Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth
John Flavel 1630?–1691London: printed for M. Wolton, 1690
[28], 140 p. · 32k words · Wing F1205A · ESTC R218689
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
(3.) Mr. Allen's next Argument, mentioned by you, pag. 5. is taken from Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. Whence he argues against your Objection of the Incapacity of Infants for Baptism, That if they are capable of Interest or Membership in the Kingdom of Heaven, or Church, they are equally capable of the Sign or Cognizance, which is Baptism.
To this you reply three things: (1.) That it remains to be proved, that these little Children were Infants, and not grown Boys or Girls, capable of making an actual ⟨p. 88⟩profession of their Faith in Christ. (2.) 'Tis doubtful whether they were for present in the Kingdom of God, or were only elected, and so in time should be of his Kingdom. And (3.) Whatever they were, they were brought unto Christ, who himself baptized not; not to his Disciples, who did baptize.
To this you reply three things: (1.) That it remains to be prov'd, that these little Children were Infants, and not grown Boys or Girls, capable of making an actual ⟨p. 88⟩profession of their Faith in Christ. (2.) 'Tis doubtful whether they were for present in the Kingdom of God, or were only elected, and so in time should be of his Kingdom. And (3.) Whatever they were, they were brought unto Christ, who himself baptized not; not to his Disciples, who did baptize.
Reply. Your first Exception is vain and groundless; that they were very young and little ones, appears not only by Christs taking them in his Arms, but from the very Notation of the Word [Greek or Hebrew], a Diminutive Word, signifying a little Child or Infant. So John was called when New-born,
. And for what you object out of Piscator, that the same word is used of Timothy, who knew the Scriptures from a Child; 'Tis an evident mistake, or shift, for the word is [Greek or Hebrew], He knew them not being an Infant, but from his Childhood or Infancy; that is, when he had past his Infant State, in which State th•se were that
⟨p. 89⟩
were brought unto Christ. And (2.) Whereas you question their present Right in the Kingdom of God, or whether it were not future by virtue of their Election? The Text will not allow your Interpretation, [Greek or Hebrew], of such is, not [Greek or Hebrew], shall be the Kingdom of God. Their present Church-membership asserted by Christ, is also a known Rule to regulate for the future, the Disciples Carriage towards them, which was too severe, harsh, and therefore highly displeasing to Christ; but by telling them they were Members of the Church, or Kingdom of Heaven (they being very probably the Infants of believing Parents, as their bringing them unto Christ with such affection, through the Frowns and Repulses of the Disciples, shows) he gives them a known and plain Rule how to distinguish Infants, and regulate their Carriage towards them, which God's Election can never be, that being an unrevealed Secret. And (3.) Whereas you say Christ did not Baptize them. I reply, We never urged this Scripture to prove he did so, but only to prove their Church-membership; which methinks Christ asserts as plainly
⟨p. 90⟩
as words can assert it, when he saith, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; and tho you use to quibble at the word [Greek or Hebrew], of such, as though it respected not the present Infants, but grown Persons, resembling them in humble and innocent qualities; Mr.
Reply. Your first Exception is vain and groundless; that they were very young and little ones, appears not only by Christs taking them in his Arms, but from the very Notation of the Word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, a Diminutive Word, signifying a little Child or Infant. So John was call'd when New-born, Luke 1. 76. and Christ when he lay in the Manger, and Moses when among the Flaggs. And if this be not enough, St. Luke gives them another Name, Luke 18. 15. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Infants, a word given to a Child in the Womb, Luke 1. 41. And for what you object out of Piscator, that the same word is us'd of Timothy, who knew the Scriptures from a Child; 'Tis an evident mistake, or shift, for the word is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, He knew them not being an Infant, but from his Childhood or Infancy; that is, when he had past his Infant State, in which State th•se were that ⟨p. 89⟩were brought unto Christ. And (2.) Whereas you question their present Right in the Kingdom of God, or whether it were not future by vertue of their Election? The Text will not allow your Interpretation, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, of such is, not 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, shall be the Kingdom of God. Their present Church-membership asserted by Christ, is also a known Rule to regulate for the future, the Disciples Carriage towards them, which was too severe, harsh, and therefore highly displeasing to Christ; but by telling them they were Members of the Church, or Kingdom of Heaven (they being very probably the Infants of believing Parents, as their bringing them unto Christ with such affection, through the Frowns and Repulses of the Disciples, shews) he gives them a known and plain Rule how to distinguish Infants, and regulate their Carriage towards them, which God's Election can never be, that being an unrevealed Secret. And (3.) Whereas you say Christ did not Baptize them. I reply, We never urged this Scripture to prove he did so, but only to prove their Chruch-membership; which methinks Christ asserts as plainly ⟨p. 90⟩as words can assert it, when he saith, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; and tho you use to quibble at the word 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, of such, as though it respected not the present Infants, but grown Persons, resembling them in humble and innocent qualities; Mr.
Sydenham hath sufficiently baffled that Interpretation, by showing its inconsistence with the Scope and Argument of the place, and how ridiculous this Sense would be, when reduced to a formal Argument.
Sydenham hath sufficiently baffled that Interpretation, by shewing its inconsistence with the Scope and Argument of the place, and how ridiculous this Sense would be, when reduced to a formal Argument.
(4.) The fourth Argument you pretend to answer, pag. 8. is drawn from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. To this you answer two things. (1.) That the Holiness here spoken of, is not a Federal, but a Matrimonial Holiness, namely, Legitimacy, and is as much as to say, your Children are no Bastards, seeing one of you is a Believer.
Reply. If this be true, and the genuine Sense of this Text, then all the Children in the World, not immediately descended from one or both believing Parents, must of necessity be all Bastards, and their Parents, how solemnly soever married, ⟨p. 91⟩must live in uncleanness; and what mad Work (think you) will this Assertion make in the World? And how many Millions of Persons will it nearly touch, both in point of Honour, and Inheritance?
(2.) You say, Though the Holiness here spoken of should be allowed to be a Federal or Covenant Holiness, yet for want of an express Institution, it will not warrant our Practice.
(2.) You say, Though the Holiness here spoken of should be allow'd to be a Federal or Covenant Holiness, yet for want of an express Institution, it will not warrant our Practice.
Reply. The Holiness of the Children being granted to be a Covenant Holiness, none can deny them to be within the Covenant; how else come they to be holy by Covenant? and if within the Covenant, who can deny them the Initiating Sign, which is Baptism? Or how shall they ordinarily be visibly admitted into the Visible Church without it? The Connection betwixt their Federal Holiness and right to Baptism, will appear plain enough from Acts 2. 38. which you come next to speak to.
(5.) You attempt to answer Mr. Allen's argument from Acts 2. 38. Be baptized, or the promise is unto you, and to your Children, and unto all that are afar off, even •s many as the Lord our God shall call.
(5.) You attempt to answer Mr. Allen's argument from Acts 2. 38. Be baptized, or the promise is unto you, and to your Chil•ren, and unto all that are afar off, even •s many as the Lord our God shall call.
On this Text you know we lay very great stress, for the Proof of Infants Baptism; and it deserves a remark, that you wholly Suppress our Arguments drawn from that Text, but however return an Answer to them all, such as it is. You first tell us, The Promise here spoken of, is not a promise of any external privileges, but the promise of the Gospel, or the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.
On this Text you know we lay very great stress, for the Proof of Infants Baptism; and it deserves a remarque, that you wholly Suppress our Arguments drawn from that Text, but however return an Answer to them all, such as it is. You first tell us, The Promise here spoken of, is not a promise of any external priviledges, but the promise of the Gospel, or the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.
Secondly, That the Promise was not to their Children as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other uncalled by the Lord, but only a promise of remission of Sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost, upon their actual Repentance, which Infants cannot perform, and therefore cannot here be intended. This is the true and whole Sense of your Answer.
Secondly, That the Promise was not to their Children as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other uncall'd by the Lord, but only a promise of remission of Sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost, upon their actual Repentance, which Infants cannot perform, and therefore cannot here be intended. This is the true and whole Sense of your Answer.
Reply. Now because you have wholly omitted our Argument from this Text, (for which doubtless there was some reason) I think my self obliged to let the World know how we expound it, and what we duly infer from that Exposition of it: And then let the Reader judge, whether by the forementioned Rules of a just Interpretation, you or we are in the right.
Reply. Now because you have wholly omitted our Argument from this Text, (for which doubtless there was some reason) I think my self oblig'd to let the World know how we expound it, and what we duly infer from that Exposition of it: And then let the Reader judge, whether by the forementioned Rules of a just Interpretation, you or we are in the right.
(1.) We observe this famous Text to contain the first Argument used by the Apostle, after Christs Ascension, to persuade the Jews to embrace Christianity, by repenting, and submitting themselves to Baptism, the initiating Sign of it; and therefore here we justly expect much Light about this controverted Point; nor doth the Apostle in this Text deceive our expectation.
(1.) We observe this famous Text to contain the first Argument used by the Apostle, after Christs Ascension, to perswade the Jews to embrace Christianity, by repenting, and submitting themselves to Baptism, the initiating Sign of it; and therefore here we justly expect much Light about this controverted Point; nor doth the Apostle in this Text deceive our expectation.
(2.) We take it for granted, that the direct and proper Scope of this place, is to persuade the Jews (to whom St. Peter preached) to repent and be baptized. This you allow, when you say, pag. 10. He uses it as a Motive why they and theirs should actually repent and be baptized. In these two then there is no Controversy.
(2.) We take it for granted, that the direct and proper Scope of this place, is to perswade the Jews (to whom St. Peter preach'd) to repent and be baptized. This you allow, when you say, pag. 10. He uses it as a Motive why they and theirs should actually repent and be baptized. In these two then there is no Controversie.
(3.) We take it for certain, that the Promise here referred to by Peter is that gracious Promise, Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy Seed; the adjoining of their Children to them (saith Calvin (and with him runs the general current of Expositors) depends on the Words of that Promise, Gen. 17. 7. If you be not satisfied with this, but rather will refer it to Joel 2. 28. you are then obliged to answer Mr. Sydenham's Arguments ⟨p. 94⟩a fortiori, from that reference. But you make no Exception at all to this Accommodation of it: And then the Sense must be this, The Promise shall run as before, to you and to your Children.
(3.) We take it for certain, that the Promise here referr'd to by Peter is that gracious Promise, Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy Seed; the adjoyning of their Children to them (saith Calvin (and with him runs the general current of Expositors) depends on the Words of that Promise, Gen. 17. 7. If you be not satisfied with this, but rather will refer it to Joel 2. 28. you are then oblig'd to answer Mr. Sydenham's Arguments ⟨p. 94⟩a fortiori, from that reference. But you make no Exception at all to this Accomodation of it: And then the Sense must be this, The Promise shall run as before, to you and to your Children.
(4.) We say, that except it had had relation to the Covenant with Abraham, there had been no occasion or reason at all here to have mentioned Children, as well as Parents; The promise is to you, and to your Children: It had been enough, if he had only intended the believing Parents, exclusive of their Infant Seed, to have said, The Promise is made to as many as the Lord our God shall call. What reason or occasion was there to bring in their Children at all?
