A Forerunner to a Large Review of the Dispute Concerning Infant Baptism, Treatise · Section 11
SECT. XI. About Mr. Bs. 4. texts urged impertinently to prove infants visible Church-membership.
PAge 183. he saies it is a palpable untruth which I say, he four texts in his Epistle Levit. 25. 41, 42. Deut. 29. 11, 12. Act. 15. 10. 1 Cor. 7. 14. with Rom. 11. 19. were all he concluded any thing from, meaning in the dispute at Bewdley, and saies the hearers know it and is to be seen before. But to my best remembrance with search into the notes I took after, and the notes which were communicated to me it is no untruth. Mat. 28. 19. I think he alluded to, but I remember not it was urged or any other text besides the forenamed as a medium from which to conclude any proposition to be proved. Then he saies, I have been fully answered before, but yet addes concerning Levit. 25. 41, 42. 1. The Jewes infants, were infants, and the dispute between us was of the species. Answ. 1. Though Mr. B. and before him Mr. Cobbet usually call the sort or ranke of men that are infants the species; yet other Logicians usually call [man] the lowest species or kind, and say, age and sex make not another kinde. 2. But allowing Mr. B. and Mr. Cobbet their language, I say, the dispute is not about the species or kind, to wit, infants as infants, but infants of believers, who are particular persons, and the question as it was rightly stated between me and Mr. M. was, Whether the infants of believers were to be baptized with Christs baptisme by a lawfull Minister according to ordinary rule without extraordinary revelation or direction? And if Paedobaptists will maintain their practise, they should make good this proposition, That all the infant-children of professed or inchurched believers are to be baptized with Christs baptisme by the law full Minister according to ordinary rule. Though Mr. Baillee and Mr. B. for some advantage set down this as their proposition to be proved, That some infants are to be baptized. M. B. saies he had proved our priviledges greater then the Jewes, and that I deny it not, and that this (to wit, to be Gods servants) was not peculiar to them. Whereas I had proved the contrary from ver. 55. and the whole chapter is about lawes peculiar to the Jews, and ver. 38, 39, 40. going before, shew plainly that this law was peculiar to the Jewes, that they and their children should return from servitude under which they were for poverty, at the year of Jubilee, and ver. 45, 46. plainly restraines it to the children of Israel, allowing them to take the children of strangers so journing among them, and therefore proselytes, as an inheritance. And therefore in whatever sense it is meant that they are Gods servants, it is meant onelyonly of Hebrews, as Exod. 21. 2. is expressed. I do not conceive, nor any interpreters that I meete with do expound this of a proselyte, but onelyonly of an Hebrew borne. If Cornelius had children they had not been Gods servants in the sense there meant: which is clearly this, that they were his servants in this respect only in that place, in that they were to be disposed of not as men would, but as he onelyonly would, who had right to them by his purchase in bringing them out of Egypt, and therefore none can get soveraigne Dominion over them (no not by their voluntary selling themselves) to prejudice his, as Deodat. annot. in Levit. 25. 42. Whence I infer, that it is a most grosse abuse of this Scripture in Mr. B. to urge it to prove that the infants of Gentile believers now are servants to God, related to him as a peculiar people, separated to himself from the world: which is spoken meerly in respect of the Hebrew children, and their corporal servitude, which was to be at Gods disposing by reason of his redemption of them out of Egypt. When he tells me of my accustomednesse to mistakes, it is more true of himself (as I have often shewed) yea though the words were written before him. And in this very thing he calls my mistake that he argued thus, Whosoever is called Gods servant may be baptized, whereas he might have seene if he had taken any care to set down my words rightly, that my words were as his own notary took them, and he hath printed them [If this be a good argument Infants are called servants of God, therefore they are disciples, and must be baptized] which was his argument either in words or substance. As for the conclusion and argument as he sets it down page 182. I think it was not urged in the dispute, and I have proved that Levit. 25. 42. is meant onelyonly of Hebrew children, not of Gentiles, nor in the sense Mr. B. would prove that they are relatively separate to God from the world in the sense as [Gods servants]. is equipollent to a disciple of Christ. Page 184 he calls my answers to his allegation of Deut. 19. 11, 12 vain, senselesse reavils, and then breaks out into words of pitty to people that take their opinions on my word. To which is I say, that my answers are not vaine, senselesse cavil, will appear in my reply to Mr. B. about that text. And as he pitties them that take their opinion on my word, so I pitty them that take their opinion on his word; or any meer mans word contrary to Christs priviledge, Mat. 23. 1. Page 184. in my words [adoption] is printed for [doctrine] Page 185. he repeates his frivolous charge of our accusing our children as no disciples of Christ, and therefore no Christians, and therefore no ground to believe or hope they are saved: thus calumniating me, when I have often said they may be both Disciples and Christians invisibly, and so have salvation; and we have great reason to hope they are in Gods election by reason of the general indefinite promises of the Scripture and Gods usual dealing with his people, though there is no certainty either from Mr. Bs. grounds or mine, sith Mr. B. will not say that every visible Church-member is saved. All the difference between us is about their visible Church-membership, whether the denying that takes away ground of hope of their salvatien: Mr. B. saith it doth, because there's no hope of that persons salvation that doth not seeme to be of the invisible Church; but he that is not of the visible Church doth not seeme to be of the invisible. Ergo; But the Minor is not true, as he takes the word [seem] and by Gods assistance I doubt not to shew, when I examine ch. 27. of part. 1. his mistake concerning the terme [visible] as if it were as much as to appear such in the judgement of probability though not descernad by sense, by which defininition the opposite termes [visible and invisible] may be confounded, and the terme [visible] is used contrary to the common use of writers, whereby he misleades himself and others. Then he addes, But Mr. T. will say, I believe that it is better that infants are no Christians, then that they were. But believe him that list for me. To which I say, I will not do as he often deales with me, charging me as playing the Devils part, and worse, but this I say, I know not what to conceive of these words, but that either by Gods judicial act of leaving him to himself, out of addictednesse to calumniate, or extream ill opinion of me, or which I much feare notwithstanding all his protestations out of disdainfulnesse of his Antagonist and delight in Satyrical quips he vented this passage. He cannot shew where ever I used such an impious speech: all I have said is onelyonly this, It is a mercy that our children are not visible Church-members as the Jews were, because it brought a heavy bondage, and the Christian Church-constitution of voluntiers is better, nor do our children lose any thing by defect of such visible Church-membership. Yet if I had said so, that I would say so for the time to come who can say but God? Might I not have repented and altered my speech? Then he goes on to answer my arguing against his allegation of Act. 15. 10. to prove infants disciples, and calls it silly grounds, insipid arguing, according to his usual Rhetorick, whereas the sillinesse (if any) is in his own inconsideratenesse of the strength of it. That text serves not Mr. Bs. turne unlesse it could be proved, that the very act or action which these false teachers did were the cutting with a knife the little skin of the privy member, for no more was done to infants in actual circumcision, nor were they passive subjects of any other action. Now Mr. Bs. argument is from what was done to infants by false teachers that infants are meant by [disciples, Act. 15. 10.] But it is manifest that the false teachers did not cut off that little skin, but the parents of the infants as Mr. Bs. text shewes, Act. 21. 21. and the same text ascribing the contrary to Paul to that which the false teachers did, shewes it was teaching that was their putting on the yoke: which is more apparent from Act. 15. 1. where what is said v. 10. they put the yoke on the necks of the disciples, is ver. 1. they taught the brethren: the disciples then are the brethren, and the putting on the yoke is the teaching them. My argument is this, that the false teachers did no other thing but teach, now the act there is ascribed to the false teachers onelyonly, not to the parents of infants, none are blamed but they, they are spoken of and to, not the parents; therefore the putting on of the yoke was not actual circumcision, which was the parents act, not the false teachers: they neither did it, nor by any instrument attempt to do it themselves, though the one might follow on the other. And I dare still appeale to any that are of common understanding, whether that which the false teachers, did Act. 15. 10. were to infants or parents. And for Mr. Bs. exceptions, To the first, Mr. B. mistakes my confession, I confessed they did not put the yoke eternally, but onelyonly endeavoured it, because though they taught them the necessity of circumcision, yet their doctrine was not received, but I never said to my remembrance, that the phrase of putting on the yoke noted barely their intent or attempt, but the act they did though sine effectu on the disciples: my words are plaine as they are printed, in which it is manifest the putting on of the yoke was by the teaching of the false teachers. As for Mr. Bs. instances they serve better for me then himself. He that teacheth people to be subject to the Turk, though thereby he inslave their infants by consequent, yet the subject recipient of his act are onelyonly the people taught, nor doth any man in that speech understand the infants; and so it must be said of Moses subjecting the children of Israel to his law, though by consequent infants were circumcised, yet in this speech Moses subjected (by teaching or commanding) the children of Israel to his law. The terme [children of Israel] notes onelyonly, or as Logicians speake supponitly parents onelyonly. The act of Gods calling Christ out of Egypt is a complex act, noting the sending the Angel; the command to Joseph, his carrying Christ, whereof Christ was the object or terminus, not onelyonly of the command. But the false Teachers Act. 15. 10. was formally the single act of teaching not circumcision, they neither acted it nor attempted it in their own persons, and therefore could have no other subject recipient, but those that were taught, not infants. Page 187. He calls my speech [that I think Mr. B. cannot shew in any one place where the word [holy] is taken in his sense for a state or person (I do conceive I said for the state of a person) separated to God in that way he would have a person separated to God neither by election nor outward calling, nor any other way that I know of in which holinesse is used for a state separated to God] a new crotchet of the nature of the rest, and answers it with a quaver, and a jest. His quaver is, Is it not enough that I prove it alwayes taken for a separation to God, but I must shew that the word signifies a separation by this or that way or meanes effected? His jest follows, A man was out of love with his wife, &c. and is not this the same kind of reasoning with yours? To which I reply, It is not enough. For 1. Mr. B. sayes, that holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation to God. 2. I am sure that it is taken for chastity, 1 Thess. 4. 3, 4. and Mr. B. denies it not page 255. onelyonly saies it is a part of sanctity, though ver. 3. Beza translates it, id est, ut abstineatis à fornicatione, which shewes the holinesse there is no other then chastity, or at least chastity in the first place, which is plain from ver. 4. where it is, to possesse the vessel, that is, the body in holinesse, that is, chastity, which the opposition to the lust of concupisence, ver. 5. and uncleannesse, ver 7. do shew. And this acknowledged by Illyricus in his clavis Script. on the word Sanctus, Piscator in his scholie on 1 Thess. 4. 4. and others which I shall produce in my Review. 3. Then it must needs follow according to Mr. Bs. position, that to be chaste is to be holy in a state of separation to God. But I suppose Mr. B. will not say every chaste person is in a state saparated to God which may intitle him to baptisme, therefore it is not enough for Mr. Bs. purpose to prove a person any way holy or in a state separated to God, that thereby he be intitled to baptisme: but he must shew the way how he is holy, and that this intitles to baptisme. The Jewes hereafter to be called are holy, Rom. 11. 16. by election. Mr. Cobbet Just vindic. chap. 3 sect. 1. page 37. The Jewes yet to come were in Pauls time holy federally, Rom. 11. 15, 16. not actually, but intentionally, yet not then baptizable: the Mede…, sai. 13. 3. are called Gods sanctified ones, yet not to be admitted visible Churchmembers. I further add, that in his general sense [Legitimate] might also signifie a state separate to God, as being that onelyonly posterity he allowes of according to his institution of marriage, Mal. 2. 15. which is very frequently called holy by Divines. And therefore letting passe his jocular tale, my exception or answer to his reasoning from 1 Cor. 7. 14. deserves a better refutation then he hath yet given. Then he makes me say, that no Scripture speakes of holinesse in his sense, whereas my words (as above) were more wary, Mr. B. I think cannot shew, &c. And then tells me, that the Jewes infants are called the Holy seed, and that by covenant or law, which is his sense, and then chargeth me with laying by conscience and common modesty, having little tendernesse of conscience in accusing his will in charging him with a grosse falshood, that he was willing to carry things in generals, and not to tell distinctly how infants are holy and in a state separated to God, whereas he told me he meant holy by law or Covenant. Notwithstanding which I may yet conceive him willing to carry things in generals, sith this very explication is in generals, the law or Covenant, as he calls it, being not distinctly named and shewed where it is, and upon what conditions that state of separation to God which infants have is ascertained, whether upon their own act or parents, and if upon parents whether immediate or mediate, whether to the truth and reality or profession, nor wherein that state of separation to God consists, or what is the benefit of it: all or of some which perhaps I apprehend Mr. B. rightly in now, yet not till I had read over his book again and again, and pickt out his meaning by comparing many passages together: which because he did not then, nor since in his printed writings put together as others do in their theses they maintaine. I guessed he was willing to carry things▪ in the general, and if I did say so (which Mr. B. and I must take on his Scribes word) in my Sermon without any caution, Mr. B. might have imagined that I meant it with this caution (which is ordinarily allowed in constructions of such speeches, where thematter leades us to conceive them intended) that I conceived him unwilling: which might be the more allowed to me in that speech which I had not a word written when I spake it; which of all other Mr. B. is least fit to except against me for, having in print offended in this way in worse manner, page 185. But to the matter now we conceive his meaning, I still say the same, that I think he cannot shew one place, where [holy] is taken for separated to God in his sense. He alleadgeth that the Jewes infants are called the holy seed: though he name not the text, (which had been fit) yet I guesse by his words page 83. he meanes Ezra 9. 2. in which place onelyonly and Isaiah 6. 13. I find this terme in Scripture. But Ezra 9. 2. doth not speak of infants, but such a holy seed as mingled themselves with the people of the land, which was in marriage, which will not be said of infants; nor is [holy seed] there meant of a state separated to God in Mr. Bs. sense by Covenant promising it to believers, that their infants should be visible Church-members: For this holinesse was a state of difference or separation onelyonly by legal descent from Israel, not by the faith of next parents, and it did intitle them to a peculiar priviledge of being reckoned in the genealogy of Israel, or in full communion with the Common-wealth of Israel in respect of inheritance, marriage, &c. though they fell to Idolatry, as Jeroboam, Ahaz, Manasseh, &c. did. But proselytes though believers were not the holy seed there meant, they were not forbidden to marry the daughters of the people of the land. Yea the children of the holy seed begotten upon prohibited women, as the daughters of the Nations there mentioned, were with their mothers to be put away as unholy according to the law, Ezra 10. 3. contrary to the resolution af the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 12, 13, 14. which evidently shewes that the Jewes are called the holy seed by their descent according to the law of Moses, and that the term [holy seed, Ezra 10. 2.] is all one with [Legitimate] and if the Apostle did allude to that place in Ezra it serves more for my sense then Mr. Bs. and the sense may be conceived this, If the unbelieving husband were not as sanctified to his wife so as that they might lawfully live together, then the children should be unclean, that is illegitimate, as those in Ezra: but now, that is it being determined that the law of Moses concerning prohibiting marriage with some people is voided, and unequal marriage is not dissolved, your children are holy that is legitimate. His evasion page 188. about a judgement of charity will be found insufficient to avoid my exception against his exposition, which is mistaken by him; nor will it at all smite me, my exception being not as he imagines, that upon a judgement of charity concerning the sincerity of a persons profession he is not to be taken for a real believer: But that Mr. B. determining that the unbeliever is sanctified onelyonly to the believer, who is not onelyonly such according to the judgement of charity, but also really such before God; and the Apostles consequence including this Proposition according to his exposition, that the children of such onelyonly are holy, that is, after Mr. B. visible Church-members and baptizable, of necessity all other by his exposition are prohibited to be baptized; and therefore of necessity he that will follow the rule according to Mr. Bs, exposition must know the reality of the parents faith, which being impossible to be known without special revelation, he may baptize none without it. Now Mr. B. answers not at all to the main thing, how by his exposition a man can go upon certainty that he doth his duty: but how without respect to his exposition a man may take a person for a sincere believer, and so baptize him. But this serves not his turne in this case. For it is the duty of the baptizer to baptize onelyonly visible Churchmembers: this Mr. B. will not deny: now of infants who can make no profession, their visible Church-membership is known onelyonly by their parents believing; but according to Mr. Bs. exposition of the Apostle, those infants onelyonly are visible Church-members whose parents are real believers before God: no hypocrite if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle can make his infant a visible Church-member, and baptizable, for his children are uncleane. But it is not possible for a baptizer to know the parent to be a real believer before God without special revelation, and therefore without it he cannot be certain he doth his duty according to Mr. Bs. suppositions; yea he may be certain he doth not his duty: For he may be certain he cannot observe the rule of baptizing onelyonly the infants of those that are real believers before God, it being certain some in the visible Church are hypocrites, and he is not to baptize the infants of such, if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle, they being unclean, that is, no visible Church-members, nor baptizable, and therefore he may be certain in baptizing promiscuously infants of visible professors that he doth not his duty, if Mr. Bs. exposition be good, but sins against the Apostles determination, in baptizing those that are not baptizable by the Apostles determination as Mr. B. expounds him, and if he be intelligent against his own light: but cannot be certain he doth his duty, because he cannot know which are baptizable, those infants being onelyonly baptizable according to the Apostles resolution as expounded by Mr. B. who are the children of believers not onelyonly so accounted in the judgement of charity, but also really such before God, which he cannot know without special revelation.