Jews are now in the times of the New Testament holy in any sense whatever, but grant they are broken off from the holy root, vers. 20. are cast…away, vers. 15. are enemies, and so unclean and prophane, and therefore not holy, v. 28. yet this meant, but of some, v. 17. a part, v. 25. and all these things do well accord together, and with the perseverance of Saints asserted against Arminians, sith the people of the Jews are not by me asserted to be broken off from the invisible Church of elect and true believers in respect of what particular persons broken off were in their own persons, but in respect of what the particular persons were in a former age of the same nation or people.
Mr. C. p 109. imagines that Christ saith, of little children is the Kingdome of God, because of his sained additional promise: but he brings not a word to prove it, nor doth the Text yeeld any proof that they were believers children; and I have proved the Kingdome of God is meant of that of glory. Review, par. 2. sect. 18.
And for his conceit, that Christ bid suffer them to come to him because of the additional promise of Mr. C. it is without proof, and not agreeable to Mr. Cs. own concei…. For if Christ would intimate, that this is part of the Gospel of the Kingdome, that believers should be blessings to their children, namely, so as they should be means of their conversion, he should rather have directed the Apostles to suffer them to be brought to their parents to be educ…ted, then to himself to lay hands on them. And Christs anger against his Disciples argues no such intimation, nor his saying that of them is the Kingdome of God, proves their right to Baptism as doth the receiving the Holy Ghost, Act. 10.47. For that shewed Cornelius actually a believer, so did not Christs speech of the little children, which expressed not their present but future estate, as is proved, Review, par. 2. sect. 19. Nor is there a word brought by Mr. C. to prove that Christs command was given to his Disciples for a perpetual obligation to the Disciples of Christ, in all ages then to come, to bring infants to Christ in an external way, and therefore by Baptism. For though it were recorded after his ascension, yet it follows not it was recorded to learn this, to have a way of bringing infants to Christ by Baptism, there being something else to be learned by it, and it is rather a sure proof that Christ did not teach that by his command, sith neither then nor after do we find the Apostles did baptize an infant; and the phrase of comming to him cannot import Baptism, sith he did not baptize, Joh. 4.1, 2. and if any standing rule were intended by Christs command, it should be rather laying on hands and praying for infants, then baptizing them.
Though it be granted, that to whom Christ is a King he is also a Prophet, yet it follows not, that infants being such as of whom is Christs Kingdome, they are his Disciples as meant Mat. 28.19. much less that they are made Disciples, when their parents are converted, because they are then in the way of the Spirits teaching, Christ being a Prophet to other then Disciples meant Mat. 28.19. Nor is there the least hint. Act. 15.10. of infants being Disciples, and the notion of Disciples by the parents conversion, or by being in the way of the spirits teaching (which yet is not shewed, but fancied by Mr. C.) are meer devised whimzies refuted by me, Review, par. 2. sect. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Nor is any sufficient answer given hereby, or by Mr. C. elsewhere, or any other, or ever will be to the argument as brought by me against infant baptism, Review, par. 2. sect. 5. and elsewhere.
What Mr. C. saith, That more might be said about those words in answer to it, namely, that in the words Baptizing them, Mat. 28.19. we have by a synecdoche, a part for the whole (an usual form of speech in the Scripture) for we know the Apostles commission did extend as well to a setting up of other Ordinances as of Baptism. Therefore when he saith, Go teach all nations baptizing them, it is as if he had said, Go teach them, and enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel; of which among other things the application of the token of Abrahams Covenant to infants may be a part, any thing in that place contained notwithstanding.
Answ. 1. Such a synecdoche in any institution of a rite is no where to be found as this which Mr. C. dreams of, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel, not onelyonly Baptism, but also breaking of bread, &c. 2. We know the Apostles commission did extend as well to the setting up of other Ordinances, viz. breaking of Bread, 1 Cor. 11.23. as of Baptism, but not in the word baptizing, Mat. 28 19. but in the word teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, v. 20. 3. There is this very thing which Mr. C. himself saith against baptizing infants, it is as if he had said, Go teach them, and enter them into the practise of the worship of the Gospel: For sure Christ did not bid them teach infants, nor do I think Mr. C. would have them entred into the practise of the Gospel worship, but onelyonly baptized. And so Mr. Cs. answer is a strengthening of the argument. Enough in answer to Mr. C. being unwilling to make more exceptions on passages which need correction: why I have said so much, the reason is given, sect. 77.