Anti-Paedobaptism, Section 10
SECT. X.
Animadversions on the 2d chap. of the 2d part of Mr. Cobbets Just vindication, whereby is answered what he further endeavours to draw from Rom. 11. 16. &c. for infant-baptism.
TO the first section I say, that I Grant that the Jews and Gentiles collectively taken for a great or greatest, or chiefest part of the people, are said to be broken off and ingraffed: yet no necessity of understanding these acts as meant of removing from, or admission to outward feder all and Church-ordinances, and privileges of the visible Church, but may be and are meant of breaking of from, or ingraffing into the invisible Church. And though it be frequent to understand such collective terms, as nation, people, world, house, generation, &c. as particularly Rom. 10. 19, 21. Rev. 11. 17. & 14. 6. Mat. 16. 4. John 12. 19. Acts 2. 36. onelyonly of persons of age of discretion, yet I do not deny that infants may be said to be broken off and ingraffed Rom. 11. 17. &c. and that the ingraffing of the Jews that shall be is by vertue of the Covenant God made with the Fathers, and yet this makes nothing to the admitting infants to an initiall seal, which is not by vertue of the Covenant as the proper immediate cause of right to it, but by vertue of the institution to those to whom it appoints it.
To the 2d, that which is said, that the root and first fruits, Rom. 11. 16. are not onelyonly Abraham, but also Isaac and Iacob, I conceive is not proved. Abraham is called a root not only in respect of natural propagation, but also in respect of spirituall, as being the Father of the faithfull, which term I conceive is no where given to any but to Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. 12. 16. Nor do I know how the Gentiles are said to partake of the root, v. 17. to be born by the root, v. 18. but in that they follow Abrahams faith, and are fixed upon him as an example, by believing as he did. I deny not, that the Covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: but I conceive that the making of the Covenant with them was not the reason of the denomination of the root, but propagation and descent, which being onelyonly appropriate to Abraham both wayes as a Matural father of the Israelites, and Spiritual father of believers, the term [root] can I think be meant onelyonly of him.
'Tis true, Abraham onelyonly cannot be called [Fathers v. 28.] but then it is not proved that these Fathers are the same with the root v. 17, 18. or that the reason of the term [root] is from the Covenant: which if it were it might as well be meant of David as of the other Patriarchs: whence the things promised in Christ are called the sure mercies of David, If. 55. 3. Luke 1. 69. and for whose sake they are said to be beloved as well as Abraham and Isaac and Iacob. It is proper enough to call Abraham the first fruits, Rom. 11. 16. it is in the Greek foreign first fruit in the singular number, which is applied only to Christ a singular person, 1 Cor. 15. 20. to Epaenetus, Rom. 16. 5. And yet if it were in the plural noting one individual basket, sheffe, or what ever other things were presented as first fruits, it might be applied to one person as well as it is applied to a collective in the singular, 1 Cor. 16. 15.
To the 3d it is supposed that the fatness of the olive cannot be meant of spiritual saving graces; for they flow not immediately from the olive, that is the Church visible or invisible, nor is it theirs but Christs to convey. But this reason might as well prove that Abraham Isaac and Jacob are not the root in respect of the Covenant: for they could not make the Covenant, or convey Covenant-privileges: yea by this reason neither shall the fatness of the olive note external federall interest or right to the initial seal, or Church-privileges. For though these are given to them in the Church, yet they are given by God or Christ by whom the Covenant is made, and confirmed: the sign may be used by the administrator, the right and interest which is the fatness according to Mr. Cobbet, as I conceive, is from God, Therefore I conceive it is called the olives fatness as the subject, not as the efficient, and in that sense it may as well be applied to spirituall graces as outward privileges. Nor is in a Metaphor such exactness to be expected, as that because from the olive the fatness flows into the branches, so spirituall graces must from the Church to the members, no more than in the Metaphor of a head and membets there is a necessity that some members give inlightning, quickning abilities, as the heart and liver give vitall spirits and blood. Nor is Abraham the less a root or Father of the faithfull, because he begets not by infusion but only is a patern to believers.
To the 4th in the six conformities there's little but dictates upon falfe suppositions and palpably impertinent allegations of Scripture. In the first the Conclusion might be granted concerning infants, withou any hurt to my cause, being understood as I conceive is meant Rom: 11. 17. 19. of inserting into the invisible Church by giving faith according to election. But if understood of ingraffing into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, or as he calls it page 160 a Church act, the Major is not true, nor is there a word Rom. 11. 17, 19. to prove it. And though the Minor were granted in Mr. Cobbets sense, yet the texts are never a one of them to the purpose. The first Isa. 44. 3. speaks of powring his Spirit on the seed of Jacob, which is not all one with admission to an outward ordinance: nor true of all their buds and sprigs as Mr. Cobbet calls them. The 2d Isai. 18. 5. is a prophecy of cutting off the Ethopians young ones by the Assyrians, as the New Annotations explain it. What is this to prove the Iews infants were inserted into the visible Church by an outward ordinance? The next Isai. 61. 9. is as impertinent, not speaking of infants, but such as shall be known among the Gentiles and among the people, so that all that see them should acknowledge them to be a seed which the Lord hath blessed, which cannot be understood of all infants of the Iews who are not so known or blessed, but is truly understood of the elect converted, called Priests of the Lord, v. 6. the New Annot. The seed of the Church which shall so thrive and prosper as others shall take notice of Gods blessings on them, Acts 5. 13. The last is Psal. 128. 3. which speaks not of new-born infants, but such as sit about a table, nor of any admission into the visible Church by an outward ordinance, but of sitting at table in common meals.
In the 2d conformity, The Conclusion might be granted understood of the inserting the Apostle means Rom. 11. 17, 19. but understood of infants and their ingraffing by a Church-ordinance into the visible Church, it is denied. The Major may be granted, the Minor is to be denied understanding it of the breaking off meant Rom. 11. 17. &c. The proof from this, that the Gentiles are spoken of collectively, therefore their infants meant, is answered already in answering Sect 1. of that chapter.
In the 3d. If the cutting off from Church estate be meant of cutting off by an outward ordinance, to which ingraffing by an outward ordinance answers, then I know not what outward ordinance the cutting off should be by but Excommunication, and so the Major is false, and the Minor is false, speaking not de facto, which is not in question, but de jure, a child is not Excommunicated because his parents are so; yea Mr. Cotton way of N. England, ch. 4. sect. 6. acknowledgeth Godly learned Divines hold that the children of Excommunicate persons should be baptized, though he think otherwise. If the cutting off be meant of that which is by Gods hardning or blinding according to reprobation, as was indeed the case of the Jews, Rom. 11. 17, 20, 21, 22. and might be, was and is the case of Gentiles at this day, it is not denied but God usually cuts off children when the parents apostatize from the invisible Church, and consequently from the visible. But this is meant of another kind of cutting off than Mr. Cobbet would have (which stands in direct opposition to ingraffing by baptism, or admission into Church-Communion) and so cannot infer the Conclusion Mr. Cobbet would gather, that the Gentile-parent and infant-child were graffed into the visible Church of Christians by the outward ordinance of baptism,
In the 4th The Major, Minor, and Conclusion are granted in the sense the Apostle means by remaining in the Root, and abiding in the Covenant-estate by the parents and childrens believing in Christ: but if understood of remaining and abiding in the visible Church by an initial seal belonging to children, whether believers or no, even in infancy, (which is Mr. Cobbets business to prove) neither of the propositions is true, nor is any such thing in the least manner hinted in the Apostles words, but it seems to me a meer dotage to imagine it. As for Mr. Cobb…ts question, How come believing Jews children being once in Covenant in their ancestors, yea, and parents right also, and not being then of years to reject Christ at present, to be cut off? I answer, Mr. Cobbets question is expressed in such language as is used by paedobapt…sts, but the Scripture useth it not: which because it deceives themselves and others, without disparagement to the worth of the users, I reject as a piece of late-minted gibberish, by which is insinuated, as if denying infants baptism were all one as to cut them off from the Covenant of grace, and that infants of believing parents are eo ipso in the Covenant of grace, and that the Covenant of grace must needs instate them in a title to baptism in the Christian Church. Which Hypotheses with many mote, Mr. Cobbet with othe…s have not yet proved, though he spends many leaves in his indistinct dictating way to prove them in his Iust vindic. part. 2. ch. 1. which so farre as I find any thing needful of further examination than what I shall do in examining others w…itings, shall be examined by me, when I examin the paedobaprists suppositions about the Covenant and seal, as they call it, in my review of the dispute. But for present, laying aside his darkning terms, the question plainly expressed is, whereas Iewish male-infants were circumcised, how come the Iewish infants of believing parents to be denied baptism? The answer is: By the taking away of circumeision and appointing baptism onelyonly to disciples of Christ who profess faith in him.
In the 5th there is the same kind of mistake as in the former, as if the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. &c. were meant of admitting into the visible Church by an initial seal: whereas it is manifestly meant of ingraffing by faith into the invisible church according to election, not a word of any ingrassing but of believers, nor the least hint of ingraffing any barely by the parents faith. That because the ingraffing again the Iews, is meant in a collective sense, therefore infants must be included, is a dictate without proof, the falsity whereof is shewed before. That Isai. 61. 9. and 65. 23. are impertinently alleged to prove infants title to baptism is shewed before. The text Isai. 65. 20. is misalleged by Mr. Cobbet and Mr. Cotton in the beginning of his Dialogue, and others, to prove infan…s to be disciples, it being a prophecy of the long life of the Iews after their return from captivity, rightly explained by the New Annot. on that place thus, He that is now a child shall attain to those years ere he die, and is to the same purpose as the prophecy of Zachariah ch. 8. 4, 5. Ezech. …7. …0. &c. is an express prophecy of the redeeming out of captivity, and uniting the Iews and the 10 Tribes, not a word that hath any shew of proof for infant-baptism; Ier. 30. 19, 20. is a prophecy of the flourishing estate of the Iews upon their return from captivity; Acts 2. 38, 39. is nothing to the purpose, as hath been proved in my Exercitation, Examen, Apol…gy, and more fully in this Disquisition, s. 5. Nor is there any thing either …n Mr. M. or Mr. C. or any other I have met with, but meer dictates to prove either that the promise is v. 39. mentioned to shew that the right to baptism follows bare interest in the promise, or that they were considered as believers in…itled to baptism, and intitling thereto their children in that speech according to the state they were in, in that instant when Peter spake those words, or that the promise doth belong to the infant-children whether called or no. But notwithstanding all that hitherto is said, it stands yet good which I have alleged, 1. That v. 39. is not a proof of their right to baptism, but a motive encouraging them to repent and to be baptized into the name of Christ. 2. That [the promise is] is as much as the promise is fulfilled, as the parallel place Acts. 13. 32, 33. shews. 3. That it is said [to them] in their dayes, and for them, not as then believers, but as Iews of Ierusalem to whom Christ was first sent and exhibited, Acts 3. 26. 4. That it neither is said to belong to them or their children or any afar off without calling, and so not to their infants as the infants of believers. Ezech. 16. 20, 21, 36. the Iews children are said to be born to him and his children, not in a sense common to all believers children, but in a respect proper to the Iews; if as Iunius in his note on v. 21. which he compares with Ierem: 20. 26. it be meant of their first born because they were Gods by special title, or any other of their children Daughters as well as Sons, as v. 20. shews, yet in either it was in a sense peculiar to the Iews, whose children were Gods in a sense that proselytes children were not Gods, being brought out of Egypt, as is apparent from Levit. 25. 40. 46. &c. and their land called his land, Hos. 9. 3. in a peculiar respect, and therefore it is impertinently alleged both by Mr. Cobbet here and elsewhere often, and by the Assembly in their Confession of faith, ch. 25. art. 2. for believing Gentiles infants Church-membership. The conceit of Divines on Cantic. 6. 11. 13. of baptisms being the navel of the Church for infants is pretty, and may be sit for a Sermon to illustrate by it a thing otherwise proved, but not for a proof.
In the 6th there is in like manner nothing but dictates upon mistakes, as if the fatness of the olive were Church-privileges, and these were Communicated from parents to children, as sap from greater boughs to lesser sprigs, and that if this were not, it would be poor and sad with believers, contrary to Rom. 11. 12. contrary to natures law, and the law of the tenure of the Covenant of grace. To all which as containing no new proof, I need say no more than what is said by me here and elsewhere.
In the 5… section he answers objections, and first he answers to that which I allege in my Exercit. s. 5. page 10. that federal holiness of it self intitles not to baptism, because Rom. 11. 16. the elect Israelites yet uncalled are federally holy, and yet not to be baptized, and therefore federal holiness (if that were granted to be meant 1 Cor. 7. 14.) would not intitle of it self infants to baptism. To this he answers, That the passage is meant of the body of the Jews collectively taken, yet not distributively meant of all parts of the Nation, but of the choicer part: which indeed takes not at all away the force of the objection, which urgeth that even the choicer part elect and in Covenant, yet either unborn or uncalled, are federally holy, but not baptizable. Therefore he flies to another distinction of federally holy, seminally and actually: in the former a person may be federally holy, yet not baptizable, but in the later he is; and so are the children of believers actually federally holy, and have a right to baptism: And then sayes it follows not, persons not in being which are federally holy only semnially and intentionally they have not actual Church-right, nor can actually be baptized; therefore persons existing and living which are federally holy actually they may not be baptized. To which I reply, 1. Mr. Cobbet proves not that 1 Cor. 7. 14. must be understood of federal holiness actual, and not intentional or semnial. Tertullian understands it as if it were as much as designati sanctitatis. Mr. Cobhet should have told us when persons are federally holy actually in his sense, whether he means it to be as soon as they are existent, or as soon as they are called. If the former be meant, then it will follow the elect Jews, who shall hereafter be called, are federally holy actually as soon as they are in being; which doubtless will be many years afore they are called, and so professed infidels descended from professed unbelievers, which if granted, then when they are professed unbelievers, they are actually federally holy, and yet not baptizable, unless a professed infidel be to be baptized. If the later be said, that then persons are actually federally holy, and to be baptized when they are called, I agree. But then it will follow, though not as Mr. Cobbet forms the argument, yet thus. A person existent and federally holy actually may not have right to baptism till called, therefore a child may be holy federally actually, and yet not baptizable till called, and consequently federal holiness of persons existent will not prove right to baptism till they be called; the contrary whereto is supposed by them that inferre the baptizability of persons existent from their actuall federall holiness though yet uncalled.
The 2d objection is not mine, yet because it is not well answered by Mr. Cobbet I shall not let it pass. The objection is to this purpose. The Jews onelyonly are naturall branches of that root, Rom. 11. 16. not the Gentiles, therefore if Church-privileges be communicated by natural propagation from the root, there the Gentiles children cannot by that passage challenge them as not comming by naturall descent from Abraham. The answer is, that they are however in the root by grace and proportion. To which I reply, to be in the root by proportion is a new phrase. I know of no other way for Gentiles children to be in the root, to wit, Abraham, but by grace, believing as he did, and so the objection is strengthened, that no Gentiles children are in the root there, till they be believers. As for that which is said that the Jew branches were broken off that the Christian collective Gentiles might by grace be graffed in sc. in their stead, Rom. 11. 19. I grant it; but for the inference made in these words, Look then what Covenant and Church-right the Jewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way, the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace, there is nothing that I know of in the text, or in the Antecedent, to infer this Conclusion. The text though it speak of the Gentiles collectively as ingraffed, yet as Mr. Cobbet himself confesseth, it is not meant distributively of all the parts, but only of the choicer, and so no other are ingraffed in the stead of the Iews but the choicer part, to wit, believers: nor is the ingraffing any other than by faith as is expressely declared v. 20. and this is not by any hereditary way, but by grace of election or mercy, v. 28, 29, 30, 31. Nor is it true that what Covenant and Church-right the Iewish parents had for their children in an hereditary way, the same hath the inchurched Gentile for his children through grace: For the Iewish parents had the Covenant of the land of Canaan for their children in an hereditary way, Gen. 17. 8. but so have not the in churched Gentiles for their children; the Church-right of male-infant Circumcision, of the Passeover, &c. the Iewish parents had for their children, which the Gentiles have not. Besides (which Mr. Cobbet foresaw) this were to make way for all children of Christian Gentile-nations to have right to Church-privileges: Nor is this inconvenience prevented by this answer, It sufficeth that thus farre it holds, that as all and onelyonly Church-members children were Ecclesiastically priviledged among the Iews, so all and onelyonly Church-members children are Ecclesiastically privileged among the Gentiles. For 1. It is nothing but a dictate which is said. He saith it sufficeth that thus farre it holds, but he doth not prove it thus farre holds, nor doth he give any reason why it should not hold further, yea if he do not revoke his universal proposition, and unsay his own speech [what Covenant and Church-right the Iewish children had, the same Gentile believers children have] he must acknowledge that it holds further, and acknowledge a nationall Church and Church-right, which Mr. Cotton in his way of New-England denies, and others of that judgement in point of Church-government. 2. Nor is is true that all and only Church-members children were Ecclesiastically privileged among the Iews, sith the children of Israelites who were Apostates and Idolaters had the privilege of Circumcision and the Passeover, as the children of Ahab, Manasseth, &c. Nor is it true that all and onelyonly Church-members children are Ecclesiastically privileged among the Gentiles. For the children of those that lived and died in the worship of Idols, in witch-craft, &c. have had right to baptism, &c. upon their conversion, as well as Christians children.
The answer also to the third objection, which is [that the Gentiles are ingraffed in a way contrary to nature, and therfore this is nothing to the federal estate of Gentile-infants as comming of believing parents, and so in a way of nature] is insufficient. For neither the first converted Gentiles, nor their children, though their ancestors for many generations were believers, can be said to be natural branches in the Apostles sense, but besides nature. For it is clear that the term natural branches is appropriate to the Iews: all Gentile-believers and their children are said to be ingraffed besides nature, that is besides the naturall course of descent from Abraham by natural generation.
The answer also to the 4th objection is insufficient. For though the Gentiles that stand by faith are collectively taken, yet according to Mr. Cobbet himself, the Nation of the Gentiles is said to be ingraffed onelyonly in respect of the choicer part, which are believers. And when he saith the faith mentioned is not a bare personall faith respecting this or that Gentile, but the Covenant of grace as it was held out to them and theirs jointly, and not barely as made to themselves personally, but as in reference to families and kinreds of the earth so imbracing it: this is nothing to the objection, which is not from the object of faith by which persons are ingraffed, that it is a personall promise, and therefore none but such believers are ingraffed, but this, that those onelyonly are said to be ingraffed who believe, and therefore not infants, who believe not the promise either personal, or as in reference to families and kinreds of the earth so imbracing it. Yet that men may not swallow down Mr. Cobbets dictates without heed I would warn Readers to observe, 1. That it is dangerous to say faith ingraffs, which looks to Gods Covenant as in reference to families and kinreds of the earth so imbracing it. For thereby the object of faith as ingraffing is made the Covenant not simply, but as imbraced by kinreds, so as to believe that kinreds imbrace it is made necessary to ingraffing faith. Then suppose a person should believe the Covenant, and know not any else that imbraceth it, he should not be ingraffed by his faith; then onelyonly knowledge of the Gospel is not sufficient to make known the object of faith, but narrations of others facts are necessary; then the first converted Gentile, as for instance Cornelius, could not have ingraffing faith, for then the families of the earth did not embrace the Covenant, with many more such absurdities. 2. That he saith, the unbelief of the Iews for which they were broken off, was not barely the rejecting of the Covenant of grace as made to themselves personally, but as it was held out in Christ to them and theirs jointly. Which if true, then suppose a Iew should have rejected Christ and the promise of grace as personally made to him, he should not have been cut off for this unless he rejected it also as jointly made to him and his; on the other side, suppose Christians believe in Christ and the promise of grace as made to them personally, but not as held out in Christ to them and theirs jointly, they should be by this doctrine not ingraffed but cut off. For my part I have said often, and still say, it is a new Gospel that the Covenant of grace in Christ is made to a believer & his naturall seed, nor do I find it in any of the texts named by Mr. Cobbet, Ier. 31. 1. Acts 3. 25. Acts 13. 46, 47. Mat. 21. 41, 42, 43, 44. Rom. 9. 31, 32, 33. and 10. to the end. Rom. 10. 21. with 11. 1. &c. & v. 20. For though I find in these texts terms collective, yet I have learned from Mr. Cobbet to understand them distributively onelyonly of the choicer part, which the passages themselves, for many of them, shew onelyonly to be meant of believers or elect persons, and so the Apostle expounds the nations to be blessed, Gal. 3. 8. of them that are of the faith of Abraham, v. 9. And whereas Mr. Cobbet saith, it is a gross mistake that none are subjects of the lump, Rom. 11. 16. but elect ones, nor any branches which were not such by faith in Christ, I presume I have proved it in my Apology page 67. &c. to be no mistake at all; which I have vindicated from Mr. Gs. and Mr. …s. objections here, that then some of the invisible Church should be broken off.
The 5th objection recites the words of my Examen, and in answering it, Mr. Cobbet endeavours to overthrow my sense, 1. He objecteth that the branches broken off were really in Christ, because they that came in were in the place of the broken off; therefore if the broken off were not really in, neither were the ingraffed. To which I answer, waving the dispute about the rendring foreign Rom. 11. 17. and allowing the reading [for them.] If [them] do referre to the branches broken off, then it doth not note that place which they had, but which they should regularly in course have had if they had not by unbelief been broken of. If [them] do referre to the nation of the Iews, then the meaning is, the Gentiles now ingraffed were in the place which the nation of the Jews had in a former age, though now in that age that nation was branches broken off. 2. That the branches broken off are said to be partakers with them of the root and fatness of the olive tree. I answer. The term [foreign fellow or joint-partaker, if it referre to the branches broken off, it doth not intimate that the partaking was such as they had, but might have had if they had stood by faith in the root; if to the Iewish nation, they were partakers in the branches of a former age. 3. That Abraham, Isaac and Iacob were Fathers of the visible Church. Answer. I find not any evident ground to make any other than Abraham the root, who is the Father of the faithfull, and so of the invisible church of true believers by his exemplary faith, no where said to be Father of the visible church. 4. That the fatness cannot be meant of saving graces, but Church-ordinances, because the former are not derived from the Church, but the later. To this I answered before: both are in the Church as the subject, neither from the Church as the cause: spirituall graces are said to be the olives fatness as the subject, though not as the cause of them. My words alleged by Mr. Cobbet out of my Examen page 106. do not prove that I confess the fatness of the olive to be onelyonly of Church-privileges, (which is denied by me page 68.) yet I conceiving the olive to be meant of the People as well as the Church, said they were branches of the olive by birth, in which I confess I spake not so inconsiderarely as I hope I should do now having better I conceive understood the text by much discussing of it. I have now fully ventilated that text, omitting nothing of moment about clearing of it, that hath occurred to me; and I hope Mr. M. will remember his promise never to urge this text more for ingraffing children with parents by an initial seal into the visible Church, to which it is impertinent, and others also will desist from the like urging it hereafter. However I have done my work about this text, I hasten to the other part of my present task to shew that 1 Cor. 7. 14 is not meant of Covenant-holiness or state of separation to God derived to infant children from the faith of one parent believing, whereby they might be intitled to baptism.