Reply. If this be the true and genuine sense of this text, then all the children in the world, not immediately descended from one, or both believingparents, must of necessity be all bastards ; their parents, how solemnly soever married, 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 al- lowed to be a foederal, or covenant holiness ; yet for want of an ex- press 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 foederal hohness, and right to bap- tism, will appear plain enough from Acts ii. 38, which you come next to speak to.
(5.) You attempt to answer Mr. Allen's argument from Acts ii. 38. " Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
360 A REPLY TO MR. CARy's SOLEMN CALL,
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and unto all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.'"
On this text, you know, we lay a very great stress for the proof of infants baptism ; and 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 pro- mise 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 can- not here be intended." This is the true and whole senseof youra/z^jx;^?'.
Reply. Now, because you have wholly omitted our argument from this text (for which doubtless there was some reason) I think myself 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 fore-mentioned 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 Christ's ascension, to persuade the Jews to embrace Chridian'ity^ by repenting, and submitting themselves to baptism, the mitiating sign of it ; and therefore here we justly expect much light about this controverted point : Nor doth the apos- tle, 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, p. 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.
(3.) We take it for certain, that the promise here referred to by Peter, is that gracious promise. Gen. xvii. 7. ' I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.' The adjoining of their children to therrj, saith Calvin, (and with him runs the general current of expositors) depends on the words of that promise. Gen. xvii. 6. If you be not satisfied with this, but rather will refer it to Joel ii. 28. you are then obliged to answer Mr. Sydenham's argument afortiort^ from that reference. But you make no exception at all to this ac- commodation of it: And then the sense must be this; the promise shall run as before, ' to you and to your children."
(4.) AVe say, that except it had had relation to the covenant with Abraham, there had been no occasion, or reason at all, here to have meniioned children as well as parents : ' The promise is to you, and your children." It had been enough, if he had only intended the be- lieving parents, exclusive of their infant- seed, to have said. The pro- mise 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 ?
A REPLY TO MR. CARY's SOLEMN CALL. 361
(5.) We find here the children both of believing Jews and Gentiles, mentioned in the promise, accompanying the precept o^ baptism ; and the precept to them built on the promise, as that which gave them their title to baptism ; Timv yag e-7rayfsXiag, " For the promise is to you, and to your children." In the same line that he mentions baptism, he also mentions the promise upon which their right is founded ; and in the same breath with which he mentions their children, he also men- tions the promise : which he would never have done, had his design been to have excluded their children from both, or either of them ; especially seeing their cJcildren had been so long in the possession of both. These things are obvious, natural, and every way agreeable, both to the grammar and scope of the text. Whence we argue:
Arg. If the promise be the same to believers under the gospel, that ever it was to Abraham and his natural seed ; then the children of believers^ by virtue thereof, have as good a title to baptism, as Abraham's children had to circumcision.
But the promise is the same : Ergo, &c.
Next let us consider your answers.
(1.) You say. The pi^omise, here spoken qf\ is not a promise of any eccternal privilege, but the promise ()f the gospel.
Reply. Your distinction is vain and groundless ; for it opposeth promises, that contain external privileges, to gospel promises, con- trary to 1 Tim. iv. 8. " Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." Secondly, Circumcision then, and baptism now, which have both their foundation in that promise, contain privileges in them of both sorts. This no man can deny, but he that thinks it no privilege to be admitted into the visible church, by the external initiating sign, and to be thereby distin- guished from the Pagan world. You have no warrant, therefore, to divide those things which God hath united.
(2.) You say, The promise was not to them as believers seed, nor to any uncalled by the Lord.