Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII.
Exercitat. §. 3. The third Argument from the parity of grace in the New Teſtament to that in the old examined.THe third Argument is thus framed.
If Baptiſme be not granted to the Infants of Beleevers, then the Grace of God will be more reſtrained in the New Teſtament than in the Old: but this is not to be affirmed; therefore Baptiſme is to be granted to Infants of Beleevers.
Anſw. 1. If this Argument be of any weight, it will prove that the grace of God is ſtraitned, becauſe we give not the Lords Supper to children, to whom the Paſſeover was given, as appears by that which was ſaid before.
2. The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments, neither do Sacraments give grace by the work done, and therefore grace is not reſtrained, though Sacraments be never granted, grace is not denyed to an excommunicated perſon, who is inhibited the Lords Supper, the grace of God is free, whether we underſtand it of the divine affection, or the effects of it; nor can be made larger or narrower by our act.
3. Yet it is not abſurd to ſay, that in reſpect of ſome priviledges, the grace of God is more contracted in the New Teſtament then in the Old: For inſtance, no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family, that out of it Chriſt ſhould be born; no man beſides Abraham is called The Father of the Faithfull; no woman beſides one, The mother of Chriſt; nevertheleſſe, ſimply the grace of God is ſaid to be larger in the New Teſtament, by reaſon of the revelation of the Goſpell imparted to all Nations, the more abundant communication of the holy Spirit, and more plain manifeſtation of the myſtery of the Goſpel: I would have it weighed, whether thoſe phraſes of the Apoſtle, Rom. 11.21. as the naturall branches, verſ. 24. The wild Olive by Nature, were graffed contrary to Nature. Theſe which be naturall branches, do not ſufficiently imply, That the Jews children by their birth had a priviledge beyond the Gentiles children.
In the frame of this third Argument, from Gen. 17. Firſt,Animadver. theſe words are very prejudiciouſly left out in the major or 1 Propoſition. Then the grace of God [*The words unjuſtly left out. in the adminiſtration of the firſt Seal] will be more reſtrained in the New Teſtament then in the Old. 2. The word Grace is diſadvantageouſly put for Priviledge.
To Maſter T. his Anſwer as he hath layd the Argument; and firſt to his firſt Anſwer: [That we give not the Lords Supper to children to whom the Paſſeover was given:] We Reply.
1. That he ſpeaks not ad idem to the point in hand. For this doth not take off the ſtraitning the New Teſtament above the old in the firſt ſeale.
2ly. Our argument proceeds not of Gods limiting, but of mens ſtraitning; we diſpute not againſt God, but againſt Anabaptiſts ſtreitning where God hath not limited.
3ly. Mr T. in his 1 Section proclaimes the Latitude of the New Teſtament above the Old divers times: but here he evens them again, and tells us we have but Quid pro quo, if we have got in the firſt Sacrament, we have loſt it in the ſecond.
To his 2. Anſwer, of Gods grace not tyed to Sacraments.
1. Here ſeemes to be an eluding of the true intent of our Argument, by the equivocal acception of the word Grace: for if any forme it of Gods Grace being reſtrained, it is rather meant of Grace ſignifying the favour of God manifeſted to us, then of Grace ſignifying the Graces of Gods Spirit inherent in us.
2. Though Mr. T. ſaith here Grace is not tyed to Sacraments; yet the whole deſigne of his Exercitation is ſo to tye them together, that Sacraments without manifeſtation of grace are nothing with him.
3. Therefore we retort, That where the firſt Sacrament is more inhibited, and reſtrained, there the favour of God, and the gifts of grace are leſſe to be expected. And therefore though we cannot ſtraighten Gods grace in it ſelfe; yet we do, unwarrantably, the comfortable aſſurance thereof, when we refuſe the ſign that God hath given us, of that he hath or will give.
To his 3. Anſwer. [That in ſome priviledges the grace of God is more contracted in the New Teſtament than in the Old, &c.]
1. We Reply: If we ſpeak of ſome particular priviledges, it is a priviledge of the New Teſtament, not to have them; to wit, any of the Jewiſh Ceremonies. Or that there ſhould be another family beſides Abrahams line of whom Chriſt ſhould be born.
2. We Reply that Mr T. hath matched one great Old Teſtament priviledge with alike in the New, if he had but placed it right among the New, and not among the Old. Namely, [that Mary the mother of Chriſt in the New Teſtament, anſwers to the promiſe of him to come of Abraham in the Old.] But if we ſpeak of the priviledge of the New Teſtament in generall, it muſt be more large than that of the Old, or elſe God would never have found ſuch fault with the Old, as in ſtead thereof to make a New, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8. Obſerve in the margent on the 6. verſe, Covenant is rendred Teſtament by our tranſlation.
3. Upon Mr T. his confeſſion, That ſimply the grace of God is ſaid to be larger in the New Teſtament by reaſon; firſt, of the Revelation of the Goſpell to all Nations: ſecondly, of more abundant Communication of the holy Spirit: thirdly, of more plain Manifeſtation of the Myſtery of the Goſpell: we retort then, ſure beleevers in the New Teſtament have leſſe reaſon to have a meaner opinion of their children to reject them farther off from the 1 Seal, then they of the Old; there being no precept for that rejection.
The Parent knows more, receives more grace now generally, by Mr. T. his intimation; why then muſt all this abundance of revelations, and effuſion of ſpirit fall beſides our children, that none ſhould be ſanctified in their tender years as Samuel, Iohn Baptiſt, and the little ones, Mar. 10. To that Rom. 11.21, 24. We ſay we have conſidered it, and adviſed with learned Authors, yet neither they nor I can ſee more then this, That the Jews of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks were naturall children (taken in its naturall ſence) of Abraham, to whom immediately was the great priviledge, Rom. 3.2. Of the Oracle of God, and his promiſe was immediately vivâ voce, by expreſſe words made and delivered Gen. 17. and ſo they had the priviledge alſo to heare ſooner of it; and it continued a long time in their line, in the former ages of the World; and ſo had the 1. conveighance of the 1. Seale to them and their children. But Firſtneſſe in order or time doth not give any more ſpirituall right to an Ordinance. Act. 13.46. Nor is it the naturalneſſe (ſee Iſmael and his poſterity) but the ſpiritualneſſe of the father (that he be a Believer) that gives priviledge to the child. And therefore we conclude that faith being the condition of this Covenant Gen. 17. to Abraham (as Mr Tombes confeſt afore. §. 1.) and ſo thereupon the 1. Seal was given to his naturall borne infants; So now a believing Parent by faith being of the ſeed of Abraham (Gal. 3. Rom. 4.) the 1. Seal by the ſame proportion is due to his naturall borne infants. And this is all the heft we can find in this place upon weighing of it.
For Mr Tombes his justice in denying the major, or conſequence, or minor of this argument, I leave to the candid Reader to judge from what we have ſaid.
The ſumme of the Anſwer to the Arguments,Exercitat. §. 3. Conclu. drawn from Gen. 17.17. is this: The Sacraments are not to be adminiſtred according to rules taken from our reaſonings, but Gods appointment. Rightly doth Mr Ball forenamed, in the Book forenamed, Poſit. 3. & 4. page 38. ſay▪ But in whatſoever Circumciſion and Baptiſme, do agree or differ, we muſt look to the inſtitution, and neither ſtretch it wider, nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath made it, for he is the inſtitutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleaſure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be adminiſtred, how they agree, and wherein they, differ, in all which we muſt affirme nothing, but what God hath taught us, and as hee hath taught us.
We cloſe with you taking reaſonings for ſuch as are meerly depending upon humane wit,Animadver. but if they be ſuch as are clearly deduced (according to our beſt light) from the Word of God; we can conceive no otherwiſe of them then as ſuch as hold out Gods appointment. And ſuch we truſt, have been our reaſonings with you Mr. T. on this 17. of Gen. where we find an affirmative precept for giving the 1. Seal to Believers Infants; but we never found, nor you, nor the Anabaptiſts for us yet (that we know off) any negative precept that it ſhould be denyed to them: though we have ſeen and heard many of the Anabaptiſts own reaſonings.
To that of Mr Ball, Mr Ball himſelfe ſhall anſwer in the very ſame page afore quoted.
Circumciſion and Baptiſme (ſaith he) are both Sacraments of divine inſtitution, and ſo they argue in the ſubſtance of the things ſignified, the PERSONS TO WHOM they are to be adminiſtred, and the order of adminiſtration, if the right proportion be obſerved. As Circumciſion ſealed the entrance into the Covenant, the righteouſneſſe of faith, and circumciſion of the heart; ſo doth Baptiſme much more clearly. As Abraham and his houſhold, and the Infants of believing Jews were to be circumciſed; ſo the faithfull, their families, and their ſeed are to be baptized. Circumciſion was but once applyed by Gods appointment, and the ſame holds in Baptiſme according to the will and good pleaſure of God: So far he: Upon which by and by follows the concluſion which Mr T. quoted. By which we may plainly perceive in what ſence Mr Ball ſpake thoſe words quoted by Mr T. (namely for us not againſt us) what his opinion is in the Queſtion; and what his ſence is of the 17. of Gen. To wit that therein is an inſtitution and precept for baptizing believers Infants.