Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 86

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 86

p. 737SECT. LXXXVI. The 13th. and 14th. Chapters of Mr. Rutherfords first part of the Covenant, are examined; and found to make nothing for Infant Baptism.

AFter the finishing the most of this part of the Review, my learned and godly brother Mr. John Skynner of Weston in Herefordshire (who hath written a solid Treatise against Infant Baptism, entituled, Corruption corrected, in answer to one Mr. Woodward) acquainted me that Mr. Rutherford had written for infant Baptism in a Book of his of the Covenant of grace part. 1. chap. 13, 14 which having read, I found (as he foretold me no more strength then others had brought for it, and it is written rather like a Sermon then a Scholastique Dispute, and with so many unproved dictates, such a number of obscure expressions, (many of which I cannot discern good sense in, so that they have need rather of p. 738construction then resur…tion) so many incoherencies and inconsequences, as that I do not jhdge it worth while to answer him. Yet because of the name of the man, and my words sect. 1. of the 2d. part of this Review, I shall add some animadversions on those two chapters.

Ch. 13. he tels us, that … are in Covenant with God externally by visible profession, which I …, if meant of their own personal profession; but deny, 1. That th… promise Gen. 17.7. I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed, is a tacit and implicit profession, or makes (of it self) parties in Covenant externally. 2. That infants born of covenanted parents are in covenant with God, because they are born of such parents as are in covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. What is said Deut. 4.37. Deut. 10.15. is meant onelyonly of the people of Israel, as the very words [brought out of Egypt as it is this day] shew; nor is there a word in those verses, of their being in covenant with God because born of such parents, but of Gods special choise of that people. It is false which he saith that the Apostle Acts 2.39. speaks in the very terms and words of the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. It is true rather, that hee speaks in never a term or word there used. It is as false that the Apostle commanded any other to be baptized Acts 2.38. then whom he commanded to repent. Did he not presume that Anabaptists, as hee terms us, were very Blockheads, hee would not not presume, that wee should believe his vain dictates, when the very copulative term shews the same are spoken to in one and the other command, and the words being an answer to the question v. 37. shew they are directed to those who spake v. 37. And the word [you] used in the precept of Baptizing contains the same with those who were to receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost, and are distinct from their children, v. 39. and therefore cannot be meant of their children, much less of their infant children, whom it had been ridiculous for Peter to have commanded to be baptized. How pertinent the answer had been as I expounded it, is often shewed before; though their children crucified not the Lord Jesus, nor were concerned either in the evil of their parents, who crucified the Lord of glory, nor in the good of their repentance more then stones; yet I know no Anabaptists whose grounds infer, that the Jews children who crucified Christ were not visibly in Covenant with their parents, not capable of actual hearing the word, mourning for and repenting of their sins, as Zach. 12.10. Matth. 3.8, 9, 10. nor concerned either in the evil of their parents, nor in the good of their repentance more then stones; nor do I conceive it true that the opposites of infant Baptism say, that Covenant promises are no more made to children, then to stones; but that these are vile calumnies of Mr. Rutherford, unfit for such a man as he is taken to be.

How Isa. 2.2, 3. & 19.24, 25. Psal. 22.27. Revel. 11.15. Isa. 60.1, 2, 3, 4. Mal. 1.11. Psal. 2.8, 9. & 72.7, 8, 9, 10. are to be understood of persons adult onelyonly, and yet infants not cut off from the Covenant, is shewed Review part. 2. sect. 9. and elsewhere. It is not contrary to Acts 2.39. to say, that Covenant promises are not to the children of Believers, and yet it hath been fulfilled, that the Gentiles and Heathen are become the Lords people.

p. 739What he saith out of Exod. 20.6. Psal. 37, 26. & 112.2. Deut. 28▪ is answered here sect. 64.70, 71. It is not true that Paul, Rom. 11.16. saith the same of the Jews root and branches, Fathers and children, which he saith 1 Cor. 7.14. of the unbelieving yoke fellowes sanctification in the yoke fellow, and their childrens holiness. Nor is it true, that the same Covenant which was made with Abraham, Gen. 17.7. was made with the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 6.16. or any of the texts he cites, there being none of them that promise, that God would bee a God to them and their seed.

His allegations from Heb. 7.22. Heb. 8.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. are shewed to bee frivolous here, sect. 66. and elsewhere. What he talks of a Father having no warrant to offer the Covenant of grace to one Pagan more then another, if children be not in covenant, is vain, the offer of the Covenant of grace being nothing else but the preaching of the Gospel, which is to be to all, Mark 16.15. whether in Covenant or no. The allegation that the promise Gen. 17.7. is made onelyonly to the elect, Rom. 9.8. is a plain proof of this position, that the natural children of Abraham, and consequently Believers children now, except elected, have not that promise made to them, and therefore are not in covenant by Gods act of promise to them, which doctrine Mr. Rutherford himself taught in his Apologetical. exercit. 2. c. 2. p. 306. when he said; The elect alone are said in Scriptures federate, sons and heirs of promise, Rom. 9.8. And to Christ alone the Prince, and leading heir, are the promises made, Gal. 3.16. Psal. 89.26, 27. in him, to his seed and children given to him of the Father, Heb. 2.13. Nor can he here deny, that the sons of the promise are the chosen of God, in whom the word takes effect. Which if true, then it is most false, that a Believers seed not chosen is in covenant with God, by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7. and his allegation of it, and Acts 2.…9. and other places for baptism of believers infants, whether elect or not, as having that promise made by God to them; is manifestly impertinent. Nevertheless we need not say, that there are none covenanted with God but the chosen under the New Testament, or that there is no such thing as an external visible covenanting with God under the New Testament: but say, that no infant doth visibly externally covenant with God, so as thereby to be entitled to Baptism, sith no persons are to bee baptized by Christs appointment, but such as in their own persons do profess the saith.

The priviledges mentioned Rom. 3.1, 2. & 9.4. Mr. Rutherford himself appropriates to the Jews, Due right of Presbyteries ch. 4. sect. 5. pag. 192. What he saith pag. 77, 78, 79, 80. is all answered before, chiefly in answer to Mr. Blake, Review par. 2. sect. 9, or here, sect. 46, 47, 48. or in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal. And if it were not, yet the Reader may discern its impertinency, sith the thing hee endeavours to prove, is an external visible covenanting in the New Testament (which can be onelyonly on mans part) and being in covenant thereupon, and right to Baptism, and is not denied, whereas his position he should prove is, that the Covenant choise on Gods part is extended to the seed of Believers as such in the New Testament, p. 73. His words pag. 80. They cannot be p. 740baptized but as in covenant with God, are true, if meant of being in covenant by their profession externally: but so infants are excluded; if of Gods covenanting or promise, are false, and so are those other words, We are the same way in covenant as the Jews were, and our visible Church now, and the visible Church then are of the same constitution ▪

I call not the Covenant Gen. 17. civil, but mixt, containing some promises civil, some spiritual, or rather the same promis…s, in one sense spiritual, in another civil. I doubt not to say the Covenant to Adam and the Jews at Mount Sinai were two Covenants of works, a third in the Gospel I know not. The Covenant with David, Psal. 89. 2 Sam. 7. so far as it was Evangelical, was the same with that to Abraham, Gen. 17. and Adam Gen. 3.15. as they were Evangelical, but so far as it was Oeconomical, it was different from both, and another Covenant then those to Adam, Abraham, or the Jews at Mount Sinai: The promise of working miracles, was not the Evangelical Covenant of grace, but that of remission of sins and eternal life to the repenting believers, under which was John Baptist as well as the Apostles, was it: yet I know no absurdity to say, the Apostles were both under the Covenant of grace with John Baptist, and another Covenant Mark 16.17, 18. different from that John Baptist and many Believers were under. I find no promise of the blessings of their land, as Gen. 17. is to Abrahams seed of Canaan, to all believers in any of those texts, Ezek. 36.25, 26, 30, 31. Jer. 31.31. compared with 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Matth. 6.31. Luke 12.31. 1 Tim. 4.8. Heb. 13.5.6. Infants elect are in the same Covenant Evangelical with Abraham, shall have a Covenant Resurrection and Salvation, by Christ, yet not in the visible Church, but are saved without it. It is no New Testament ordinance that Ministers preach the Gospel to every creature, without limitation, or explication restrictive to the intelligent of them, or baptize all nations simply, whether disciples, or believers, or not, but the disciples or believers in Christ of all nations. That faith doth not sanctifie in every subject, but in subjecto capaci, and so not an unbelieving whore, 1 Cor. 7.14. proves, that the sanctifying or holiness there, is not ascribed to the faith of the one parent, as to the formal reason, but to the conjugal relation, contrary to Paedobaptists exposition of federal holiness, 1 Cor. 7.14. which Mr. Baxter hath neither solidly nor learnedly vindicated, as might have been discerned by reading the first part of this Review sect. 22, &c. which if Mr. Rutherford read with the rest, it's likely …e would no… say so unadvisedly as he do…h, that the dispute is at an end now. If God made the Covenant Gen. 17.7. to Abraham not as a Father onelyonly but as head of a family, and covenant holiness is of societie… and houses under the New Testament as in Abrahams house, then should infidels infants, yea infidels in a believers house be baptized by Paedobaptists rules; then is it no priviledge to believers and their seed, then doth the Apostle after Paedobaptists exposition of 1 Cor. 7.14. say false, that the children were unclean, that is, without federal holiness▪ if neither parent were a believer. Most false is that which he saith without colour of proof pag. 83. Not any are baptized in the New Testament (except the Eunuch and Saul Acts 8.39.) who p. 741were baptized firstly, but they were baptized as publike men representing a seed; The contrary appears from Luk. 7.29. Joh. 4.1. Nor is it true, that societies as such, were baptized, nor any such thing intimated in the words, Matth. 3.3. Mar. 1.5. Lu. 3.21. but onelyonly that a great number of people came to him and were baptized. Yea in those places, as also Joh. 3.22, 23, 26. it is plain none were baptized, but such as came to hear John, and by confessing their sins shewed their repentance. No more needs be said to the stale frivolous allegations of baptizing housholds, then is said Examen part. 3. sect. 14. Review part. 2. sect. 20. nor to Rom. 11.16, 17. then in the first part of the Review sect. 1, &c. The Lord sends the Gospel arbi…rarily to a City, houshold, or single person, as to the Eunuch, Paul, Sergius Paulus, as he pleaseth, and wee are to enquire whether the faith of the person be real, afore he is to be bap…ized, though the Gospel be come to the nation, house, or society. Nor is there any truth in it, no not according to the Apostles doctrine, as 1 Cor. 7.14. is expounded by Paedobaptists, and they dispute from Gen. 17.7. if the friend, not a father, be in the house or society and profess the Gospel, hee and his servants and friends obtain right to Baptism.

Mr. Rutherford pag. 85. enquires, What is the formal reason and ground that any hath right to Baptism? The terme… of the question seem to me to intimate, as if he with other Paedobaptists, took Baptism onelyonly for a priviledge d…rived from a grant or Covenant of God, which I take to be onelyonly a duty both in the baptized and baptizer, by reason of a command of Christ (though there be also a priviledge consequent upon it) and so the formal reason of it is the command, and the qualification which the baptized is to have, when hee is baptized, is believing with all his heart; which if he wants he sins, yet not so as that the person, if after a dogmatical faith he become a sincere believer, is to b…e baptized again, but to repent of his former sin, as Peter advised Simon Magus. The qualification, which the baptizer is to baptize upon, is a sober, intelligent, serious and free profession of faith in Christ, upon which persons are termed disciples of Christ and believers, and is the rule to the baptizer, Matth. 28.19. compared with Mar. 16.15, 16. which warrants his action, he being not able to look into the heart. Mr. Rutherfords objection from Mar. 16.16. is answered Review part. 2 sect. 7. p. 115. It is false, that none are to be baptized, but covenanted ones; as Acts 2.39. meaning by Gods promise, his promise of remission of sins and salvation to them by Christ, nor doth Acts 2.39. prove it. If all infant▪ even of Pagans, and all aged are not to be baptized ▪ how is it true, that all nations are to be baptized without any other circumscription, as Mr. Rutherford cites the command Matth. 28.19. here pag. 84? I like his words. All in Covenant are not to be baptized. For such as are onelyonly really and invisibly in Covenant, and do make no profession of Christ at all, are not warrantably by the Church to be baptized. OnelyOnly these whether old or young that are tali modo visibili federati▪ such as professedly and visibly in Covenant and called, Acts 2.39. are warrantably baptized▪ Hence they must be so in covenant, as they be called by the word of the Covenant; for they cannot be baptized against their will, Luk. 7.29, 30. Which if Mr. p. 742Rutherford will stand to, the controversie may be ended; and I promise him, that if he can prove, or shew that infants make any profession of Christ, are professedly and visibly in covenant, are so in covenant, as that they be called by the word of the Covenant, and that they are willing to be baptized, I shall yeild to baptize them. But this is frequent with Paedobaptists (as I have oft shewed in Mr. M. Mr. B. and Mr. Bl.) to let fall such passages, especially in opening the institution, Matth. 28.19. in opposing Papists, Prelatists, Antibaptists, as overthrow their disputes for infant baptism, and therefore they will not stand to them, when they are urged against them, but by some shift elude them.

It is false which Mr. Rutherford saith, that this proposition, Those to whom the promise of the Covenant does belong, these should be baptized (if universally understood) is Peters Acts 2.38, 39. or that this assumption, The promise of the Covenant is to you and your children, is the express words of Peter. The offer of Christ in the preached Gospel, is not the call, meant Acts 2.3…. nor are all such as to whom the offer is made exter…ally in covenant, and such to whom the Covenant is made and should be baptized; though I grant, if they give a professed consent to the call of the Gospel, they are bap…izable. Calvins words are no proof, against those who yeild not what he saith of the Anabaptists of his time. Mr Rutherfords words are too vain for a man of his name, which say, that believing children are not children, but men of age. My exposition of Acts 2.39. neither excludes sucking children, nor is the inclusion proved by him from Matth. 2.…8. 1 Cor. 7.14. the sense Mr. Rutherford makes the onelyonly sense of Acts 2.39. the promise and word of the Covenant is preached to you and your children in you, is false, for then it had been true, that it was preached then to all afar off, which is manifestly false, and vain; for it had been no comfort to them, sith it might bee preached without their benefit, nor is this to be externally in covenant (except in Mr. Rutherfords gibberish) both under the Old and New Testament. In the O…d persons were so by birth, without preaching; in the New, they onelyonly who profess faith.

The other sense Mr. Rutherford sets down is none of mine, nor is it needful I should answer the objections against it and the terms, the Lord hath internally covenanted with you; I take to be non-sense, no covenanting with us being an immanent, but a transeunt act. My sense is fully set down here Sect. 13, &c. and proved. I grant no more Covenant favour holden forth to their children, Acts 2.39. then to the Pagans children, except in priority of tender. I make not external covenant holiness, ceremonial holiness out of da…e, nor can he cleer it, or that by any thing I say, the words Acts 2.39. must be in a contradictory way expounded, to wit, the promise is no more made to your children so long as they are infants, then to Devils; which seeing hee mentions Mr. Ms. words but a little before, I have reason to conceive reflect on my self; and if so, they have too great a shew of Diabolism. Right to hear the preached Gospel, and a Covenant or Gospel warrant peculiar to believers children, is such talk as I understand not. I think hearing is a Duty obliging all; p. 743Pagans have not onelyonly warrant, but also command to hear it, it is not onelyonly lawfull but necessary. The children of the most holy Christian Gentile believers, are not Christians till they believe, and both they and their parents when they believe are still Heathens; the term Heathens, being all one with Gentiles contradistinct to Jews, and so used here by Mr. Rutherford himself pag. 74. in words before cited, and I sometimes admire that some learned men should suggest this to Readers and hearers as a h…inous thing to term them Heathens, when they must be so, if they be not Jews, though most holy Christians. The term Pagans, if it bee all one with professed infidels positively, I grant it belongs not to our children; yet they are infidels negatively, till they believe, and are so accounted of them that admit them not to the Lords Supper, as well as of those that admit them not to Baptism, unto which actual profession of faith is as well required as to the Lords Supper. To neither hath a man any right by Covenant, although by the Covenant he hath right to the benefits of the Gospel. Baptism and the Lords Supper are neither of them formally benefi…s, or seals of the Covenant of grace; though by con…equent, in the right use of them, such benefit… accrue to men by them. They are hoth rites appointed by Christ, the one to be the baptized his signe, whereby he professeth repentance and faith in Christ, and engageth himself solemnly to adhere to Christ as his disciple, the other whereby he… signifies his remembrance of Christs death, both our duties, and a right to duty, sounds to mee like non-sense.

I know no Anabaptist that ignorantly confounds the promise and the thing promised, the Covenant and benefits covenanted; But this I aver, that when God promiseth and covenanteth they are connex, there is no man to whom Cod promiseth or covenanteth, but he hath or shall have the thing promised or covenanted. And this I learn from the Apostle Rom. 9.8. who makes onelyonly the chosen sons of promise, as Mr. Rutherford here pag. 77. expounds him; and that is, as Gal. 3.16. he expresseth himself, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made or said, that is Christ personal or mystical, or both, and to no other. And sure the Apostle Rom. 9.6. did think it blasphemy to say, that God had promised, and those he promised to should not have the thing promised; for then Gods word should fall, and he be a liar. If Gods conditional promise be a Covenant▪ yet it is made onelyonly to them that perform the condition. He that believeth and is baptized shall bee saved, is not an universal promise to all men, whether believers or not; but onelyonly to so many as shall believe. 'Tis true we can exclude none, because we cannot exempt any from believing, and therefore we are to make an indifferent offer to any, but God in his intention excludes many, and his promise is not made to them whom he excludes, nor are they under his Covenant, or in covenant with him, in respect of his act of promising; though they may be said to bee in Covenant, or under the Covenant in respect of their own act of promising; I grant the command is to persons whether they believe or not, obey or not, for that is not an enunciative speech, that signifies any thing true or false, but is in the imperative p. 744mood, and extendeth to all men whatsoever, so as whosoever doth not as the command bids, sins: But when Mr. Rutherford saith, the promise is to you, and so are the commands and threatnings, whether ye believe or not; whether ye transgress or transgress not: (if an Anabaptist falsly so called may have the boldness to tell a Professour in Divinity in an University in Scotland of ignorance) I should tell him, he is mistaken, in saying, the promise is to you whether you believe or no, the threatning is to you whether you transgress or no. For they being enunciations in the indicative mood, if meant so, should bee false; which to impute to God, would asperse him with falshood and injustice, which is horrendum dictu. And in my apprehension it savours of ignorance which Mr. Rutherford saith pag. 91. Nor is it true, that the promise is made to the aged upon condition of believing. The promise is made to them absolutely, whether they believe or not. But the blessing of the promise and Covenant of grace is given and bestowed onelyonly conditionally if they believe. The promise is absolutely made, it's called conditional from the thing corditionally given. For either I have lost my wits, or else a conditional promise is a conditional p…oposition, expressing something that shall be, if some other thing bee put; and sure a conditional proposition is so termed from the words, not from the event. A promise is a promise absolute or conditional, as soon as the words are spoken, long before the thing promised is given, yea though it be never given. The giving or not giving upon performing or not performing the condition, may make the promise true or false determinately, but not conditional or absolute. I forbear to uncover any further Mr. Rutherfurds nakedness in this speech, and reset him to Mr. Baxter to correct him for that speech; nor is it true, that the promise is not made to the aged upon condition of believing. And as for his speeches, of the saving of infants of believing parents dying in infancy, and our giving evidence thereof, there is so much said before of it, especially against Mr. Baxter Sect. 73, 74. and elsewhere, that I need say no more here. As for what he saith, of our want of warrant to pray for them without their being in Covenant; though it hurt not me, who grant of so many as are elect that they are in Covenant; yet I think I have a warrant to pray by a general command, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2, 3. and in faith by a general promise, Matth. 7.7, 8. the knowledge of Gods goodness, and the goodness of the thing asked.

In the rest of the Chapter, Mr. Rutherfurd endeavours to find a way, according to which infants of believers may be said to bee within Covenant, and the words Acts 2.39. meant of them, and their title to Baptism thence inferred: for which end hee useth many words with distinctions, which are vain, without good sense, or good consistency, or any thing to his purpose.

Four ways he conceives infants of believers may be said to be in Covenant. 1. In that God maketh the promise of a new heart to them; but this he grants is true onelyonly of the elect; and not of all commanded to be baptized, Acts 2.38, 39. And pag. 86. he granted persons invisibly in Covenant without profession, are not warrantably to be baptized. 2. In that God promiseth forgiveness of sins, and eternal life upon condition p. 745of repentance and faith. Thus infants may be in the Covenant of grace, but no otherwise then or rather not so much as professed unbelievers, to whom it is tendred, who yet are not to be baptized, and if the promise be meant so Acts 2.39. it proves not a right to Baptism thence till the condition be performed, which when infants declare they do, I shall baptize them. 3. That they are in Covenant because they are under the command, for thus he speaks pag. 94. The Covenant must be considered in abstracto, and formally in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners, so they believe, so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace, and so it contains onelyonly the will of precept. In which he is mistaken, 1. in that he saith, the Covenant formerly in the letter is a simple way of saving sinners, so they believe; for such a speech is not the Covenant in any sense, much less formally in the letter in abstracto: such a speech as this, men are saved if they believe, or the way of saving men is upon condition of believing, is not the Covenant sith it is not a promise, but a Covenant is formally a promise, or an aggregate of promises. 2. In that he saith, the Covenant formally contains only the will of precept; whereas the Covenant formally contains not at all the will of precept, the will of precept containing onelyonly the command of what should be done by another, but the Covenant is a promise of what the Covenanter will do; the one is exprest in the imperative mood, the other in the indicative; nor is the will of precept in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners, so they believe; for such an expression is no command at all, but a declaration of event. 3. In that he saith, so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace, which he seems to mean thus, they all and they onelyonly. But sure either infants are not at all this way in the Covenant of grace, who never hear the command propounded to them, or if they be, they are no more in it then the Americans out of the visible Church▪ who never heard of Christ, nor so much as professed unbelievers to whom the Gospel hath been preached; and therfore this way infants have not right to baptism▪ So that this speech of Mr. Rutherfurd hath, as many of his expressions, nothing but ignorance and impertinency. 4. A person may be said to be in Covenant, in that he is really covenanted and engaged by his consented profession, to fulfil the Covenant; as Mr. Rutherfurd speaks pag. 92. This way I grant intitles to Baptism; but sure infants are not so in Covenant, nor is the meaning so Acts 2.39. where the promise is Gods promise to us, not our promise to God; nor is this the Paedobaptists plea, when they argue infants are in Covenant, therefore to be baptized; for they mean by being in Covenant, that God hath promised to be a God to them as the seed of believers, Gen. 17.7. And therefore Mr. Rutherfurd hath not yet shewed any way, according to which infants of believers are intitled to Baptism, by vertue of the Covenant of grace; or from Acts 2.38, 39. notwithstanding all his blooding of it, to use his own term. Let's view what is in Ch. 14.

Neither is it true, that God saith persons should be circumcised because of Gods promise, Gen. 17.7. Nor, that women were circumcised in the males; nor was Peter sent to baptize all the circumcised; nor are infants to bee Baptized by the ground of Circumcision; nor is there any thing p. 746Acts 2.38, 39. that saith, because the same promise is made to fathers and to children must infants bee baptised. Neither do I know what Mr. Rutherfurd understands by Theological essence, or formal effects; nor do I conceive any truth or sense in Mr. Rutherfurds talk of Circumcision and Baptism being the same in the substance, nature, and Theological essence, and in the formal effects; much less that the Lord hath any such argument, Gen. 17.7. And though I should grant all are to bee exhorted to be baptised, who are under the same Covenant; yet not without repentance and faith foregoing their Baptism, wit…out which the promise warrants not Baptism. There is no such command Gen. 17.7, 8. that all these in Covenant should be marked with the initiatory seal; nor is Baptism instituted in place of Circumci…on; and if it were, yet m…re is needful to warrant infant baptism.

There is as plain precept Acts 2.38. & 8.36, 37. Mark. 16.16. Matth. 28.19. against in…ant Baptism, as is against infant Communion 1 Cor. 11.28. Wee have good consequences out of the word against infant Baptism, without arguing from the Covenant of grace; which Mr. Rutherfurd may see in the 2d. part of this Review sect. 5 and none against the Holy Ghost, but from him. That the promises of the Covenant of grace are expresly to infants of the New Testament is more then I find Acts 2.39. or elsewhere. Dipping in rivers need not be onerous, and may be without danger, to women with child, Virgins, some sorts of diseased persons in winter, in cold countries, and it will require more strength in dispute, then either Mr. Baillee, or Mr. Baxter, have shewed, or I finde yet in Mr. Rutherfurd; to prove dipping in rivers (though Baptism be not necessary to be done in rivers) to be against the word, the second, third, and fourth Commandements. And against sprinkling, or perfusion instead of Baptism, there is so much said in my Addition to the Apology against Mr. Baillee, Mr. Rutherfurds Colleague, and delivered to Mr. Rutherfurd himself, and since printed with a Letter to him, as is for ought I know, yet unanswered. All Mr. Rutherfurds talk pag. 98, 99. that now infants of believers are casten out, for no fault, of the Covenant of grace, and his aggravations thereof, are to be taken for meer calumnies, and since the printing of my Ex…men, there is reason to judge them to be thus wilfully vented by Mr. Rutherfurd, and till he name the Anabaptists, and cite the place, I can take it for no other then a false accusation, which he saith of the Anabaptists that they teach infants to be born without sin.

Mr. Rutherfurd dictates without proof pag. 100. that they were covenanting parents and believers, that brought the little children Mark 10.13, 14 that they were not diseased or possessed, that he would have the whole spece of infants at all time …o come to him, and those infants might bee blessed as elect ones, though no marks were given to parents or others, whereby to discern elect children; these being no direction for them to bring children to Christ under that notion. It is false that Anabaptists rebuke persons that bring children to Christ as the disciples did, Mar. 10.13. Or that Christ instates infants of believing parents as members of the visible Church. What Mr. …obbet hath said of that act of Christ is refelled Review p. 747part. 2. sect. 19. and that the Kingdome of God is that of glory, is made good against Mr. Blake there, sect. 18 and not refused by me: I know no absurdity in it, to say, Christ might bless infants of Pagans. What designe Christ might have, or had, besides Mr. Rutherfurds conceived purpose to hold forth the common interest of the whole spece of infants within the visible Church, is shewed there sect. 17. against Mr. Baxter. I do gran… the blessing, Mark 10.16. to be personal, and the chiefest blessing beyond visible Churchmembership; and though we finde not proof that Christ blessed the whole race of infants of covenanting parents, yet it is false that we make them blessed onelyonly as symboles of humility; or that the blessing was some complemental salutation; or that (as Mr R. saith of Anab…ptists after hi… calumniating manner) wee will have them without Christ and the Covenant, and under the curse of God; but grant that they were blessed with the blessing of the Covenant of grace, and that many other infants are so. Whether they were parents, or believers in Christ as the Messiah, who brought the children, Matth. 19.13. is uncertain; nor do I say, or need I, they had a saith grounded upon a possibility of election separated from the Covenant; nor do I deny, that infants have their share of salvation by the Covenant; or that a covenanted seed is prophesied to be added to the Jews, under the New Testament; nor doth any thing I say infer, that the children of believers under the New Testament must be a cursed seed; yet there is none of the Texts Mr. Rutherfurd brings, which proves a prediction, that the natural seed of believers as such, shall be blessed and in the Covenant of grace, nor that their infant seed shall be visible Churchmembers in the Christian Church: But they are all impertinently alledged, some being meant of the Jews i…crease in Jud… after their return from Babylon, some of the effectual calling of the Gentiles; and most of them so far cleared before, that I count it needless to make answer to each of the Texts by themselves. And Mr. Rutherfurds discourse is so loose and full of impertinencies, and incoherencies, that I shall onelyonly animadvert on some passages, till the whole bee brought to some distinct Scholastique form.

He tels us pag, 168. That external covenanting goes before internal covenanting, as the means before the end, and the cause before the effect: for faith comes by hearing of a sent pre…cher, Rom. …0.14. and the preaching of the Gospel is a saving means of begetting a new heart, and of a new spirit. Hence 1. All must be first externally in covenant, before they can be internally and really in covenant. In which speech he seem… to conceive external covenanting, to bee either preaching or hearing a preacher, else his reason had been vain. But what non-sense scribling is this, to term preaching or hearing covenanting? A person may, and we may conceive some do, preach and hear, who never externally covenant. Sure covenanting is promising, but so is not either preaching or hearing. And if Mr. Rutherfurds words be true, no infant can be internally and really in Covenant, who doth not preach or hear.

His talk is as vain, Of the Lord being a God simply to some, and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church-priviledges, but to p. 748others more then a God in truth and righteousness; not to all, as if God might be a God to some not in truth and righteousness, or the being a God to his people, contained not the greatest blessings, contrary to Lu. 20.37, 38. Heb. 11.16.

His further talk pag. 109. from Matth. 19.14. is without proof, and all shewed to be vain, in the places before cited. Though the houshold sometimes comprehend infants, yet not so still, nor Acts 16. as is shewed Review part. 2. sect. 20. Anabaptists neither do nor must grant, if infants be in Covenant, they ought to receive the seal of the Covenant.

If Rom. 11.16. be meant of holiness onelyonly intentionally, and not giving actual right to Baptism, then the holiness there proves not infants to be baptizable. That the Covenant Deut. 29.14, 15. should …e made virtually radically with us Gentiles, is a do…age with a witness: not onelyonly the express words v. 1. but also the passages all along Ch. 29, 30. shew it was the legal Covenant renewed with the people of Israel and their posterity, to engage them to observe all the Law of God given by Moses: not the Covenant made to Adam, Abraham, David, the New, or better Covenant. If the Covenant may stand in one, then it is not necessary that a people, nation▪ seed, body, should be in covenant, and consequently it may stand without infants. The Apostle saith not Rom. 11.16. the Fathers were the root. But Mr. Rutherfurd adds.

Hence Anabaptists, without all reason, say that hee speaks not of federal and external holiness, but of real, internal, and true holiness, onelyonly of the invisible body predestinated to life: for though invisible holiness cannot be excluded, except we exclude the holiness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were without doubt a part of the roo….

Answ. Anabaptists, if we must be so named, do say that the holiness Rom. 11.16. is meant of real, internal and true holiness; and consequently the persons there said to be holy, are all of the invisible body predestinated to life, and no other but such there meant: yet they deny not, that the holiness of the Covenant and Church the…e meant were made visible by its working, the collective body of the Jewes predestinate to life; and that it is not said without all reason, might have appeared to Mr. Rutherfurd, if he had read my Examen part. 3 sect. 7. my Apol. sect. 14. pag. 67. Review part. 1. sect. 1, &c. part. 3. sect. 75. yea if there were nothing else said but what Mr. Rutherfurd here yeilds, that invisible holiness cannot be excluded, except we exclude the holiness of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were withoue doubt part of the root, that which Anabaptists say, is not said without reason, and that demonstrative. For if invisible holiness cannot be excluded, then it is included, and if included together with external visible holiness, then the holiness there meant is not external holiness alone; nor they who have meerly external federal holiness are there said to be holy, and consequently no reprobate, but onelyonly the predestinate to life. And if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, be part of the root, and therefore invisible holiness cannot bee excluded, then the rest of the root and the branches which are made in the text alike holy, must have invisible holiness also. But Mr. Rutherfurd ads.

p. 749Yet he must be taken to speak of that holiness of the Covenant and Church, as made visible, and of the visible collective body of the Jews, not of onelyonly real and invisible holiness. 1. Because this was true in the days of Elias, If the root be holy the branches are holy; And it is a New Testament-truth of perpetual verity, If the Fathers be holy so must the sons. The Fathers have Church-right to Circumcision, to Baptism, to the Passeover, and the Lords Supper, so have the children: but it is most false of the invisible mystical body and root onelyonly, and of real and internal holiness; For neither in Old or New Testament is it true, if the Fathers be predestinated to life, justified, and sanctified, and saved, so must the children be.

Answ. The term [holy, Rom. 11.16.] notes onelyonly real and invisible holiness in that place, though the persons said to bee holy have it made visible, and it agree to the visible collective body of the Jewes. And the proposition of Mr. Rutherfurd to the contrary, If the Fathers be holy so must the sons, is most false, not onelyonly being understood of invisible, but also of visible holiness, of Churchright to Circumcision, to Baptism, to the Passeover, and the Lords Supp…r. Though the father were holy visibly, by profession of the God of Israel, yet had not hee nor his child right thereby to Circumcision, and the Passeover, without being a Proselyte of righteousness, taking on him the precepts of Moses to observe, and joyning to the policy of Israel, and yet even then the child of age, who did not avouch the God of Israel, had no right thereto. Nor by Paedobaptists own principles hath the child of age right to Bap…ism, or the Lords Supper, without his own profession, though the parent… be Christians; nor the infant of a believer baptized (as they conceive) right to the Lords Supper.

Mr. Rutherfurd is grosly mistaken in making every believing parent the root me…n… Rom. 1.16. and every natural child a branch: For then every believing parent should beare his child: v. 18. and every natural child shou…d derive holiness from his believing parent; Abrahams natur…l children at this day are not in the Olive, nor shall be till re-ingraffed. Abraham is the root, not as a natural father, but as Father of believers, and …one are branches or holy as the Apostle there means, but through …aith according to election. Nor are hereby the distinctions of Jew inward and outward, child of the flesh and promise taken away; nor whole Israel certainly saved. Nor by the branches be meant all the visible body of the Jews old and yong, which …e mi…ht have imagined would be replied to hi… argument pag. 114. Nor is it new Divinity, but old, That none are to be baptized but such as are under actual exercise of their faith, which may be discerned, by their profession, in those that are come to age. It is neither my Divinit…, nor follows (though Mr. Rutherfurd c…nceives it doth) on it, that predestination to life and glory, must bee pro…ogated and derived from the lump to the first fruits (he meant from the first fruits to the lu…p) from the root and parents to the branches and children; But this I say, that faith, and righteousness are propagated and derived from …braham as an exemplary root to all his spiritual branches or seed by conformation to him.

p. 750I do not say, that the Apostle Rom. 11. speaks of an invisible body, but this I say, the Apostle by branches means two sorts of people, the one Jews, who were then broken off from the Olive tree, which is the invisible Church of the elect; the other Gentiles, then graffed in, yet not all the Gentiles, nor one nation wholly and entirely, but a great part of them in comparison of what were formerly in the Olive very numerous.

How these branches were an elect seed and yet fell away, were preached to, had a national election and external calling, were in the room of the Jewes, …id partake of the fatness of the Olive, is so fully opened in the places before cited, that I think it unnecessary to add here any more. OnelyOnly whereas he makes it an absurdity, that the infants of baptized actual believers should be all heathen as well as the casten off the Jewes; it is to me and absurdity unfit for any learned man to vent, that knows that Heathen in English is all one with Gentiles and foreign, to conceive otherwise, as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen, or any Gentile believer or his infant, were or could bee by believing and baptism any other then an heathen, or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity. I do account Mr. Rutherfurd and my self Christians, and yet Heathens. There's not a word in the Text, that warrants us to say of the children of the ingraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism; but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherfurd does, of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels. Abrahams children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally. Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root, yet not as a believing Father, nor as a believing head of children, of servants and strangers under him, but as Father of believers after him. And in this respect, neither Adam, nor any other then Abraham is the root, and none of Abrahams natural seed are branches or holy intentionally, but such as are elect, and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification. Nor doth the Apostle when he saith, the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers, make Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the root; but intimate that God remembers them, because of his Covenant made to them, his taking the title of their God, their obedience to him, their prayers, and his constancy to them as his ancient friends, when all the world were revolted.

The conceit of Mr. Rutherfurd concerning holiness external federal, as if it were any cause or reason of re-ingraffing them or their infants, is so frivolous, that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it. For what is it but a state of outward church priviledges, right to the seals, &c But to imagine so great a work as the re-ingraffing, which infers salvation, should come from Abrahams, Isaac, and Jacobs, or any other natural believing Fathers visible Churchmembership, Circumcision, Baptism, &c. is to derive title to heaven, from at best, an amissible priviledge, which may be interrupted by men. What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton, Blake, Cobbet, Baxter, Mr. Rutherfurd may see examined in this Review; by reading of which hee may discern, that they have p. 751neither closed the dispute; nor managed it so, as that their learning is to be rested on.