Answer to a Treatise Entitled The Vanity of Childish Baptism, Tract · Answer to tract · Part 5 (1 of 3)
The fifth Argument againſt the Baptiſme of Infants, taken from the ſubiects to whom it is adminiſtred, Anſwered.
THe fifth Conſideration, A. R.which yeelds an Argument againſt our Baptiſme, is taken from the ſubiects, on whom Baptiſme is adminiſtred, and thoſe are Infants, whereas (ſay you) the Scripture holds forth the Diſciples, or beleevers onelyonly are to be baptized, which you prove thus. For the Commiſſion of Chriſt was onelyonly to baptize diſciples, as appeareth, Matth. 28.19. the words being theſe. foreign, &c.Going therefore diſciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now the queſtion (ſay you) is to what this word (foreign them) hath relation, whether to foreign, nations, or no. But (ſay you) it is cleare out of the words, that it hath not relation to nations, but to diſciples: for the word which is put for them in that place, is autous not auta, which it ſhould be, if it had relation to nations.
Anſw. 1. But I pray you, who (but your ſelf) ever ſaw in this Text, the word Diſciples, to which foreign, them, may have relation? There is no ſuch word, either in any uſuall tranſlation, or in the Originall. 2. What neceſſitie or likelihood is there, that your ſuppoſed foreign, diſciples, ſhould be antecedent to foreign them? Becauſe forſooth, it is foreign, not foreign. Know you not, that foreign, Nations, though in voyce it be Neuter, yet in ſignification it is Maſculine: Signifying men in the Nations or Heathens (foreign, or foreign, or foreign, Homines in Gentibus, or Gentium, or Gentiles. You ſure would never have been ſo confident, that foreign muſt needs be referred to foreign, diſciples, if you had but conſulted with Lylies Rules, who tels you of a figure called Syntheſis, when a ſentence is congruous in ſenſe,Syntheſis eſt ocatio congrua ſenſu, non voce. Gens armati. foreign. though not in voice; and brings an example like to this; The Armed nation: which figure is very frequent in the Greeke language; to inſtance onelyonly in this ſame word foreign. Act. 15.17. And all the nations upon whom my name is called upon them, where you have foreign, whom and them, anſwering to the antecedent foreign gentes. And I beleeve where you finde a Relative in Scripture, anſwering to foreign, nations,foreign. moſt frequently (if not alwayes) it is the Maſculine gender, as Act. 28.28. to the Gentiles is ſent this ſalvation and they ſhall heare.foreign, &c. foreign. Act 13.48. The Gentiles hearing glorified the word of the Lord, and they beleeved, ſo many as were ordained unto eternall life. Rom. 2.14, 15. When the Gentiles not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, theſe having not the law, are a law to themſelves, which ſhew the work, &c. Inſomuch, that your Criticiſme hath greatly failed you here; and ſo your foundation which you have laid to prove, That all who are baptized according to Chriſts Commiſſion, proving but a meere conceit, or ſelf-deceit, your building that you reare thereupon will vaniſh away.
Obiect. If it be ſaid, Chriſt commanded the Apoſtles to teach or make diſciples, and then to baptize, ſo that none are capable of Baptiſme but thoſe that have been taught or made diſciples firſt.
Anſwer. 1 To this I anſwer. Firſt, This cannot be gathered by any neceſſary conſequence from the connexion of the words; any more then it may be concluded from the ſame verſe: that none may Teach or Baptize but Apoſtles, or ſuch as have authoritie, and gifts of miracles and tongues, to goe to all nations. For, as Baptizing is joyned with Teach, ſo Teach ye, is joyned with Go ye (before) and All nations after. But if no wiſe man will deduce or yeeld to this concluſion (None muſt either Preach or Baptize, but thoſe which have gifts and authoritie to goe into all nations for that end) from the coherence of the words; you muſt excuſe us, if we yeeld not to the deducing of your concluſion from the coherence. viz. That none are to be baptized, but thoſe which have been firſt taught or made diſciples.
Anſwer. 2 Secondly, I anſwer. It is true the Apoſtles were to teach thoſe among the Gentiles of ripe yeares, and make them diſciples before they or their children were to be baptized, becauſe they and their children were out of covenant, and ſo uncapable of the ſeales, and might not be received into covenant themſelves or their children, untill they gave up themſelves and theirs unto Chriſt by faith and repentance: which they could not ordinarily have wrought in them, but by hearing the Goſpel preached. Yet when parents had given up their names unto Chriſt, their children being alſo given up to Chriſt by them, were capable of Baptiſme. As by Abrahams giving up himſelf unto God in Covenant, not onelyonly he, but alſo his children, and thoſe that were as his children, were received into Covenant, and had the ſeale thereof adminiſtred to them; by vertue of the unchangeable tenour of the Covenant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed: Gen. 17.7.as hath been ſaid, and God willing ſhall more fully be ſhewed. Therefore the Commiſſion which was given to the Diſciples, makes nothing againſt baptizing the children of the faithfull: which are already in covenant with God, though they have not heard the word preached.
Anſwer. 3 Thirdly, Yea I conceive it is no abſurditie, but a ſound truth, to ſay, that infants of beleeving parents are made diſciples of God and Chriſt: ſo that the Apoſtles in making parents diſciples that gave up themſelves and their children unto God; in that act made their clildren alſo diſciples; in two reſpects. Firſt, in that parents gave them up unto God, promiſing and purpoſing to bring them up in the knowledge of God, ſo ſoone as they ſhould be capable of outward teaching. This Abraham was bound unto by vertue of the Covenant; that as God would be the God of his ſeed, ſo he ſhould command and teach his children and houſhold after him, that they ſhould keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. 18.19. So all the Iſraelites, Exod. 12.26.26, 27. Deut. 6.6, 7. And the like obligation lies upon Chriſtian parents, Epheſ. 6.4. ſo that now they are the diſciples of Chriſt, in reſpect of Gods obligation, and the parents promiſe, purpoſe, and prayer.
Secondly, they may be ſaid to be Chriſts diſciples, in that they are now under the teaching of God and Chriſt, who hath promiſed to teach all that are in covenant, all the children of the Church, or faithfull (at leaſt ſome of all ſorts) from the leaſt to the greateſt. Eſa. 54.13.foreign Edoctia Iehova, or Edocti Ievovae. foreign And all thy children ſhall be taught of the Lord, &c. All, is an univerſall note, implying all ſorts, ſexes, ages, and conditions of thoſe which were children of the Church, or poſteritie of the faithfull. Ier. 31.34. And they ſhall teach no more every man his brother, ſaying, Know the Lord. For they ſhall all know me, from the leaſt to the greateſt of them. And ſo that thoſe which are ſo little, that they are uncapable of the teaching of men, are capable, and under the promiſe of Gods teaching. To which promiſes our Saviour having, as it ſeems, reſpect, ſaith, Ioh. 6.44. It is written in the Prophets, And they ſhall be all taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and learneth, cometh unto me: So that as there may be outward teaching without inward: ſo there may be inward teaching without the outward. Chriſt ſaith, Whoſoever hath heard of the Father, not whoſoever hath heard of the Preacher; for many may heare of the Preacher, and yet not come to God; and ſome may be taught of God, that are uncapable of the Preachers inſtruction: though the inward and outward both be ordinary, to thoſe who being of ripe yeares are effectually called. So that ſith God promiſeth, that in the time of the Goſpel, All even from the leaſt unto the greateſt ſhall become his diſciples, why ſhould the infants of beleevers be excluded, ſeeing they are capable of divine inſtruction, and the operation of the holy Ghoſt, even from their mothers wombe? Luk. 1.15. I have ſtood the longer on the anſwering of this Scripture objected, Becauſe theſe anſwers may ſerve for all the other reaſons, and Scriptures you bring, to confirme your laſt Argument againſt baptizing of children. Where having heaped up many Scriptures needleſly, you talk your pleaſure, and triumph as if the cauſe were your owne; as if your grounds were unmoveable, and your concluſion unqueſtionable. But though you plead againſt Childrens Baptiſme, you ſhould remember that you diſpute not with children. Neither have we need or will, By wit and ſophiſtrie to goe about to elude any truth, and juſtifie any errour, though never ſo groſſe and abſurd, as you ſay; Which imputation of yours, it may ſeeme, is you laſt ſhift; to anſwer thoſe that will not be carried about with every winde of your vaine doctrine, and ſubſcribe to your dictates.
Now for what followeth, I will not proceed in maintaining thoſe further objections; which either you deviſe of your owne head, or raiſe out of others words, to whoſe principles we are not bound; your anſwers whereunto either doe not concerne us, or if any thing therein ſeeme to beare ſhew of truth and weight, it may be ſufficiently anſwered from what hath beene already laid downe. Therefore I will not trouble my ſelfe with the repetition of the ſame things. So forbearing any further to meddle with your confident concluſions, Apology for your expreſſions, or other impertinent digreſſions, wherewith you fill up paper; I come to give our reaſons for the lawfulneſſe, and requiſiteneſſe of baptizing the infants of Chriſtian parents; intending to conſider all along your anſwers you have made to them.
Arg. 1 Our firſt Argument therefore ſhall be: To whom the ſpirituall and inviſible grace repreſented, ſignified, and ſealed in baptiſme belongeth by vertue of Gods promiſe, to them baptiſme it ſelfe belongeth, Act. 2.38, 39.
But to the children or infants of parents beleeving, or within Covenant, belongeth by vertue of Gods promiſe, the ſpirituall grace repreſented, ſealed, and ſignified in baptiſme; to wit, the teaching of God, and the Spirit of God, which doth include all the ſpirituall bleſſings ſignified by baptiſme; as ſanctification, or regeneration, wherein is comprehended virtuall faith, and therein, being beſprinkled with the bloud of Chriſt, and pardon of ſinnes, Eſa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Ioel 2.28. Eſ. 59.21. Act. 2.39.
Therefore Baptiſme belongeth to infants of Chriſtian parents.
Both the premiſſes me thinkes ſhould be undeniable with Chriſtians, as being built on the word; and ſo the concluſion certaine. But becauſe I would cleare this Argument, againſt the cavils of the captious, and doubts of the ignorant, or ſcrupulous; I will adde ſome what by way of explanation, and confirmation.
The propoſition, for ought I know, it is not doubted of by any. It is taken as an unqueſtionable principle by A. R. and many of his arguments againſt baptizing infants, are built upon this ground: becauſe they have not regeneration, faith, remiſſion of ſinnes. And it may further appeare by theſe Scriptures, Act. 8.38. Nothing now could hinder the Eunuch from being baptized, for now the ſpirituall bleſſing appertained to him, and therefore the externall ſigne: Act. 10.47, 48. Can any forbid water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghoſt as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized, &c. And Chap. 11.17. The Apoſtle implies, that it had beene a withſtanding of God, not to have baptized them on whom the gift of the holy Ghoſt had been powred. And ſo ſtill upon the profeſſion of faith, and repentance, when in the judgement of charitie, the Preachers apprehended the parties to have intereſt, and right to the ſpirituall grace, they adminiſtred the outward ſigne, though queſtionleſſe they were deceived in many: as Ananias, Sapphira, Simon Magus, &c. Yet it was a ſufficient warrant to the Miniſters to baptize them: becauſe ſo farre as they could judge, they were under the promiſe. For if amongſt Chriſts few Diſciples, there was one traytour, ſonne of perdition, devill: doubtleſſe amongſt thoſe many thouſands that were baptized, upon their profeſſion of faith and repentance at the preaching of Iohn, and the Apoſtles, many were hypocrites; as may appeare by the great evils that brake out in the Primitive Churches. This I adde to ſhew that there is no infallible certainty of the inward grace required of, or poſſible to the Miniſter.
And that to whom the inward grace belongs, to them the outward ſigne belongs; appeareth in Peters exhortation in that place quoted in the propoſition, Act. 2.38, 39. And Peter ſaid unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Ieſus Chriſt, to the remiſſion of your ſinnes, and ye ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt: For the promiſe is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afarre off, even ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Wherein he ſhews them that if they will repent, they have right unto baptiſme, as having right unto the thing ſignified in baptiſme, viz. the remiſſion of ſinnes, by the bloud of Chriſt powred on their ſoules; and the gift of the holy Ghoſt being the Spirit of Chriſt, powred on them; of which he had ſpoken before, ver. 17. both clearely repreſented and ſignified by the infuſion, or powring of water in baptiſme. And the rather to perſwade them to repent, and be baptized, that they might receive remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt: Peter tels them, that the promiſe is to them and their children, and ſo many as God ſhould call, though afarre off: even among the Gentiles. So that if by faith and repentance they and the Gentiles ſhould accept the promiſe, they and their children ſhould have intereſt in the remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt; and ſo conſequently in baptiſme; ſo that not onelyonly the parents repenting, but alſo their children had title to the promiſe of the holy Gohſt; and ſo to the ſeale thereof.
A. R.Firſt, againſt this you object: It is not ſaid, your infants, but your children.
Anſ. Infants are not excluded I hope; for infants are children, though not onelyonly infants: neither do we hold that the promiſe was made to infants onelyonly.foreign. Peter uſeth a generall word that ſignifieth poſteritie, of what age ſoever, whether of ripe or tender years.
Secondly, you object: It is not ſaid promiſes, but promiſe; and that it is not promiſes, but promiſe; not infants, but children: You promiſe us ſatisfaction by looking back to what went before in the Chapter, after a long repetition wherof, you tell us what we may gather; to wit, that the gift of the holy Ghoſt, mentioned ver. 17. to be propheſied of by Ioel; and to be received of the Father, and ſhed forth by Chriſt, ver. 33. is repeated ver. 38.
Anſw. All this maketh nothing againſt us; but for us.
Thirdly, you adde: You may ſee who are meant by children, viz. the ſame that were mentioned, ver. 17. under the termes of ſonnes and daughters that ſhould prophecie.
Anſw. As if the Spirit mentioned here, were onelyonly a Spirit of prophecie. The Spirit hath divers operations; ſome ordinary, and ſome extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Neither is it ſaid, that all ſhall prophecie and dreame dreames.
Fourthly, you ſay: Therefore no infants are meant here who cannot prophecie, &c.
Anſw. Why may not infants be of the number of that all fleſh, on which God would powre his Spirit, though none of thoſe that prophecie, ſee viſions, dreame, &c. For theſe effects of the Spirit are not related as common to all, on whom God would powre his Spirit; but peculiar to ſome, which had extraordinary gifts. Secondly, What hinders but they may receive the Spirit in their infancie, by which they may prophecie in ripe yeares? as we ſee in Iohn the Baptiſt, Luk. 1.15. & 41. Thirdly, I anſwer; That this promiſe is not onelyonly made concerning the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit which were beſtowed in the times of the Apoſtle, by which men did prophecie, dreame dreames, ſee viſions, ſpeake with tongues, &c. but alſo of the ſanctifying Spirit which is common to all ages of the Church, even where ſuch miraculous and extraordinarie gifts are not beſtowed: may appeare, verſ. 30. The promiſe, ſaith the Apoſtle, was to all afarre off, whomſoever the Lord ſhould call: that is, all the Gentiles whom God ſhould call by the Goſpel to faith. Now no man I hope will ſay, that all whom over God called, dreamed dreames, ſaw viſions, prophecied, ſpake with ſtrange tongues, &c.
Fifthly, you adde: There is not ſo much as any colour, for baptizing of infants from hence. For the Text is not, Be baptized. For the promiſe is to you, and your children; as many in Print doe falſely alledge. But repent and be baptized, &c. and ye ſhall receive the gift of the Holy ghoſt. For the promiſe is to you and your children.
Anſw. If we ſhould take the words in your ſenſe, viz. that thoſe words For the promiſe is made, &c. are brought as a reaſon onelyonly of the words going immediately before; it makes nothing againſt me, for ſo the 38. verſ. containes a pregnant proofe of my propoſition, and verſ. 39. of mine aſſumption.
Secondly, I anſwer. There is no neceſſitie can appeare, no nor probable reaſon (I beleeve) can be rendred, why the reaſon (For the promiſe, &c. verſ. 39.) ſhould be referred onelyonly to the words immediately preceding (you ſhall receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt; and not unto the exhortation, Repent, and be baptized, &c.) which untill you could have given ſome proofe of, you might well have ſpared your immodeſt language, and hainous accuſation of falſe alledging Scripture. For the context may either be analyſed thus. Firſt, Peter exhorts to repent, and be baptized; then he ſpurres them on by a reaſon taken from the effect, viz. remiſſion and the gift of the Spirit: ſecondly, from the promiſe that God had made concerning the thing ſignified, viz. powring his Spirit; which promiſe belonged to them and their children: therefore they ſhould receive the ſigne which God had inſtituted to ſignifie it, which may ſeeme the moſt genuine reſolution of the Text. Or ſecondly; This reaſon may be underſtood as brought both to the exhortation, (Repent, and be baptized) and the promiſe, (And you ſhall receive remiſſion of ſinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt:) for conſidering that baptiſme, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt are correlatives, as the ſigne and thing ſignified, the reaſon well may (that I ſay not neceſſarily muſt) be referred to both. Or thirdly, if we grant that it is immediately referred to the foregoing promiſe, yet it muſt neceſſarily be taken as a reaſon of the exhortation at leaſt mediately: for ſeeing the promiſe of remiſſion of ſinnes, and the holy Ghoſt, is brought as a reaſon to perſwade them to be baptized; and theſe words, For the promiſe is to you, &c. is brought as a confirmation of the promiſe;Cauſa cauſae eſt cauſa cauſati. and conſidering that the cauſe of the cauſe is the cauſe of the cauſed, and the reaſon of the reaſon, is the reaſon of the thing proved by that reaſon, this (For the promiſe, &c.) muſt needs be brought as a reaſon why they ſhould be baptized; and ſo thoſe who bring this as a reaſon that the Apoſtle gives, why they ſhould be baptized, joyning the thing argued, and the Argument together, and omitting that which was interpoſed, as not pertinent to the purpoſe; are quit from your ſlander of falſe alledging Scripture; and you convinced to be a falſe accuſer of the brethren.
The next Objection that you frame I owne not. Aſſenting that it is true, that neither theſe Iewes, nor the Gentiles were in Covenant, untill they had entred into the ſame by repentance and faith, ſeeing that the old Covenant was now abrogated, and the Gentiles had beene hitherto foreiners: ſo that you will acknowledge that whenſoever Iewes or Gentiles ſhould receive the promiſe by faith and repentance, it did not onelyonly belong unto them, but alſo to their children. For though it be expreſſed to the Iews, (That the promiſe was to them and their children) it is to be underſtood, to hold of the Gentiles alſo. For now the partition wall was removed, and the Iewes had no priviledge for their childrens having right unto the promiſe, any more then the children of beleeving Gentiles.
Thus farre I have digreſſed in anſwer to ſome objections made againſt the Scripture which was brought for the proofe of my propoſition, though it might be handled as well in the aſſumption; yet becauſe I have more to ſay on the aſſumption, I brought theſe objections under the propoſition. The ſumme of the propoſition muſt be remembred to be this. Where is right to the ſpirituall bleſſing promiſed in the word, and ſealed in baptiſme, there is right to baptiſme: which ſtands firme againſt whatſoever hath beene objected. I come to the aſſumption.
The places of Scripture quoted to confirme the aſſumption have beene ſpoken of before. OnelyOnly we may conſider now, Firſt, what things are promiſed in thoſe Scriptures expreſly. Secondly, what is implied. Thirdly, to whom theſe promiſes are made.
For the firſt, God promiſeth to be their teacher, yea though they be uncapable of humane diſcipline (They ſhall not teach one another, but they ſhall all be taught of God) Eſa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Againe, that he will give, yea powre his Spirit, and that his Spirit ſhall be upon them, Ioel 2.28. Eſ. 59.21.
Secondly, under theſe two expreſſions, yea each of them ſeverally, are comprehended all thoſe things that are requiſite for our being in Covenant with God; and all thoſe ſpirituall graces that give us right to the ſeale of entrance: as firſt Regeneration, which is the proper and certaine worke of the ſpirit of ſanctification, Ioh. 3.5. which ſpirit of regeneration to be ſignified by the water of baptiſme may appeare by that Scripture, Ioh. 3.5. & Tit. 3.5. Againe, this implies communion with Chriſt, which muſt needs be by faith, actuall or virtuall, Ioh. 6.45. Heb. 11.6. For whoſoever is taught of God, and hath the Spirit of Chriſt, muſt needs have Chriſt, and ſo it follows that ſuch have right unto remiſſion of ſinnes.
Thirdly, theſe promiſes belong unto the children of the Church, the ſonnes and daughters of the faithfull, all of them from the leaſt to the greateſt; the ſeede of the faithfull, and their ſeeds ſeed, as may appeare in the Scriptures quoted; and here muſt be comprehended, infants as well as others, who have right unto the promiſe by vertue of their parents entering into Covenant with God, as Act. 2.39. The Apoſtle bids them repent and be baptized; (and ſo enter into Covenant) for the promiſe, ſaith he, is unto you and your children; ſo that there can no reaſon be given why infants ſhould be excluded from theſe promiſes: unleſſe any one ſhall ſay that infants are uncapable of theſe gifts, which this A. R. ſeemes to hold, in many places of his booke; which opinion is more worthy deteſtation then confutation. Are not infants capable of ſinne? Pſal. 51.5 and therefore of ſanctification: ſhall the firſt Adams diſobedience be available to bring guilt and defilement? and not Chriſts obedience to procure remiſſion, and ſanctification? Or is there no remedie for the poore infants of beleeving parents; but if they die before they come to the uſe of reaſon they muſt neceſſarily periſh, as being born the children of wrath, and being uncapable of remedie? Or doth this man hold, that they are brutes without ſoule in that he compares baptizing of infants to circumciſing of Camels or Aſſes?2 Part, pag. 21. Are not theſe profane Atheiſticall conceits, contrary to the promiſes of God, cleare teſtimonie of Scripture, and example, as of Iohn the Baptiſt, who was ſanctified and moved by the Spirit even in his mothers wombe?
Queſt. But what muſt we then beleeve: that all the children of Chriſtians are already indued with the holy Ghoſt, taught of God, and ſanctified, &c. ſo ſoone as borne, or in their infancie?
Anſw. It is enough to prove their right to baptiſme, that they are under the promiſe and intereſſed therein, by vertue of their parents being (at leaſt externally) in Covenant: ſo that whether they have already received the Spirit, or have a promiſe thereof, it ſufficeth to give them a right to the Sacrament. As theſe are bid repent, and ſo come under promiſe (themſelves with their children) and then be baptized; and afterward they ſhall receive the holy Ghoſt.
Queſt. But muſt we think that all children of Chriſtian parents that are baptized, either have or ſhall receive the Spirit, and ſo be ſaved?
Anſw. Iohn the Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles, though they were not to beleeve that amongſt thoſe multitudes whom they baptized, there were none but truely had or ſhould receive the Spirit, for it was after proved by the event, that many were hypocrites, yet they turned away none, becauſe by their externall confeſſion of ſinne, and profeſſion of faith and repentance, they ſhewed themſelves to be externally in Covenant, and ſo to have right to the outward ſeale, which they therefore adminiſtred to one as well as to another. So though we are not bound to think that all the children borne of parents in covenant are, or ſhall be ſanctified: yet becauſe they are outwardly in covenant and under the promiſe, (which promiſe God makes good as ſeemeth good in his eyes;) therefore the Miniſter, that is not to judge of the inward worke of ſanctification on the heart, whether preſent or future, but of the outward eſtate, (neither if he could diſcerne the inward eſtate might he withhold the outward priviledge from any (though wanting inward grace) that hath right thereunto by being under covenant outwardly) may and ought to adminiſter baptiſme to the children of all Chriſtian parents under his charge that requires it, ſo long as by wilfull Apoſtaſie from the faith, or juſt excommunication wherein they obſtinately continue, they with their children are not diſcovenanted.
Obiect. If any ſhould object, That thoſe promiſes of the Spirit, or Gods teaching, &c. made to the ſeed of the faithfull, to all both ſmall and great, &c, and the promiſe made to the faithfull and their children belong onelyonly to the ſpirituall ſeed of the Church, viz. thoſe that are borne againe in the wombe of the Church.
Anſwer. I Anſwer. 1. Theſe promiſes made to the Chriſtian Church, are like to that promiſe made to the Iewiſh Church, Deut. 30.6. And the Lord thy God will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of thy ſeed, to love the Lord thy God. Now this they were to underſtand, not onelyonly or principally of Proſelytes that ſhould be converted to the Church, nor onelyonly of their poſteritie, when they came to the uſe of reaſon; but even of Infants, as may appeare in that God appointed them to circumciſe their Infants. For circumciſion of the fleſh, was a ſign of circumciſion of the heart; which if infants had not been capable of, God would not have commanded the outward ſigne to have been adminiſtred unto them. And ſo theſe promiſes made to the Chriſtian Church, to their ſeed, to their ſeeds ſeed, to their children, from the leaſt to the greateſt, appertain to infants in the Chriſtian Church as well as others. The univerſall note being underſtood, De generibus ſingulorum, not de ſingulis generum, as they ſay; of all ſorts, ſexes, ages, and condition ſome: though every individuall of all ſorts be not comprehended therein. And therefore Baptiſme ſealing ſuch promiſes, belongs to Infants in the Chriſtian Church, as well as circumciſion did in the Iewiſh.
Secondly, I anſwer. It is abſurd to underſtand theſe promiſes onelyonly of the ſpirituall ſeed, as if they belonged only to the regenerate; For what is it to be taught of God and have the Spirit powred, but to be converted or regenerated, and drawn to Chriſt; ſo that by this interpretation, the meaning of theſe promiſes ſhould be this much. I will powre my Spirit on whom I have or ſhall powre my Spirit, and they ſhall be taught of God, that are or ſhall be taught of God. It is true, God may here well promiſe a greater meaſure of the Spirit and illumination, where he hath given ſome meaſure. But withall it is certaine, here is promiſed the Spirit and illumination alſo, to thoſe that are quite deſtitute, and ſo to ſuch as are not yet the ſpirituall ſeed of the Church.
Thirdly, I anſwer. What matter of conſolation can this be to beleeving parents, if not withſtanding their prayer for, and religious education of their children, none of theſe or the like promiſes belong to them; but onelyonly to the ſpirituall ſeed of the Church, that is, ſuch as are already converted, and declare their converſion by actuall faith? What ground of prayer for, or hope of the ſalvation of their children have they, more then of the Heathens, if this be admitted?
2. Argument. If Governours of families upon their beleeving and tendring up themſelves, and theirs to God and Chriſt, were not onelyonly themſelves baptized; but all the perſons in their houſhold, and which were under their government, of what age ſoever, were baptized alſo; ſo that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the beliefe of any but the Governours themſelves; yet their whole houſholds were dedicated unto God in Baptiſme: Then it is lawfull (yea a dutie) to Chriſtian parents to tender their children (being part of their family) unto God in Baptiſme, and Miniſters have good ground, yea, ingagement for baptizing ſuch.
But Governours of Families upon their beleeving and tendering up themſelves and theirs unto God and Chriſt, were not onelyonly themſelves baptized; but all the perſons in their houſhold, or which were under their government: ſo that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the beliefe of any but the Governours themſelves; yet their whole houſholds were dedicated unto God in Baptiſme. Act. 16.14, 15 and 31, 32, 33. 1 Cor. 1.6.
Therefore it is lawfull (yea the dutie) for Chriſtian parents or governours of families, to tender their infants, which are part of their houſhold, unto God in Baptiſme, and Miniſters ought to baptize ſuch being tendred of their parents.
The Major needs no confirmation, it being granted by all, yea, by the Adverſaries themſelves (as I conceive) taken for an undeniable principle, that the Apoſtles example in baptizing is a ſufficient warrant for us, and that ſuch are to be admitted to Baptiſme now, as were admitted by the Apoſtles: For moſt of their reaſoning is grounded hereupon, and they hence condemne our baptizing of Infants; becauſe (ſay they) it is not agreeable to the practiſe of the Apoſtles; ſo that that Baptiſme wch is agreeable to the Baptiſm of the Apoſtles, is warantable by their own grants: and ſo the ſequele ſtandeth firme and good. If in the Apoſtles times, whole families of beleeving governours were baptized, they ought ſo now, and ſo conſequently the infants of thoſe families, which are parts thereof, if there be any ſuch: For as Abraham and his Family, was a pattern unto all ſuch as ſhould enter into the Covenant of grace during the time of circumciſion; that as he and his Family were circumciſed, ſo ſhould all, whether of his poſteritie, or proſelytes, circumciſe all their Males, even the babes: So thoſe primitive Converts, that were the firſt fruits of the Gentiles, and when they beleeved were baptized with their whole families; are examples for the beleevers of all Ages to follow, in conſecrating themſelves and theirs to God in Baptiſm.
As for the Minor; thoſe places of Scripture cited prove it. Act. 16.31, 32, 33. To the Iaylour demanding, what he ſhould doe that he might be ſaved; Paul and Sylas anſwer, bidding him beleeve in the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, promiſing that he ſhould be ſaved and his houſhold. Teaching that the beleefe of a father, or governour of a family, is ſufficient to bring a whole family that is at his diſpoſing and to be ruled by him, into a ſtate of ſalvation, ſo farre, as that now they are within the Covenant, and ſo conſequently have right unto the ſeale of initiation. It is ſaid indeed, that they ſpake the word of the Lord unto him, and all that were in the houſe. viz. ſo many as were capable of inſtruction; But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expreſſion, word, or action, of any in the family, except onelyonly of the Iaylour himſelf, whoſe repentance and faith (at leaſt initiall) is expreſſed by the effects thereof. viz. his humiliation, and deſire of ſalvation, verſ. 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them, declared verſ. 33. in taking them the ſame houre of the night, and waſhing their ſtripes,foreign. and then it is ſaid, that he and all his were baptized ſtraight-way. Which evidently ſheweth, that the governours faith and repentance, or being within the Covenant, doth ſufficiently intereſſe their inferiours, that are at their diſpoſe, to the Covenant of Grace, and ſo to the Seale of entrance, at leaſt if they be not refractary, wilfully and ſtubbornly refuſing to be given up to God by their ſuperiours. The like may be ſaid of Stephanus his family, 1 Cor. 1.16. But moſt cleare, and expreſſe, is the example of Lydia, Act. 16.14, 15. When the Lord had opened her heart, to attend to thoſe things that were ſpoken of Paul, ſhe was baptized and her houſhold; Not a word ſpoken of preaching to, or actuall faith, and repentance of the reſt. So that it is apparent, that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance, and intereſt in God, his whole Family, whether thoſe that were born in the houſe, or thoſe that were bought with money, yea, even his infants of eight dayes old, had ſo farre intereſt in God, that (upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment) now they had right unto the Seal of Circumciſion after God had once inſtituted it: ſo Chriſtian governours of families, or parents by their faith and repentance, are meanes of bringing ſalvation to their families, and intereſſing thoſe that are under them to God and Chriſt, ſo farre as that they have right unto Baptiſme; at leaſt except they ſtubbornly refuſe the Seale, and reject the Covenant.
A. R.To this Argument, eſpecially the Scriptures brought to confirme the aſſumption, you anſwer. There might be no Infants there (viz. in thoſe families which were baptized:) and my negative (ſay you) is as good as your affirmative.
Anſwer. This toucheth not the force of mine Argument, which hath ſhewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Goſpel, their families were accepted unto Baptiſme, their ſuperiours tendring them thereunto. Whether Infants or not, there is no exception of Infants or others.
But you ſay your Negative is as good as our Affirmative, without proofe, and that you bring Scripture for your negative, as Act. 18.8. which Scripture maketh nothing againſt us. For firſt, if Criſpus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family, it doth not follow, that theſe families which we mentioned, had none but actuall beleevers in them, before they were baptized. Secondly, Criſpus may be ſaid to beleeve he and his houſhold, and ſo to be baptized, though they were not all indued with actuall faith, as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers, even the whole Family, when the Seale of the righteouſneſſe by faith had been ſet upon all the Males therein, although they did not all actually beleeve.
"You adde the example of the Iaylour, Act. 16.31, 32, &c. Anſwer. We have already ſufficiently conſidered, what is contained in verſ. 31, 32, 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family (viz, that were capable of inſtruction) yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour himſelfe is manifeſted.
But you ſay: He and all his houſhold beleeved in God, as it is verſ. 34.
Anſw. If you looke into the Originall, you ſhall finde that that verſe makes nothing for your purpoſe. It is word for word.foreign. And he rejoyced (with all his houſe) having beleeved in God, or when he had beleeved in God. But becauſe the Engliſh cannot ſo fully and clearely give the ſenſe of the place, it may be noted foreign, (having beleeved) being the Maſculine gender, and ſingular number (as the Grammarians ſpeake, cannot be referred to that foreign alone, or taken with foreign, the keeper; So that the ſenſe ſhould be, the whole houſe beleeved, or the Iaylour, and the whole houſe beleeved. I ſay the words cannot beare this ſenſe, as the skilfull in the language may eaſily ſee, and therefore in the tranſlation, beleeving (or rather having beleeved) in God, is to be read within a parentheſis, ſo that thoſe words with his whole family, is to be referred onelyonly to the word rejoyced; Thus: And rejoyced (beleeving or having beleeved) in God) with all his houſe: So that though our Tranſlatours did well render the words, yet the want of obſerving the parentheſis, cauſeth the words at the firſt ſight, otherwiſe to ſound then indeed they do, to thoſe that looke on the Originall.Laetatus eſt cum omni domo credens Deo. So Arias Montanus. But under correction, and with ſubmiſſion to better judgements if I might be ſo bold: I conceive it might be rendered, more agreeably to the ſignification of the words, the ſcope of the place, and for the avoyding of ambiguitie. And having beleeved in God, he rejoyced (exulted or teſtified his joy openly by outward actions) in all his family, (or through his houſe, or all his houſe over). For (foreign) beleeving, and (foreign) rejoyced, are both the ſingular number, and ſo have reference to one alone. viz. foreign, the Iaylour. foreign (rendred, with all his houſe) is an adverbe, and ſo according to the ordinary uſe of that part of ſpeech, is referred to the verbe, to ſhew how the thing was done, not by whom. Beſide, the ſcope of the place, ſeemes to favour this Interpretation; for it is ſaid in the words before, that he brought them into the houſe, and ſet meat before them, or made them a feaſt, ſo that he expreſſed his rejoycing in his whole houſe, by making a ſolemn feaſt in all the family, as it were celebrating that night, as his ſpirituall birth-dayes ſolemnitie.
Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned, which you apprehend to ſpeake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized, with theſe that ſpeake of baptizing families, where yet none are ſaid to beleeve, ſave the heads, and thence you gather, That it cannot be reaſonably imagined, but that the Apoſtle did baptize theſe families according to commiſſion, &c. and thoſe other places which are more ſilent, muſt be expounded by this which is more plain, and not this by thoſe.
Anſw. Firſt, No queſtion, the Apoſtle baptized according to commiſſion: but that their commiſſion bound them to baptize none, but thoſe which were brought to actuall faith, you have not proved, as may appeare by the foregoing examination of what you produced.
Secondly, Why ſhould not we interpret their commiſſion, by their practiſe, rather then draw their practiſe to that ſenſe which your fancy is pleaſed to put on the commiſſion? Their practiſe as a commentary on their commiſſion, ſhews in what ſenſe it was underſtood by them.
Thirdly, Why may not thoſe places, that ſpeake of the beleeving of the family before they were baptized (if you can produce any ſuch) be expounded by theſe that ſhew the heads of that the families beleeving and being baptized, and giving up themſelves and theirs unto God; the whole families were accounted beleeving families, and ſo baptized; eſpecially, ſeeing it ſo agreeth with Gods proceeding with Abraham the father of the faithfull?
Fourthly, Or what neceſſitie is there, that either thoſe Scriptures ſhould be expounded by theſe, or theſe by thoſe; when they are both equally plain and cleare? They may be both true according to the proper ſenſe of the letter and hiſtory. In ſome families, all might well be of ripe years and actuall beleevers, in others not, and yet both ſorts might be baptized without abſurditie.
Arg. 3 Thoſe which are Saints, or holy ones, are meet members of the Church, and ſo have right to that Sacrament that ſeales admiſſion into the Church, Eph. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 1.2.
But the children of Chriſtian parents are Saints or holy ones, Epheſ. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 7.14.
Therefore they are meet members of the Church, and ſo have right to baptiſme, being the Sacrament that ſeales admiſſion into the Chriſtian Church.
The Propoſition, namely, that Saints or holy ones are members of the Church, and ſo to be admitted to the Sacrament of entrance thereinto; I know not to be queſtioned or denied by any; and (if it ſhould) may be confirmed by thoſe Scriptures, wherein the Churches have the title of Saints given to them, or Saints by calling; implying that a Saint, and a member of the Church, are termes convertible, conſidering that in ſome Epiſtles the faithfull are all called by the name of Church, the name of Saints or holy ones, not being uſed: and contrariwiſe, ſo that ſometime the Apoſtle calls them to whom he writes, Saints, not Church: ſometime Church, not Saints: ſometime both Church and Saints,Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.2. Epheſ. 1.1. Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.2. Gal. 1.2. 1 Theſ. 1.1. 2 Theſ. 1.1. as may appeare in the places quoted in the margine: ſo that all the members of the Church are Saints, all Saints are members of the Church. Yet it is to be noted by the way, they were Saints by calling, or called to be Saints. Not ſo, that every member of theſe Churches were truly ſanctified, but ſuch as had beene called to holineſſe; and made (at leaſt) an externall profeſſion of obeying this heavenly call. For ſome among thoſe ſanctified ones, or Saints by calling, were notorious offenders, and ſuch as were ſtained with groſſe errours; as 1 Cor. 3.3. & 5.1, 2. & 6.1.8.13. ſo Chap. 8.11. & 15. 2 Cor. 12.21. Gal. 3. Phil. 3.15. Yet it was ſufficient to make them Saints by calling, and members of the viſible Church, that they were partakers of the heavenly calling, Heb. 3.1. and ſo they had externall right to the Sacrament, although if they did not walke worthy their calling, they brought upon themſelves the greater condemnation.
Secondly, it is confirmed hence. In that holineſſe comprehends all the conditions, or qualifications that are requiſite to baptiſme. Holineſſe cannot be without communion with Chriſt, regeneration, and remiſſion by the Spirit and Bloud of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 6.11. 1 Ioh. 1.7. So that as much as a man is holy, ſo much he hath communion with Chriſt, regeneration and remiſſion. If indeed and truth, he be holy, then is he inwardly and really united unto Chriſt, regenerated, and juſtified: If outwardly and in profeſſion onelyonly he be holy, then hath he communion with Chriſt, regeneration, and remiſſion onelyonly outwardly, and in profeſſion, as Heb. 10.29. Thoſe Apoſtates are ſaid to account the bloud of the Covenant wherewith they were ſanctified prophane, and to doe deſpite to the Spirit of Grace. Theſe were not truly and inwardly ſanctified (for then ſhould they have never fallen away) but onelyonly outwardly, faederally, and in reſpect of externall profeſſion. Yet this externall holineſſe is as much as the Miniſter can diſcern, or require as neceſſary, for receiving into the outward covenant and admitting to the ſeale of entrance.
Thirdly, this is confirmed by that Scripture cited in the Propoſition, Epheſ. 5.25, 26, 27. where it is ſhewed that the Church is ſanctified and purged by Chriſt in the waſhing of water in the word, that he might make it to himſelfe, a glorious Church, not having ſpot or wrinkle, or any ſuch thing; but that it ſhould be holy and unblameable. Wherein theſe two propoſitions (making for the confirmation of my Propoſition) are plainly contained. Firſt, that the Church is ſanctified by Chriſt, and that it is an holy ſocietie; which holineſſe is ſuch a proper adjunct or unſeparable propertie of the Church, that whoſoever is holy muſt needs be a member of the Church. Secondly, that this Church which Chriſt ſo loved, for which he gave himſelfe, which he hath made holy, he hath cleanſed with the waſhing of water in the word; which whether it be meant of the outward ſigne or thing ſignified in baptiſme, or rather both; doth apparently ſhew that the whole Church and all the members thereof being holy, have right to the outward waſhing of water in baptiſme.
To the Minor or Aſſumption; That the children of Chriſtian parents are holy. Firſt, it might be proved from the ſame place, Epheſ. 5.25, 26, 27. For otherwiſe unleſſe it be granted that all the children of Chriſtian parents are ſo faederally holy, that at leaſt ſome of them are ſanctified in deed and truth, it will follow that they are not loved of Chriſt, none of thoſe for whom Chriſt gave himſelfe, nor part of the Church at leaſt in their infancie, and conſequently thoſe children of Chriſtian parents that die before the years of diſcretion, and actuall faith, muſt unavoidably and remedileſly periſh; and that the parents of ſuch can have no hope at all of their eſcaping eternall damnation; not withſtanding all the promiſes that God hath made to his people and their poſteritie: which opinion, what Chriſtian heart doth not abhorre?
Secondly, but for the fuller proofe of the point, that children of parents whereof the one at leaſt is a beleever, are holy, that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is moſt direct and cleare, where the Apoſtle ſaith, For the unbeleeving husband is ſanctified by the wife;foreign. and the unbeleeving wife is ſanctified by the husband; elſe were your children uncleane, but now they are holy; whence we may note,
Firſt, that the word holy, is the ſame that is uſed elſe-where, for Saints, as the proper title of the members of the Church,foreign. Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2, &c.
Secondly, that the reaſon why theſe children are ſaid to be holy, is the faith of the parents, or one parent at leaſt, to whom the other parent is ſanctified, by vertue of the beleeving parents faith, (according to thoſe generall rules, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. Tit. 1.15.) Whence it was that the beleeving yoke-fellow had the lawfull and ſanctified uſe of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow. For though it be unlawfull for a beleever to marry an infidell, 2 Cor. 6.14. Yet when of unbeleevers, who were married together in the time of infidelitie, one is called, the other is not; the calling of the one to grace doth not diſſolve or annihilate their marriage (which is Gods ordinance, and therefore good) if the unbeleever be content to live in marriage fellowſhip with the beleeving mate. So that Gods Covenant with the beleeving parent, or parents, is the ground of the childes holineſſe; for (as hath beene touched before) in regard of externall covenant with God, the ſtate of the parents, or better parent, and of the child is the ſame. If the parent be in Covenant, the child (though by nature the child of wrath, yet by Gods grace) is borne in Covenant, and ſo he and his poſteritie continues untill any of them caſt themſelves and their poſteritie out of Covenant by Apoſtaſie. The child that is borne of parents out of Covenant, remaines out of Covenant, unleſſe either the parents, or ſome that are in ſtead of parents, being called of God, give up themſelves and the child unto God, or the child coming to yeares of diſcretion be called into the Covenant in his owne perſon.
Thirdly, Hence it followeth that the holineſſe of the children of beleeving parents, is not neceſſarily internall and reall holineſſe; ſo that it be externall and faederall, it ſufficeth to make them members of the viſible Church. For as of thoſe Corinthians and others that are called Saints, we cannot infallibly gather that all were internally ſanctified, it was ſufficient to make them externall members, that they were both Saints by calling: ſo it is ſufficient to make the children ſo farre holy as to be members of the Church and outwardly in Covenant, if their parents were outwardly in Covenant. What is inwardly wrought, it is not for man to judge.
Now let us ſee what A. R. objecteth to this place of Scripture.
A. R.For anſwer, you lay down ſome grounds: as, Firſt, There is but one Covenant now on foot, which is the Covenant of grace and ſalvation, Heb. 7.22. & 8.13. & 10.9.
Anſw. We grant you this, and more too. Namely, that never ſince Adams fall was there any Covenant, properly ſo called, made with mankind by God, but the Covenant of grace and ſalvation: Where read you of any Covenant of works and damnation?
Secondly, You ſay: That there is but one manner of entering and being in the Covenant, Ioh. 3.3.5.6. Heb. 10.19, 20, 21, 22.
Anſw. True, If you meane being in that Covenant inwardly, ſpiritually, and ſavingly, and the ſame ever was the manner of being and entering into Covenant ſince Adams fall, viz. by Ieſus Chriſt, or regeneration.
Thirdly, You ſay: There is but one holineſſe now acceptable unto God; which is inward, ſpirituall, and in truth, without which no outward obedience, or conformitie to any worſhip is warrantable or acceptable, Ioh. 4.23, 24. Heb. 11.6.
Anſw. If you underſtand it of ſuch warrantableneſſe, as finds acceptation with God in the party performing it, as your latter ſeemes to expreſſe the former: This is not queſtioned nor denied by any that I know. But why doe you limit your propoſitions by the particle [Now,] as if though now outward obedience and conformitie to any ordinance, be not acceptable without inward holineſſe; yet it ſometimes had been? which is utterly untrue, as may appeare, Gen. 4. Pſal. 50. and 51. Eſa. 1. Ier. 6. and almoſt every where.
Now you come directly to anſwer. Hence (ſay you) it followes, that if beleevers children be in Covenant, and have true holineſſe, then they are all ſaved old and young. But all beleevers children are not ſaved, no not of faithfull Abraham himſelfe, Eſa. 10.21. with Rom. 9.27. Therefore the children of beleevers are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor ought to be baptized.
Anſw. You might as well reaſon thus. If Simon Magus, Ananias, and Sapphira, with many other hypocrites, in the Primitive Churches, whom yet the Apoſtles baptized, and called Saints, and faithfull, were in the Covenant, and had this true holineſſe, or were truly Saints; then they muſt needs be all ſaved. But they were not all ſaved. Therefore they were no beleevers or Saints, nor in the Covenant now on foot; and therefore ſhould not have beene baptized. The Apoſtles belike, wanted you to direct and controll them, and ſhew whom they ſhould have baptized, and whom not.
Secondly, I anſwer directly. Though true holineſſe be neceſſarie for ſpirituall and internall being in Covenant, and for eternall ſalvation; yet the outward holineſſe of the party conſiſting in externall being in Covenant, is ſufficient to warrant a Miniſter to baptize; otherwiſe he ſhould never have warrant to baptize: for none knowes the heart, (ſo as to judge of inward holineſſe infallibly) but God.
You adde that we object notwithſtanding all this that you have ſaid, Why may not infants be in the Covenant outwardly, having faederall holineſſe, and in that ſenſe be holy; and ſo to be admitted to the outward ordinance of baptiſme, as infants were unto circumciſion in time of the Law; and in the State of the Iewes? To this you anſwer. That the State or the Church of the Iewes were under the old Covenant and Law, and ſtood not by faith or circumciſion of the heart; as this of the Goſpel doth; but ſtood meerly upon nature, and the circumciſion of the fleſh, and accordingly had their outward and faederall holineſſe and outward cleanſings; all which were aboliſhed with their State, and no ſuch holineſſe or diſtinction is now between any perſons in the world.
Anſw. Secondly, though they were under the old Covenant legally diſpenſed, wherein grace was more obſcurely and ſparingly communicated to Gods people then it is under the Goſpel: yet the old Covenant was a Covenant of grace, which all muſt needs grant, unleſſe they thinke that the Patriarks, Prophets, and that holy nation of the Iews were a graceleſſe people out of favour with God, either not at all ſaved, or ſaved by workes. (For there is no way to be ſaved, but by grace or workes; and no ſalvation by grace, but in a Covenant of grace) But I hope you will not be ſo blaſphemous as to ſay this.
Secondly, If the old Covenant ſtood not by faith (to uſe your phraſe) and circumciſion of the heart, how is it that God promiſeth circumciſion of the heart, Deut. 30.6. and living by faith, Hab. 2.4. and the Prophets call upon the people for circumciſion of the heart, Ier. 4.4. and for faith, Pſal. 37. Eſa. 7. 2 Chron. 20. and that the Apoſtle ſhews, Heb. 11. that under the old Covenant the godly were famous for their faith? Were thoſe promiſes of God, exhortations of the Prophets, and practiſe of thoſe Worthies ſpoken of concerning faith and circumciſion of the hart, more then was comprehended in the Covenant under which Gods people at that time were?
Thirdly, whereas you ſay the Church of the Goſpel doth ſtand on faith and circumciſion of the heart: Is your meaning that there is no Church of the Goſpel, but all that are therein, and profeſſed and acknowledged members thereof, are indued with faith and circumciſion of heart? If ſo; experience of the Scripture, and all Chriſtian Churches, will confute you; ſith ſtill chaffe is mingled with graine, tares with wheat; the children of the wicked one, with the children of the kingdome. Or is your meaning that faith and circumciſed hearts, is required of all in the Church of the Goſpel; and is truly in thoſe that are internall and living members of the ſame? This is granted, and may be ſaid as truly of the Church of the Iewes; and therefore this can make no difference being common to both.
Fourthly, Can you tell what you meane when you ſay, That the old Covenant ſtood onelyonly by nature, and circumciſion of the fleſh? I cannot tell how you are to be interpreted but one of theſe three waies: Either, firſt, that this Covenant was grounded on nature. Or ſecondly, that it promiſed onelyonly naturall or temporall bleſſings. Or thirdly, that it was made with all and onelyonly the naturall ſeed of Abraham: all which are groſſe and notorious errours, openly croſſing the Scriptures. For if you meane that this Covenant was grounded in nature, this is falſe: for God choſe Abraham and Iſrael of free grace and love above all other people, Ioſh. 4. Deut. 7.7, &c. neither did they differ in nature from others. Or ſecondly, if you meane that God onelyonly required of them outward circumciſion and cutting off the naturall foreskin, and promiſed only naturall and temporall bleſſings; this opinion is fitter to be abhorred, then confuted. Or thirdly, if you meane, that to be of the naturall ſeed of Abraham, and to be circumciſed in the fleſh, was ſufficient and neceſſary for being in that Covenant, ſo that their being in Covenant conſiſted in being the naturall ſeed of Abraham; this is as falſe: for firſt, Were not many Proſelytes joyned with the Iſraelites in the ſame Covenant? ſo that to be of Abrahams ſeed was not neceſſary. Secondly, Did not they want circumciſion in the wilderneſſe fourty yeares, and yet remaine in Covenant. Thirdly, Did not Iſhmael and Eſau grow out of Covenant, though the ſeed of Abraham; and ſo ten Tribes ceaſed from being Gods people long before the old Covenant was antiquated; and did not the Prophets ſhew that Legall obſervations were nothing worth without ſinceritie?
Fifthly, though the outward cleanſings and ceremonies of the Law have ceaſed, and ſo that outward & faederall holineſſe be at an end: yet there is an outward and faederall holineſſe of the new Covenant, whereby Chriſtians are diſtinguiſhed from other people. They have their outward Baptiſme and the Lords Supper, prayer in the Name of Chriſt alone, the Word, and profeſſion of the Goſpel, by which they are diſtinguiſhed from unbeleevers. Act. 2.41.42. There are reckoned up: firſt, Baptiſme: ſecondly, the Apoſtles Doctrine: thirdly, Fellowſhip, or Communion with the faithfull: fourthly, breaking Bread: and fifthly, Prayers: as diſtinctive markes of the Church, by which it then was, and to this day is diſtinguiſhed from all other ſocieties whatſoever. 1 Cor. 5.12. There is a diſtinction expreſſed of thoſe that were within the Church, or Covenant, and members of the Courch, and thoſe that were without; whereof theſe were not ſubject to the judgement or cenſure of the Church, thoſe were. But how are theſe diſtinguiſhed? (that the Church may neither goe beyond, nor neglect her office within, her bounds) By inward holineſſe? that none ſees but God, and each mans owne conſcience; and therefore cannot be a note of diſtinction unto men that cannot diſcern the heart. By outward holineſſe of life? Not ſo; for ſome of thoſe that were within, were guilty of more groſſe profaneneſſe then thoſe that were without, as in the ſame Chap. 1 Cor. 5.1. and 11. Therefore there muſt be ſome note of diſtinction, or faederall holineſſe, by which thoſe that were wicked in heart, and life, and yet Saints by calling, and members of the Church, and ſo under the Churches juriſdiction, might be diſcerned (from them that were without) and ſo ſubjected to the Churches cenſure, 1 Cor. 5.11, 12, 13.
Yet you ſay further. There is now onelyonly the new Covenant, which is a covenant of grace and ſalvation, and brings certaine ſalvation to all thoſe that rightly enter into it; which is onelyonly by faith. Hence it is ſaid, Act. 2.47. That the Lord added to the Church daily ſuch as ſhould be ſaved.
Anſw. It is as true that the old Covenant made with the Iewes, was a covenant of grace and ſalvation, which brought certaine ſalvation to all thoſe that rightly entered into it, and that it was onelyonly by faith.Heb. 11. And as for the Scripture you cite, it is ſaid indeed, That the Lord added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved. But it is not ſaid, onelyonly ſuch as ſhould be ſaved were added to the Church; or that all thoſe who were added to the Church were ſaved.
You proceed: And that the holineſſe of children is not meant of any holineſſe in relation to any Church-covenant will appeare further by theſe reaſons. Firſt, that which is an effect of regeneration is not brought to paſſe by generation (though the parents be holy.) But to be of the covenant or kingdome, is the proper effect of regeneration, Ioh. 3.3. without which none can ſee it, (much leſſe be of it) or enter into it. Therefore it cannot be brought to paſſe by generation, though the parents be holy.
Anſw. We ſay not (neither can it follow from our grounds) that the children of Chriſtian parents are in covenant with God by generation, but by vertue of Gods gracious promiſe, and from the nature of the covenant of grace; wherein God is pleaſed to accept parents together with their children for his. Secondly, to be of, or in the covenant outwardly (of which being in covenant we ſpeak, and which is ſufficient to make an externall member of the Church, and give right unto the outward ſeales) you can never prove to be the proper effect of regeneration, untill you have proved that all thoſe who were baptized by Iohn the Baptiſt, and the Apoſtles, and ſo admitted into the covenant as members of the Church, were truly regenerate; which to hold, were to contradict the Scripture.
Your ſecond reaſon is this: Secondly, contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the ſame covenant, in one and the ſelfeſame reſpect. But for one parent to be a beleever, that is of the Church, when the other parent is not, to produce an holy ſeed that is in covenant, 1 Cor. 7.14. and for the other parents to be one a Iew, the other a Babylonian; the one a member of the Church, the other not; to produce an unholy ſeed that is out of covenant, and to be put away both wiſe and all borne by her, as Ezr. 10.3. is a contradiction in one and the ſelfeſame reſpect; and therefore cannot be the effect of one and the ſelfeſame covenant.
Anſw. Not to examine the forme of this Argument, nor to ſtand upon the ſtrangeneſſe of your expreſſions: I conceive I apprehend what you would ſay, and anſwer. It is no contradiction for the ſame covenant to require that the Iewes ſhould caſt away their Babyloniſh wives, and the children which they had by them as unholy, and out of covenant: and yet allow the Primitive Chriſtians, their retaining of their yoke-fellowes; (though unbeleevers; in hope that they might be brought within the covenant, and wonne unto Chriſt) and the retaining of their children, as being already in covenant and holy. I ſay here is no contradiction, for here is not the ſame reſpect, which is neceſſary in contradictions. Firſt, the Iewes were forbidden to take wives of any, but of Abrahams, ſeed and their owne Tribe. Chriſtians are not tied to any Tribe for their yoke-fellowes; which hinders not but the covenant was the ſame with us and them, though ſome circumſtances varied. Secondly, the Iewes took Babyloniſh women; (for I will not contend about the name Babylonian, but give you leave to call theſe ſtrange wives Babylonians) after they themſelves were in covenant with God; which made their marriage with them altogether unlawfull, and their ſeed an unholy, offſpring. But thoſe Corinthians to whom Paul writeth, were married before their calling into covenant with God, as your ſelfe write. 2. Part. pag. 10. And after marriage the one was called to the faith, the other remained unconverted, as may appeare, verſ. 20.21.24.27. ſo that their former marriage being lawfull in it ſelfe, and not forbidden of God: (but rather approved, for marriage even among infidels, as well as eating and drinking is Gods ordinance, neceſſary for the due conſervation of the world) and it not being the unbeleeving yoke-fellows fault that his yokefellow is an unbeleever; the unbeleevers ſinne ſhall not prejudice the beleever, to hinder their poſteritie from the priviledge of faederall holineſſe.
Thirdly, you gather from Exod. 12.48. that conſidering the Iewes Church-State from whence this ſucceſſive holyneſſe and being in Covenant, is concluded to come, doth not admit in any conſideration of any lawfull being of parents, the one a member of the Church, the other not, to produce a lawfull ſeed within the old Covenant; that then ſuch a thing in the new Covenant cannot be lawfully concluded from that rule.
Anſw. That ſcripture Exod. 14.48. doth not neceſſarily require, that both parents whoſe male children ſhould be circumciſed, ſhould become Proſelytes, and ſubmit themſelves to Gods Covenant. It was ſufficient that the man who had principall Authority and power to diſpoſe of his children, ſhould circumciſe his male children, though his wife ſhould refuſe to become a Proſelyte; (for ought that can be gathered from that or any other ſcripture) or the Proſelyte wife (if either ſhe ſhould be forſaken of her husband, or become a widdow, or be permitted of her husband to diſpoſe of her children, though he were never converted) might have given up her ſelfe and her family to the God of Iſraell by circumciſing her males, for it is ſaid the ſtranger (not his yokefellow, or both the parents) ſhall circumciſe his males. So that your reaſons (being diſproved) prove nothing.
You bring us in objecting They are termed holy, and ſo to be eſteemed: to which you anſwer, So were the unbeleeving Iewes, when they were broken off, Rom. 11.16. and ſo is the unbeleeving wife, and yet neither of them to be baptized, for their being termed holy: and therefore neither children for their being termed holy.
Anſw. Neither are the unbeleeving Iewes called holy as unbeleiving, for the Apoſtles calls thoſe Iewes an holy lumpe and holy branches (not that were rejected through unbeleefe, but) that had been, and were to be converted to the faith and ſaved, as is apparent by the coherence: for whom he calls holy here, Rom. 11.16. he ſpeaks of their fulneſſe (or full and generall converſion) verſ. 12. and v. 15. he ſpeakes of their converſion which ſhalbe life from the dead, and ſaith that they ſhalbe ſaved, v 26. So that it is evident that he calls the Iewes holy, not in reſpect of the unbeleevers which were broken off and diſcovenanted; but of their holy anceſtors, and thoſe whoſe fulneſſe ſhould be a glorious inriching of the Gentiles, whoſe receiving ſhould be life from the dead, and who ſhould be ſaved and obtaine mercy. And ſo they are called holy, as a people conſidered for the future to be taken again into Covenant, and to have right to the ſeale of the Covenant.
Secondly, Neither is the unbeleeving wife called holy in this place, indeed ſhe is ſaid to be ſanctified to the husband, ſo that he hath an holy and comfortable uſe of her as of other temporall bleſſings: But to be ſanctified for ſuch an uſe or to ſuch a perſon, differeth farre from being holy.
You bring us in here demanding, what holyneſſe then is meant to be in children; and anſwer, not that holyneſſe which accompanies faith, and that only is availeable, to the admittance unto the ſtate of the goſpell, and to have right to baptiſme.
Anſ. Becauſe you have a good faculty, in repeating the ſame things againe and againe, and denying without proofe whatſoever makes againſt you; I will be content to caſt away ſome more time in anſwering you, though the ſame for ſubſtance that hath been ſaid; and reply: If you meane that holyneſſe which accompany faith, vertuall or actuall, is only available to internall admittance into the ſtate of the Goſpell, ſo as to be made living and reall members of the Church: we aſſent to this aſſertion. But the queſtion is not now; who is a true and ſpirituall Member of the Church, and infalliblely admitted to the ſpirituall and ſaving benefits that Chriſt hath purchaſed for his Church? But who is an externall Member and may be admitted to the outward ſeale? No queſtion, Iohn the Baptiſt and Chriſts Diſciples, admitted many to baptiſme, of whoſe ſaving faith yet they were not undoubtedly aſſured.
Wheras you goe about largly to ſhew, That in the ſtate of the Iewes, and old Covenant ſome were faederally and outwardly holy, and ſome uncleane: But now that all ſuch diſtinctions are taken away, and that the Apoſtle now meant not any ſuch holyneſſe, for beleevers children to have, neither is there now any ſuch kind of holyneſſe in the world; neither is there any other kind of holyneſſe, ſave only that true holyneſſe which accompanies the new creature available to baptiſme: this is the ſumme of your ſpeach, wherunto I Anſwer. It hath ſufficiently been ſhewed before, that there is a federall holyneſſe in the new Covenant or Chriſtian Church, aſwell as there was in the Church of the Iewes. Neither doth your long diſcourſe or many abuſed ſcriptures prove any thing to the contrary. To repeat what was ſaid before. Whence was the Church of the Corinthians holy, or a Congreation of ſaints, (ſith there were ſo many really profane and carnall amongſt them) but from federall holyneſſe, by which they were diſtinguiſhed from them that were without; though ſome in the Church were more notorious for vice, then thoſe that were without? whence were the Hebrews called holy brethren, but becauſe they were partakers of the heavenly calling; though ſome were ſo faſtned to the Ceremonies,Heb 3.2. and inclined to backſliding, that the Apoſtle uſeth ſharp and ſevere language towards them ch. 6.10. and 12? How is it ſaid that they had been ſanctified by the blood of the Covenant, that afterwards trampled on the Sonne of God by apoſtaſy, accounting the blood of the Covenant profane, and doing deſpite to the ſpirit of grace: if men may not in the ſtate of the Goſpell, have a federall holyneſſe, without inward holyneſſe that accompanies the new creature and ſaving faith? So 1 Pet. 2.9.10. the Apoſtle calls the Chriſtians to whom he wrote, a choſen generation, a royall prieſthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, a people of God, that had obtained mercy. Muſt we think that all theſe (to whom Peter wrote) were undoubtedly indued with true faith, and holyneſſe that accompanies the new creature; ſo that there was no hypocrite amongſt them? that we have no ground for. How then are theſe glorious titles beſtowed upon them all? By vertue (doubtleſſe) of Gods calling and their outward accepting of Gods Covenant; though there was but a part only amongſt thoſe Churches, to whom theſe clogies properly belonged, for there were tares among the wheate.