to which I deny 1. the Major or sequele that if Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in their Church estate before they can make any personall confession or profession of faith in the covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed then is it Gospel that the promises belong to them Nor is it in substance or circumstance the Apostles Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his seed are the promises made For though it is granted that it is Gospel that to Abraham and his seed the promises are made yet it is utterly false that theâ—e is meant a seed of Abraham who are neither elect nor true believers but onely the naturall children of Gentile inchurched believers yea of Gentile visible inchurched professors of Faith whom Mr C. in a new language of his own without Scripture calls Abrahams Church-seed yea the Text is so manifestly against it that I wonder Mr C. could imagine any Reader would receive his Dictates about this Text. For the Apostle expresly limits the promises to Christ as the seed of Abraham and whether Christ be understood personally or mystically as Beza and others yet by the Seed are not meant the fictitious Church-seed of Abraham to wit the naturall children even of infants oâ— visible inchurched Gentile-believers or visible professors of Faith but true believers or elect persons who alone are members of Christ mysticall And the promises are of the Spirit through faith v. 14. the inheritance v. 18. life and righteousness v. 21 22 which are made to none but true believers or elect persons To which I add that externall covenant-interest if there were such is never in Scripture termed the Gospel no not in those who rightly have it as true believers but Christs dying for our sins and justification by faith in him 2. I also deny the minor that the Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church-estate before they can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the Covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed Mr. C. takes upon him to prove the minor 1. in those of Abrahams loins in the elect seed I should think saith he it should not be questioned but yet it hath by some that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant c. And by such other speeches of our Adversaries in this point the covenant-right not only of the individual Infants of believers but the Covenant estates of that species and sort of persons is wholly denyed and so since it 's evident and acknowledged that some are elected of that sort yet it 's denied that they have part in the word of Gods covenants so that if they die in Infancy as many of the choise seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did c. Yet that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied contrary to that principle Rom 9.6 But more hereof anon but Rom. 9 7 8 9 10 11. is so clear for it I wonder any deny it Isaac and Jacob are made precedential instances of interest not only of election but of Gods calling unto the fellowship of his free covenant without respect either to their desire or indeavour of it personally v. 16. Answ. There are sundry reasons which make me conceive that in this and many other passages in this argument Mr. C. aimed at my self Mr. Robert Baillee minister of Glasgow in Scotland had in the 2. part of his Diswasive intituled Anabaptism ch 4. pag. 92. charged me with spoiling all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace and denying all right to the new Covenant to Iewish Infants till in their ripe years they became actuall believers From which false criminations I have vindicated my self in the Addition to my Apology printed at London 1652. Mr. C. here tels of some who speak as if they held that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant that wholly deny the covenant estate of that sort of persons though they acknowledg some of them are elected of that sort yet it 's denied they have part in the word of Gods covenant and if they die in Infancy that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied them I have reason to conceive that these are calumnies of others sure I am if theyrae meant of my self they are calumnies and so shewed in my Books before cited and in other of my writings From which that I may stand free I further express my self distinctly thus 1. That by in the Covenant of grace I mean the promise of righteousness and external life by Christ Jesus 2. That I mean by being in the Covenant of grace or belonging to it the having this promise made to them by God whether Gen. 17.7 or Gen. 3.15 according to the speech of the Apostle Tit. 1.2 that God promiseth eternal life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the times of the ages that is afore any age of man was past 3. that all the elect of God whether children of believers or unbelievers dying in Infancy or at the riper age are in this covenant of grace that is God hath promised eternal life to them by Christ they are given to Christ to save are children of the promise Rom. 9.8 4. That all these are Abrahams seed meant in the promise Gen. 17.7 though not actual believers 5. That all these have Christs meâ—â—â—s and the spirits inbeing in them afore they dye as ordinary means of salvation 6. That none but these elect persons have the said covenant of grace or promise of righteousness and life by Châ—ist made to them 7. That no where visible profâ—ssers of faith is in the Covenant of grace 8. That the natural child of a believer no not the naturall child of Abraham the Father of believers was or is in the covenant of grace as their child or barely by vertue of their faith but onely the elect of them by vertue of their election by God 9. That these elect persons though elected and having the promise made to them yet have not the things promised if of years of understanding till they do believe they are not justified till then and so are not actuall partakers of the covenant of grace or not actually therein 10. That no where in Scripture is the naturall child of a Gentile-believer or a visible professor of Christian faith termed Abrahams Seed and the term of Abrahams Church-seed applied to such is a novel expression not grounded on Scripture 11. That the formall proper and adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was not his being in the covenant made with Abraham nor is the reason why any should be baptized bareâ—ly his interest in the covenant of grace but the command of God in the one appointing males of eight dayes old of Abraahms house and Proselytes thereto to be circumcised in the other discipâ—es by their own profession of faiâ—h in Châ—ist to be baptized 12. That the use of the terms Being in the
differences about the title to it between Papists and Protestants and the ablest Protestants themselves 14. How they can make good the regularity of Church-constiâ—ution and the ordination of Elders who have no other baptism but that in infancy 15. How they can be free from the guilt of hardening souls in deadly presumption who avouch the Christianity of infants by natural birth and Infant baptism which is the great plea of ignorant and profane persons on which they rest 16. Whether it be not a signe of injustice and want of love to truth or adherence to a party in them that will read and hear what one party saith for Infant baptism and refuse to read or heâ—r what the opposâ—â—s say though they bring the plain institution of Christ and his Apostles practise for them 17. Whether it be not an unrighteous course to charge the miscariages of persons either dead or strangers on that doctrine or practise which countenanceth not them or to persons who are no way abettors of them becaus of agreement in one opinion 18. Whether division or Schism is not chiefly to be imputed to those who violently oppose inveigh against their Brethren for holding practising that which they conceive themselves bound to do by the plain command of Christ which their opposites do acknowledge 19. Whether such as impose Infan baptism on their Brethren who hold the faith and baptism confessâ—d to be from Christ and deal rigorously with them for not owning iâ— do not as the Papists who impose with cruelty their own addiâ—ions oâ— those who otherwise are not denied to hold thâ— true faith aâ—d practâ—sâ— 20. Whether such pretencâ—s as are made for Infant baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a sufficient plea for baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a suâ—fâ—cient plea for any truly godly person to neglect that baptism which Christ hath so strictly commanded Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 the Apostles constantly practised And sith Mr. Baxter hath with so much earnestness ministred so many interrogatories to me I shall take the boldness to advise him to consider his own ways 1. In giving such a title to his book of Plâ—in Scripture proof of Infants baptism when there is not one text in all his Book which speaks plainly or obscurely for it yea it 's confessed by himself that it is not plainly determined in Scripture p. 3. and is so dark in Scripture that the controversie is become hard p. 301. 2. In his abusing so many texts of Scripture as he haâ—h done chiefly the institution of Bapâ—ism Matth. 28 19. for infant Baptism as if they were disciples appointed there to be baptized which is sufficiently refuted by himself in many places of Baptism p. 299 300. of the right to Sacraments from p. 91 to 96. 3. In coyning a new title to Baptism by the profession of parents or pro parents of which the Scripture is altogether silent 4. In his devising â—n ordinancâ— of infants visible membership in the Christian Church of which there is no foot step in all the Bible 5. In his many years clamorous abuses and some kind of violent persecutions of my self and others of my judgement for not acknowledging these figments of his but promoting reformation of Baptism according to our duty 6. In his unbrotherly printing my answers I made in the dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. without so much as acquainting me with it though living near him 7. In blazing it abroad that he had driven me to gross absurdities which yet he hath not in his answer to the 17. sect of of my praecursor or elsewhere shewed to be so 8. In his light passing over my urging his own words against infant baptism about Christs institution Mat. 28.19 in my praecurs p. 66. in his Praefest morat sect 16. which is noted in the 2d Part of the Review p. 66 67. which sure being from Christs institution deserved better consideration 9. In condemning our rejection of infant Baptism though but an humane tradition on no better grounds then Papists build many of their ceremonies which he condemns in asserting the Covenant of grace to the faithfull and their seed which in disputes against Arminians is commonly denied by Contraremonstrants 10 In his many false accusations of me as a sect master disturber of the Church which he cannot prove in his scornfull expressions in the dispute and his books in his injurious insinuations of me as if I were blinded or hardened occasioned the rise of Quakerism and other errours thereby indirectly creating odium to me and to the truth and which is worst of all weakning my hands in the work of Christ and particularly in taking off my quondam hearers at Bewdley from hearing me or permitting me there to preach in publike None of which nor any of the rest of his evil suggestions of me or the people baptized there or elsewhere I pray God may be laid to his charge I have no more to add but to commend the reading of this and the other parts of the Review to thy care hoping that as the differences between the Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan Israelites and Peter and the circumcised Christians were composed by right inâ—elligence of their actions so it may be in this and that God will awaken the eyes of those who have opposed the truth I assert with devices of an anti-Evangelical Covenant of grace to Believers and their seed a Law and Ordâ—nance of infants visible Church membership no where extant of baptizing infants according to the Jewish pattern of baptizing Proselytes of an additional promise of casting elect children on elect parents ordinarily of a command in force now Gen. 17.9 of Baptisms succession to Circumcision and fetching a rule from it of baptisms conferâ—ing Grace c. will discern their errour and embrace that light which they have hitherto shut out and laying aside their vain disputes about the baptizing of Infants of not Churchmembers profane excommunicate parents or proparents and such like endeavour to restore that one Baptism which with that one faith once delivered to the Saints may bring the Churches of God to a right constitution and holy unity and order and without which a right reformation covenanted will not be and that goâ—ly paâ—ents of tender consciences will take heed of bringing infants to baptism whereby it is profaned and discern that it is their own duty to be baptized in the name of Christ and that the use of baptism is as Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 68 Of right to Sacraments yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized which shâ—ws infants are not baptized sith thâ—y do not that which is essential to baptism and that which is essential must be in all and not to look upon it as their childrens priviledge but as it was by Christ appointed by it engage themselves to follow the Lord JESUS which is the prayer of Thy loving Brother and real
Servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES The Contents Sect. 1. THe second argument against infant Baptism that it is will worship is confirmed Sect. 2. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove infant Baptism from Gen 17. are examined Sect. 3. Mr. Drews argument for infant Baptism from Gen. 17. is examined and it is shewed that there is not the same reason of infant Baptism as of infant Circumcision Sect. 4. The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. was a mixt covenant Sect. 5. Acts 2.38 39. proves not either the identity of covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as it comprehends his natural seed nor the connexion between iâ— and â—aptizability Sect. 6. The argument of Mr. Josiaâ— Church in his Divine warrant for infant baptism â—om their being judged in the promise of propriety in God is answered Sect. 7. Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize Sect. 8. Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance Sect. 9. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to bee of the visible Church Christian. Sect. 10. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship intitles them not to baptism Sect. 11. The agreements between circumcision and baptism do not justifie infant baptism and the validity of sealing infants with an initial seal is shewed to be null Sect. 12. Dr. Featley his argument for infant Baptism from the Covenant is examined Sect. 13. The arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant baptism are answered Sect. 14. The arguments of Mr. Stalham Mr. Brinsley Mr. Hall and a nameless Author from the Covenant for infant Baptism are examined Sect. 15. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel Covenant to prove thence infant Baptism is examined and it is shewed that interest in the covenant did not intitle to circumcision nor is it proved it doth now to baptism Sect. 16. That the Gospel covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such Sect. 17. Mr. Cottons the Assembly's and London Ministers way of arguing for infant Baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the method of the future progress in the Review expressed Sect. 18. Mr. Marshals reply to the first section of the 3d. Part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant and seal is reviewed Sect. 19. Mr. Blakes exceptions against my speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled Sect. 20 The exceptions which in the first part of my Review or Antipaedobaptism sect 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are confirmed against Mr. Blake vind faed ch 42. sect 3. Sect. 21. The ten exceptions of the first part of my Reviewâ—gainst â—gainst Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38 39. for the connexion between the Covenant and seal are vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic fâ—d ch 37 43. Sect. 22. Animadversions on ch 2. part 1 of Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38 39. in which his exposition is shewed to be vain and mine justified Sect. 23. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between Covenant interest and Baptism right and infant Baptism are vindicated from Mr. Cobbets answers Sect. 24. Mr. Sidenham's notes on Acts 2.39 in his Exercitation ch 5. are considered Sect. 25. Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his first connclusion is reviewed and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt and that Gentile self-justitiaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed nor Gal. 4.29 proves it and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right Sect. 26. The mixture of the Covenant as by me asserted is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vind faed ch 26. Sect. 27. The four first chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving infant baptism the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. infants of believers being Abrahams seed and in Covenant is shewed Sect. 28. It is proved from Luk. 1.54 55. 19.9 Joh 8.39 Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7 1â— 29. 4.28 Rom 9.6 7 8. Matth 3.9 that the seed of Abraham to whom the proâ—ise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17 7. are onely true believers oâ— elect persons Sect. 29. The allegaâ—ion of Rom. 9 6.7 8. Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical belongâ— are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic faed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Eâ—ercitation ch 6. Sect. 30. Of the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion the ambiguity of which is shewed Sect. 31. Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace and the several sealings of them Sect. 32. The exceptions in my Examen part 4. sect 5. against Mr. Marshals speeches about the Covenant and conditional sealing are made good against Mr. Marshal and Mâ— Blake Sect. 33. That it is no error as Mr. Baxter calls it but a truth that the Covenant of grace is made onely to the elect Sect. 34. Mr. Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or Covenant is not it that is sealed in baptism Sect. 35. My speech about Gods sealing to none but believers is cleered from Mr. Baxters objections Sect. 36. Christianity is not by birth nor the Church as civil corporations Mr. Marshals equivocation in the use of the term Covenant of grace Sect. â—7 That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an external priviledge of visible Churchmembership and initial seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. Marshal asserts Sect. 38. Animadversions on the 3d. ch of the first part of Mr. Thomas Cobbets Just vindic sect 1 2 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church Covenant and external priviledges of the Covenant of grace are refeâ—led Sect. 39. Animadversions on sect 4th of the same chapter whereby the conceits of Mr. Cobbet about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain Sect. 40. Animadversions on sect 5. of the same ch shewing that Mr. Cobbets supposed visible interest in Gods Covenant is not the rule of baptizing Sect. 41. Animadversions on the 6th sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members nor parents profession unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism Sect. 42. Animadversions on sect 7â—h of the same ch shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external interest therein Sect. 43. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Jewish Church and state were but one body Sect. 44. Animadversions on the 9th sect of the same ch in which
and imagins an ordinance of their visible Church-membership distinct from the ordinance of Circumcision unrepealed out of which he endeavours to prove Infant-baptism though he no where that I know shew us where that ordinance is notwithstanding in my Praecursor and elsewhere he hath been often pressed to shew it which book of M. B. taking so much that a third edition is printed I had hoped paedobaptists would have stuck to his way and declined the other way of analogy of the Command of Circumcision But I see latter books as M. Sidenham M. Fuller and others still insisting on the hypothesis concerning the covenants and the seal and Baptisms succession to Circumcision c. M. Gataker in his Latin treatise against D. Ward about the force and efficacy of Infant-baptism though by his Epistle it appears he had seen M. Baxters books yet p. 16. he speaks thus to D. Ward I would you had specially designed the Command concerning the baptizing the infants of believers which you mean For although from the analogy of Circumcision and the nature of this very sacrament as it is destined to initiation the comprehension of infants in the Covenant of grace c. I deservedly believe both the Antient Church to have used and the Church at this day justly to use Infant-baptism yet hitherto I have found no speciall Command concerning this thing I wish he had formed and confirmed his proof for Infant-baptism from the Analogy of Circumcision c. so antient learned a man and so accurate in Controversies me thinks should have yielded some better proof for Infant-baptism than others have don or have forborn calling them novel sectaries who with so much endeavour oppugn Infant-baptism which is the expression in his Epistle to the Reader and with-held his hand from subscribing to that attestation wherein the Four positions of my Examen were censured as erroneous and pernicious But not meeting with any other proof than this I shall keep on in the Review of the dispute and examine the pretended institution of Infant-baptism out of the Old Testament taking in some texts of the New and first Examine the way of proof by analogy of Circumcision which seems to have been the Assemblies way and then M. Bs. more refined way as is imagined desiring the Reader to take notice of what was before disputed in the Second Section of the second part of this Review to prove that consequences drawn from analogy between meer positive rites of the Old and New Testament to prove a duty in the use of them without particular institution are not good SECT II. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. are Examined Two wayes I finde Consequences framed one in arguments formed syllogistically the other in certain Conclusions or hypotheses from whence it is conceived they may deduce Infant-baptism I begin with the former way I had formed the argument from Gen. 17.7 c. three wayes in my Exercit. Sect. 1 2 3. and that without disadvantage to my Antagonists notwithstanding D. Homes his exceptions But I am content to view the forms D. Homes sets down as more agreeable to their minde In his Animadversion on my Exerc. chap. 2. pag. 6. he saith Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7 c. is this Where there is a Command for a thing never remanded on contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a Command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 9. never yet remanded or contramanded therefore the signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of grace namely baptism now is still in force To which I answer 1. The conclusion is not of the thing in question which is not of the children of believers but of the Infant-children of believers as it was in the Minor now a person of 20. years of age is a believers child as well as one of two dayes old 2. In the Minor the sign of the Covenant of grace Commanded is understood either of the sign of the Covenant of grace expressed in the Conclusion to wit Baptism and if so it is denied that there is any such Command Gen. 17.7 9. to sign with the sign of the Covenant of grace believers infants there 's no Command but of circumcising the manchild of eight dayes old not a tittle of baptism or else of a sign of the Covenant of grace there expressed and if so the Minor is denied that the Command for signing the Infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 9. was never yet remanded or contramanded It was expressely contramanded Acts 15.28 Gal. 5.1 2 3. If in the Conclusion by the sign of the Covenant of grace be meant as the words namely baptism now import the rite of Christian Baptism and in the Minor it be meant of the Command of Circumcision then there is a fault of the syllogism in the form it consisting of four terms If in the Minor iâ— be meant of the sign of the Covenant indefinite which is neither Baptism nor Circumcision I deny there is such a Command Gen. 17.7 9. and the syllogism hath also fourth terms Two other forms he hath pag. 9. 2. Form of argument from Gen. 17. is this To whom the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour in the New Testament as in the Old to them the application of the first sign or seal of the New Testament may be applied as well as the first of the Old Testament But this tenour of the Covenant of grace still in force is as true and doth as truely run to a believing Gentile I am thy God and the God of thy seed as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo the first seal of the Covenant may be applied to believers children now in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abrahams The Major is plain in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant and the application of the first seal are Knit into a dependence one upon another I am the God of thee and thy seed V. 7 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male V. 9. c. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know Answer 1. The thing to be concluded was that Baptism may be applied but baptism and the first seal of the Covenant I do not take to be all one Baptism or Circumcision I do no where finde in Scripture called the seal of the Covenant much less the first seal and why the blood of Christ or the spirit of Christ or the oath of God may not be called the first seal of the Covenant as well as these I know not again the Conclusion was to be may be applied to infant-children of believers where as the conclusion is may be applyed to believers children And the thing to be concluded was simply baptism may be applied to Infants of believers whereas it is propounded comparatively now
say they by his promising Abraham temporal things Gen. 17.8 therefore we may not argue from thence to the Covenant of Grace It is true both in my Exercitation and in my Examen Part 3. Sect. 2. and else where I deny the Covenant made with Ahraham Gen. 17. to be a pure Gospel-Covenant and aver it to be mixt and shew how it is mixt to wit of promises not belonging to every one with whom the New Covenant of the Gospel is made but respecting peculiarly Abrahams house and the policy of Israel and that the promises Evangelical are delivered Gen. 17. in words expressing proper benefits to Abraham and his natural seed though in the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost Evangelical promises were meant and therefore it may be well doubted whether that Covenant may be termed simply Evangelical Yea the Scripture where it speaks of this Covenant often mentions no other promise but of the Land of Canaan as Exod. 6.4 Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. 1 Chron. 16.17 18. Act. 7.5 Where Stephen mentions Gods promise to Abraham he mentions that of the land of Canaan and vers 8. calls the promise of Canaan the Covenant of Circumsion Wherefore Cameron in his Thescs of the threefold Covenant of God Thesi. 78. saith That Circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily Whence I inferre that when Paedobaptists speak of Circumcision as if it were a Seal of the Covenant of Grace onely and from it gather Rules and Conclusions concerning the Ordinance of Baptism in the New Testament as if the Reason of Circumcising Infants were from nothing proper to the policy or Nation of Israel but onely out of the respect it had to the promise of Evangelical grace they do but mislead the people and speak their own conceits and not the Language and minde of the Scripture To this Master Drew saith I answer The Scripture no where calls that Covenant a mixt Covenant but on the contrary notwithstanding any civil promises of temporal things it is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 which I think is enough to make it a pure Gospel-Covenant Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace outward things as appurtenances altered not the Covenant nor made it mixt at all unless that Covenant we live under be mixt too for outward things are promised to believers under the Gospel Rom. 8.32 1 Cor. 3.22 23. 1 Tim. 4.8 Besides this Covenant with Abraham is called a Covenant of justification Rom. 4.2 3. of Grace vers 4. of Faith vers 13. and I am perswaded that Abraham had not been called the Father of the Faithful if Believers had stood in a different Covenant towards God with that in which he stood as for differences in the manner of administring and dispensing that Covenant they matter nothing if there be no difference in those Evangelical promises which make it a Covenant of Grace but no man is able to make this appear therefore this exception weakens not our proposition nor the Argument at all I reply if it be true which I allege that the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8 was a mixt Covenant as I shew in the places forecited and that Circumcision injoyned vers 9 10 11 12. had reference as a signe or token not onely to that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed but also to the promises which peculiarly respect the house of Abraham and policy of Israel which cannot be understood to belong to every believer as vers 7. to be the father of many Nations to be exceeding fruitful that God would make Nations of him and Kings should come out of him that he would give unto him and his seed after him the Land wherein he was a stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession Then it follows that the reason of the command vers 9 10 11 12. is not onely from the promise vers 7. but those other promises and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another as well as that vers 7. and then if the argument be good The Infants of those to whom the promise is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are to have the first seal because of the dependence there it will follow he to whom God gives the Land of Canaan for a possession he out of whom God brings Nations and Kings he is likewise to be sealed with the first seal sith there is as much dependence in the text of Circumcision on the promises vers 4 5 6 8. as on the promise vers 7. so that if this reasoning of Master Drew's be good for my part I see not but that the Turk possessour now of Canaan may be intitled to Baptism by the same reason he produceth for Infant-baptism of Believers children Now whereas he saith That the Scripture no where calls that Covenant mixt I grant it and it is true also that it no where calls it a pure Gospel-covenant nor Circumcision a seal of the Covenant of Grace or the first seal yet the thing I mean by it being proved out of those texts forenamed there is no reason to except against the expression Nor can it be true that the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be if the promises are of sundry things not assured to Believers in the Covenant of the New Testament Which is most evident for no Believer hath now a promise of the possession of the Land of Canaan but rather an assurance of persecution no promise of such greatness as to be the progenitor of Kings and Nations but rather of obscurity and debasement A pure Gospel Covenant containing many promises is rare in the Old Testament except where he foretells us he would make a new Covenant God made a Covenant with David Psal. 89.3 c. Nor do I deny it was a Gospel-covenant yet therein are promises peculiar to his house as vers 30 31 32 33. yea the promises which were Evangelical in the furthest intent and aim were domestical in the first place and the most open expressions Nor is it a whit against the mixture of Abrahams Covenant which I avouch That the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 And that Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace For the word is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered in Christum by the Tigurines into or unto Christ or as Master Dickson renders it respectu Christi in respect of Christ That is as in his paraphrase with relation to Christ or as Diodati whose foundation was Christ not as the Testator but as the party concerning whom the Testament was made or as the executor by whom
c. and restraining that promise in the Evangelical sense onely to the children of Abraham which were elect by God Nor is there a word Act. 2.39 to make it good in Master Drew's sense For 1. Master Drew proves not that the promise Act. 2.39 must needs be the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed His argument is It must needs relate to a former engagement to the Jews and therefore to that Gen. 17.7 But this is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative it relats to a former engagement therfore to this which Logicians deny to be good proof But saith he I know not what engagement this can have reference to if not unto the promise Gen. 17.7 I answer though he know not and so may be one of those that are blind and yet have eyes which he chargeth on his opposits yet others see other promises namely that to David of raising up Christ to sit on his throne mentioned Acts 2.30 or the promise of the Holy Gost mentioned V. 33. or the promise of blessing mentioned Acts 3.25 Any of which may be the Promise meant Acts 2.39 more probably then that Gen. 17.7 2. Where it is said The promise is to you if we either consider the scope of the Apostle or other parrallel texts Acts 3.26 Acts 13.32 33. the promise is is as much as to say the promise made to David Acts 2.30 or to Abarham Acts 3.25 is fulfilled in raising up Christ or the Promise of the spirit is fulfilled in the shedding forth of its gifts of which Promise mentioned V. 17.18 Piscator and others understand it and that for you that is for your good blessing and your children and all that are afarr off as many as the Lord our God shall call not as M. Drew means there is a promise of being a God to you and every one of your children continually to be fulfilled as soon as ever they are in being 3. It is false which M. Drew presupposeth as if the meaning were the Promise is to you that is the Promise of being your God is to you believers and to your children that is to all your Infant children as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles For 1. that speech is made to the Jews as M. Drews own words seem to import onely and their children and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is false that when it is said the Promise is to you the meaning is to you as believers For neither were they then believers as I prove in my Ample disquisit Sect 5. nor is it certain whether some of them were ever believers the occasion and scope seems to intimate rather that they were considered there as persons who had crucified Christ 3. Neither is it true that the Promise is to their children that is to their infant children as their children M. Gataker discept de bapt Infant vi 〈◊〉 pag. 12. saith thus To the obtaining the promise as well repentance as partaking of baptism at least in this place is exacted so that hence the promise of remission of sins cannot be proved to be made to Infants when they are entered by baptism unless also they repent 4 nor do I know how it can be true which M. Drew sayes in any sense for his purpose that God hath promised to every believing Gentile now to be the God of his seed as he did to Abraham by which he would expound the words Acts 23.9 the promise is to your children For in respect of spiritual blessings accompanying salvation it is not true every believers child is not elect in the Covenant of saving grace a child of the resurrection nor in respect of outward Ecclesiastical privileges Neither did God Promise Circumcision to every child of Abraham not to the males under 8. dayes old nor to the females nor hath it any colour to interpret I will be the God of thy seed that is they shall be circumcised much less that God promised to every Gentile believers child he should be Baptized or have right to Baptism sure not to professed unbelievers to abortives or still born Infants For my part with all M. Drews light I cannot understand how according to M. Drews exposition the promise Gen. 17.7 is inforce and applyable to believers under the Gospel as he saith Nor do I conceive it true which he ads If this stand good then the Command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good to For were it granted that it were true that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles yet there is not a word in that text or any other to prove that therefore every believers Infant child is to be baptized it being false that the Covenant of grace doth of it selfe intitle to Baptism as I have proved in my Examen part 3. S. 1. in my letter to M. Baile or Additions to my Appology Sect. 3. in the Ample disquisition Sect. 5. where also it is proved that though the promise Acts 2.39 be alleged why they should be baptized V. 38. yet not as the reason of their right to Baptism as M. Drew makes it but as a motive encouraging them to it as their duty and in performing of it first to move then to repent and then to be baptized The reason is not as M. Drew makes it The promise is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized and the minister ought to do it to you and your Infants but this the promise is to you and your children therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins nor is there a word in the text or elsewhere to prove that dictate of M. Drew God will own believers children therefore he will have them markt for his even in infancy by baptism more truely saith M. Gataker discept Infant de bapt infant vi Eâ—fâ—c pag. 9. Acts 2.38 39. is nothing found concerning Infants to be baptized In that they are Commanded to repent and to be baptized unto the remission of sins it is altogether like to that saying of the Lord Christ he that believeth and shall be baptized shall attain salvation Matth. 16.16 But M. Drew thinks to take off the exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth priviledge of believers children under the Gospel The first exception is that the promise is of extraordinary gifts of the spirit and he answers This doth not sute with the promise made Gen. 17.7 which was to be performed to Abrahams children and yet they had not those gifts But 1. this Answer goes upon his mistake that the promise Acts 2.39 must be that Gen. 17.7 2. he supposeth that the
had the Jews understood that their children were in that condition worsted for want of a priviledge equal to their circumcision they would have been glad to accept of Christ to take away that horrour that then lay on their Spirits The third exception is that it is not said the promise is to the Gentiles and their children now if this be not made good the argument fals because we are Gentiles by nature To which he answers 1. If believing Gentils live under the same Covenant that Abraham and his seed did which has been proved then though they were none of his seed t is safer to apply the whole promise to them I am thy God and the God of thy seed then to cut off and circumcise the tenor of the Covenant and to say unto believers now God onely is your God not the God of your children is not this to make a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant and to rob believers of one of the most precious comforts they have by promise even Gods owning their seed Which they cannot be assured of as the Jews were without the children be admitted to the first sign or seal of the Covenant which is baptism now under the Gospel as I shall prove by its succeeding circumcision by and by To which I reply The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is mixt and in respect of the temporal promises believing Gentiles live not under the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 but in respect of the spiritual part that is they are justified and saved now or God is a God to them as they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 But neither did God promise to be a God in respect of Gospel grace to Abrahams natural seed as such the contrary is delivered Rom. 9.7 8. nor now to any believers seed as such but the elect whether believers or unbelievers children as is proved at large by me Exam. part 3. Sect. 4. not by denying the Covenant of grace to be made with a believer his natural seed do we cut off or circumcise the tenor of the Covenant or make any alteration much less a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant the Apostle expressly determining and whole Juries of the ablest Protestant writers even paedobaptists expounding Rom. 9.8 as resolving that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed was not made to all Abrahams natural seed no not to the circumcised not to Ishmael and Esau but to the elect onely and therefore there is no safety to apply the whole promise I am thy God and the God of thy seed to every sincere believer and his child it being expressly contradictory to Rom. 9.8 which determines some onely to be children of the promise And yet we need not say as M. Drew injuriously makes us say God onely is your God not the God of your children but onely this you may assure your selves that he is your God for ye are believers and so Abrahams seed and ye may hope by reason of general indefinite promises and frequent experiences that God will be a God to your children But God hath not promised that he will be certainly a God to every or any one of your children definitely but is at liberty to shew mercy to your children or to an infidels as it shall please him And this you must be contented with sith God afforded no more to Abraham himself when he had made Isaac the child of the promise and not Ishmael nor to Isaac when he loved Iacob and hated Esau. It is fit you should remember God to be no debtor to you that he is the potter ye and yours are the clay and accordingly acquiess in his will blessing him for his love to you which is the most precious comfort you have by promise and not being anxious concerning your children Nor is there any truth in it that either the Jews were assured that God would own their seed that is be their God nor that by being admitted to circumcision they had that assurance nor that without admission to baptism we cannot be assured of our children that GOD owns them nor that baptism succeeds circumcision or if it did such assurance as Mr. Drew speaks of cannot be inferred thence So that all this passage is but a fardel of mistakes Le ts consider the next 2. saith M. Drew Are not Gentiles the seed of Abraham Then I would fain be resolved in this whether Christ took upon him onely the nature of the Jews or of the Jews and Gentiles both If only of Jews how must the Gentiles be saved If of both then how you will construe this text Heb. 2.16 He took upon him the seed of Abraham if you will not allow the Gentiles by any means to be Abrahams seed Answer I grant believing Gentils are Abrahams spiritual seed descending from him as the Father of the faithfull by imitating his faith And as for M. Drews frivolus or captious question which goes upon a supposition as if Christ might take on him the nature of the Jews only that the nature of the Jews were one and the Gentils another I tell him though I think such a Dr. might have resolved himself for his resolution that Christ took on him the nature of both that is the same specifical essence or kinde of being that both had to wit the being of a man common a like to Jews and Gentiles meaning by nature his individual and numerical Existence which is all one with that our Lord sprang out of Judah Heb. 7.14 not from Levi or from Lot and yet the Gentils are saved by his name he dying and arising again both for Jews and Gentils And for the Construction of Heb. 2.16 thought there are learned men that expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he takes hold or helpeth the seed of Abraham that is believers of Gentils as well as Jews yet I think the meaning there to be no more but this that he took on him or received the nature of man by a natural descent from Abraham 1. because the seed of Abraham is opposed to Angels and therefore Abrahams seed signifies the nature of man contradistinct to Angels 2. because the author saith ver 17. thence he ought to be like to his brethren to be a mercifull high Priest which comes not from his helping believers but his assumption of the humane nature whith fits him to be like to men and to be a mercifull high Priest And therefore I like best the reading of our transtators in the text not that in margin And thus haye I answered M. Drews douty question in which he would so fain be resolved But what is this to prove that Acts 2.39 the promise is not yet to the Gentils that are called but also to their children I see not it being neither proved that Acts 2.39 the promise is the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed ot that the children of Gentils called
are in that respect Abrahams seed M. Drew adds But yet further 3. T is plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham yea and a surer heir to the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed then carnal descent from Abrahams Loyns doth Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and onother from Isaac all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7 But in Isaac shall thy seed be called Isaac was his special seed and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel for ver 8. they which are the children of the flesh these are not that is not in so peculiar a manner the children of God as the believing seed for the children of the promise are the seed the seed by way of eminencie that is the prime seed and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explaines and applyes this to our purpose Gal. 4.28 29. The Galatians were Gentils but being believers we saith the Apostle as Isaac was are the children of promise and so the special seed of Abraham the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are but by faith they became his prime seed and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was who is said in the next ver to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are And sirs shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed The Appostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham for if it be not ours so fully as it was his then we are not heirs according to the promise if our seed be exempted it fals much short of what was said to him I will be thy God and the God of thy seed And mark friends I beseech you that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 In thee shall all Nations be blessed not onely his natural seed that was but one Nation but all that were of the faith shall be blessed as children of what nation soever ver 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised And truely I wonder since the Gâ—spel is so clear that believers are Abrahams children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledge wherewithall he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities Answer the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it That of Ro. 9.7 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God but that in Isaac his seed should be called And the same is determined Gal. 4.28 that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit And Gal. 3.29 is meant of those onely that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8 in thee shall all nations be blessed he infers ver 9. onely of believers so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 4.10.11 Abraham is said to be the Father of believers or as it is ver 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say that elect persons onely are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7 8. when they dispute against Arminians should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 when they dispute for paedobaptism though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall it being not true of Ishmael Esau and thousands of others of both of Abrahams and other believers seed God hath not nor will be a God to them T is true believing Gentils are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had but it is false every believer is heir of every priviledg Abraham had none besides him is Father of the faithfull as Abraham or hath Gods promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual yea or to his natural None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25 nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abrahams seed Rom. 11.28 29. The imagined priviledge that God would be the God of his naturall seed was never promised to Abrahams natural posterity as such Yet it is false that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abrahams natural seed For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abrahams posterity yet he hath to some which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7 perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham by Abraham were meant every believer and when he saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not About which he and other paedobaptists particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people and lead fond parents who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed that God will be a God to a believer and his child and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy are saved by the parents faith and by this there is assurance of their salvation But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11 17. that the term graffing shews believing Gentils come in with their seed or twigs that grow from them else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off But I have so fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to election and that none but elect persons are ingraffed according to the Apostles meaning and that ingraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition being the first part of
prohibition in forbidding terms or a prohibition by consequence It is granted in so many express words infants are not prohibited to receive baptism no nor the Lords Supper yet they are by good consequence to be denied both in as much as both are disagreeing from the institution and practice of those rites in the new Testament Wherefore to the Doctors argument I except against the form of it as containing more then three terms the predicate in the conclusion not being in the Major part of the medium in the major being left out in the Minor And if it be thus formed all they who are comprized within the covenant of faith and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to be baptized But infants of believers are comprized c. Ergo. I deny the Major if meant of Gods covenant to us or promise either of faith or righteousness to infants by it as the alleging Gen. 17.7 imports the Doctor meant But grant it of those who are comprized within the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers in which sense I deny the Minor that children that is infant-children are comprized in the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers yea and if the proposition be universal all children or all infant-children of believers are comprized in Gods covenant of faith or promise that he will give them faith or righteousness by faith I deny it Nor is the Major proved by the Doctor For it is no unjust thing to deny baptism to a person to whom it is not appointed now baptism is appointed to disciples or believers not to whom God promiseth to give faith or righteousness by faith Besides were it true that God had so promised it and confirmation of it were due yet without institution confirmation by baptism were not due God hath other waies to confirm it as by his Oath Heb. 6.17 the blood of his Son 1 Cor. 11.25 his Spirit 2 Cor. 1.22 A man that is bound to pass an estate and to seal it may not be bound to a further Confirmation by fine and recovery Besides its no injustice not to confirm ones right who doth not claim and prove it But this infants do not And for the Minor the words Gen. 17 7. have nothing about the second part of the proposition nor do indeed prove any to be comprized in that promise but Abraham and his seed of which sort none of Gentile-believers children are but those that are true believers as he was or elect by God to adoption of children The objection the Doctor brings in is not rightly framed nor do I deny the answer the Doctor gives is sufficient to overthrow it as so formed But what the Doctor dictates That all true believers and their children are to be reckoned among children of the promise is contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9.7 8. as the Apostle is expounded by Dr. Featly himself in the New Annot. on Rom. 9.8 in which he thus speaks not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the children of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods special grace were adopted as Isaac by a special and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for that seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed SECT XIII The Arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined MR. William Lyford in his Apology for Infant-baptism page 33. thus disputes All that are taken into the Covenant of grace ought to receive the initial sign what ever the sign be that God shall chuse and that according to the commandment of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But infants are taken into Covenant with their parents as is proved therefore by the Commandment of the Lord they ought to receive the sign which God hath enjoined to be used and that sign is baptism To which I answer by denying the Major and for his proof out of Gen. 17.7 12. I deny 1. That there is any command for any other initial sign but Circumcision 2. That circumcision is there appointed to all who are taken into the Covenant of grace not to Lot Melchisedeck Job or their children not to the females of Abrahams house not to the males under eight daies old not to the Proselytes of the gate as Cornelius was 3. That the adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was interest in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but the command only For both Ishmael who was not in the covenant was to be circumcised because of the command and as hath been shewed others in the covenant were not to be circumcised through defect of the command Nor is the Minor true if understood of all the infants of believers or any of them as their infants nor is there a word to prove it Gen. 17.7 which is onely a promise to Abrahams seed and they of the Gentiles are only true believers or elect persons But perhaps Mr. Lyford mends the matter in the next form which is this pag. 34. If infants have a right to the covenant and the initial sign therof then it is a wrong to deny it to them But infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial sign thereof both by Gods original grant Gen. 17.11.14 and by Christs confirmation of that Covenant made to their Fathers Rom. 15 8. therefore it is a wrong to deny it them The Covenant under which we are is the Gospel Covenant made long since with us Englishmen and our infant-seed with a command of giving them the sign which at first was circumcision and now baptism by the same Divine authority enjoined and commanded to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant I answer by denying the Minor and to the proof by denying that Gen. 17.11 14. there is command of any other initial sign than Circumcision or that circumcision is commanded to all that had a right to the Covenant or that the Gospel Covenant was made long since with us Englishmen and our seed as our seed or that there was in that of circumcision any command to us to baptize infants or that Divine authority hath commanded baptism to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant But I affirm he hath commanded only to baptize those in the Covenant who are disciples or believers But Mr. Lyford adds further p. 37. All those to whom the blessings and promises in the Covenant do belong t them also belongs baptism the sign thereof by the doctrine of St. Peter and of Jesus Christ himself But to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong before actual faith therefore by the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost in Scripture such infants ought to be baptized before actual faith The Major or first
part of this Argument is the very reason of the Text. The Minor proposition viz. that the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to infants before actual faith is proved by these reasons 1. By the express words of Peter which say the promise is to your children 2. By the express words of our Saviour of such is the Kingdom of Heaven 3. By example of Isaac and Jacob they were children of the promise before actuall faith and had applied unto them the seal of the righteousness of faith 4. Some infants dying are saved they are members of Christs Kingdom therefore the blessing of the covenant viz. regeneration and remission of sins through the blood of Christ do also belong to them To which I answer blessings of the covenant are of sundry sorts such as certainly accompanie salvation regeneration justification adoption or such as are common to reprobates as to have teachers example and acquaintance with the godly c. Both these may belong to them in present possession or assurance for the future when they belong to them in present possession it is either discernibly or indiscernibly Actual faith may be in the exercise or habit Infants of believers are elect or non-elect It is true all those to whom the blessings of the Covenant which accompany salvation belong in present possession discernibly to them also belongs baptism but so the Minor is false understood of all infants of believers they belong not to all but only to the elect nor them certainly in present possession much less discernibly during infancy or if it be discernible then they have actual faith and so the Minor is not true that to infants of believing parents the saving blessings of the covenant do belong in possession discernibly before actual faith If it be meant of the blessings of the Covenant in future assurance only the Major is false Nor is it true that the Major is the very reason of the text Act. 2.38 39. It is false that this is Peters reasoning therefore does the sign belong to Peters hearers because the promise did first belong to them For the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for does not infer a right which they might claim but imports a motive to duties and of these duties first to repentance and then baptism so that if from thence a right be concluded they must conclude as well a right to repentance in the first place and then to baptism Nor is it true that Acts 10.47 48. the Apostles discourse is reduced to M. Lyfords form of argument or saies as he saies They that receive the same grace are capable yea have right to the same sign but infants are capable of the same grace therefore of right they are to have the same sign i. e. the Sacrament of baptism For although the Major be granted of actual possession of the spirit and magnifying God yet it is not true only of the promise thereof But the Minor infants are capable of the same grace alters the term which is in the Major thus they have received the same grace and so Mr. Lyford syllogism hath four terms Nor doth the Apostle say they that are capable of the same grace are to be baptized as well as we but none can forbid water to baptize them that had received the Holy Ghost and so were manifestly actual believers as well as themselves though they were of the Gentiles which when it appears in infants I should yield they are to be baptized but not meerly because of the promise or capacity of grace for the promise agrees to Jews children elect and capacity of grace to Turks children and therfore if either or both these did intitle to baptism the infant-children of such might be baptized And for his proofs of the Minor it is false that to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the covenant do belong before actual faith is proved by the express words of Peter For though he say the promise is to your children yet he doth not say to you as believers or to your children in infancy as the children of believers nor before actual faith Yea the words as many as the Lord our God shall call do require actual faith afore the possession of the blessings of the promise Nor is this any miserable shift nor is it true that those words are quite a new thing clearly relating to another sort of people than his present hearers and not to them for that expression limits all the Subjects and is put after all joined by copulative particles and therefore is to be conceived to limit all of them Nor is the speech true of any of them without that limitation Nor is it true which Mr. Lyford saies That the words do not exegetically expound to which of his hearers children the promise did belong For they are a manifest limitation excluding some and including others And what he saith that Peter saies this promise does belong to them that are afar off and their children as well as to you and your children is manifestly false But of this text I have spoken in the first part of this Review sect 5. more fully To his second proof I say it is false that the express words of our Saviour of such is the Kingdome of Heaven prove his Minor For of such is not all one with infants of believing parents nor when it is said of such is the Kingdome of heaven is it all one with this the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to them afore actual faith the Kingdom of heaven is not said to be of them because their parents were believers its uncertain whether they were so or no and if they were another reason may and ought to be conceived of their interest in the Kingdome of heaven to wit Christs special and effectual blessing nor is it said the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them in actual possession and if it were so meant and yet they were not appointed to be baptized as it appears by the Evangelists they were not it is a good presumption Christ would not have infants notwithstanding their interest in the Kingdom of heaven to be baptized till they became believers by profession and knew what their engagement is thâ—â—eby To his third it is true Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise before actual faith yea before they were born and therefore if the interest in the Covenant had been a sufficient reason of Circumcision they should have been circumcised afore the eighth day which because they were not it is an argument that not the Covenant but the Command intitled them to Circumcision To the fourth I never denied that to some infants the covenant belongs nor that they are saved regenerated in infancy but I deny that this is true of all infants of believers For the very instances brought prove the contrary that though Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise yet Ishmael and Esau begotten by believing parents were
covenant were not to be circumcised without joining to that administration or the Church in Abrahams family then right to circumcision was not from interest in the covenant common to all believers but something proper to that Church-state or administration which is now voided if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcised must profess repentance and faith afore they were baptized because they must join to the new administration of the covenant then according to Mr. Gerees own confession according to the new administration of the Covenant faith and repentance are required of them that join to that administration of the Covenant And therefore whereas Mr. Geree addes we may therefore conclude that those that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it have right to the seal of initiation under that administration unless they be particularly excluded by God himself and so the major is firmly proved I may truly say it is firmly proved that they that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it yet have not right to the seal of initiation under that administration barely from the Covenant without a command and that God himself hath excluded infants from baptism by Mr. Gerees own concession without faith and repentance and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dictated much and proved nothing Let 's see whether he speed better about proving the Minor SECT XVI That the Gospel-Covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such NOw the Minor saith he that children are under the Gospel-Covenant in the Christian administration of it that we prove by the Scriptures mentioned as first Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To comprehend the meaning of this place we are to consider What the privilege is that is here promised 2. what the extent of it is First for the privilege it self as Calvin hath well observed by vertue of this promise the Church was settled in Abrahams family and it was separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness And the people of Israel Abrahams posterity was the house and sheepfold of God And other nations like wild beasts ranging about without in the wilderness of the World And by this privilege the dignity of adoption-belonged to all the Israelites in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption And so though by nature they were no better than others yet by reason of this promise they had a birth-privilege whereby they were separated from others which is apparently held forth Gal. 2.15 We who are Jews by nature not sinners of the Gentiles as Mr. Blake hath truly observed And sith you grant the Jews a birth-privilege as p. 106. and p. 78. of your Answer you needed not have quarrelled with this plain proof But now among those that had this outward privilege of common adoption to be reputed children when the Gentiles were reputed as Dogs Matth. 15.26 there were some that were separated by the secret election of God and really made partakers of sanctifying and saving grace and so not only adopted outwardly and reputatively but also really in comparison of whom the other Israelites are sometimes spoken of as no sons of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. Though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles they are so stiled Matthew 8.11 12. So then the privilege is that he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privileges of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Answ. It is true I granted page 78. of my Examen that the Jews had a birth-privilege yet denyed it to be from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it as Mr. M. speaks but that special love God bare to Abrahams posterity Nor do I deny that the people of Israel till broken off were in common estimation Gods children children of the Kingdom nor Dogs nor unclean as the Gentiles and that these titles did belong to all by external denomination really to the elect Nor do I much gainsay that by vertue of the promise I will be a God to the seed of Abraham the Church was settled in Abrahams family though it doth not appear to me that the Apostle did so expound this promise but expresly contradistinguisheth the children of the promise to the children of the flesh Rom. 9.8 And his doctrine there is plain that the elect are they only to whom the promise I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 was made yea Exercit. page 2 3. I expound the promise as in respect of some peculiar blessings belonging to Abrahams natural seed Nor did I quarrel with Mr. Blake for proving from Gal. 2 15. a birth-privilege belonging to the Jews but excepted against him for that he contended to have the seed of believing Gentile-parents under the Gospel to be under the first member of the division in the text to wit Jews by nature which exception I have made good in my Postscript to my Apology S. 9. which I intend to vindicate from Master Blakes Reply Vindic. foed cha 35. in that which followes But then what doth this advantage to prove Mr. Gs. Minor To children meaning all or else his conclusion can be but particular of believing Christians the Gospel-covenant is extended in the Christian Churches Is this the Gospel-covenant to make a people only reputatively and outwardly but not really adopted Is this that which circumcision did seal Is this the covenant of grace which the seal is to follow What kind of juggling is there with these men They contend the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be the same with the Covenant of grace for substance and that they make to consist in saving graces the temporal benefits they refer to the administration that then was they will not have it called a mixt covenant and this covenant of grace they will have to be sealed by circumcision out of Rom. 4.11 and they say this was made to believers and their seed and thence they have salvation if they die in infancy and without this there is no ground of hope of the salvation of any infant deceased and they argue they are to have the seal because they are in covenant which if they understand not of that covenant of which that ordinance is the seal what colour is there to derive thence a title unto that seal on them who have interest in another covenant which it doth not seal Their argument is He hath right to the Conveyance who hath right to the Land but these men who dare not assert that the covenant of saving grace belongs to all believers natural children yet will have them all to have right to baptism which seals saving graces though perhaps a very few and those all unknown persons have right to that Covenant onely because a promise of
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant and they are capable of the seal and there is no special bar put in against them by God himself Ergo They should be sealed Or thus All who since Abrahams time are foederati or Covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation All infants of believers since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God neither uncapable of the seal nor exempted by a particular dispensation Ergo all infants of believers since Abrahams time must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant To which I answer Mr. M. tells me I must needs state thus the general Proposition But it is a pretty art he hath as elsewhere to call that my Minor which was his own not mine so here to say I must needs state the general Proposition thus which is of his own framing However he is not wronged that it is thus framed Let us then view it and try whether except in that of circumcision there be any truth sense or consideratenesse in it As for circumcision if it be meant onely of it then the Conclusion can be of it only and as the truth is his argument concludes only that infants of believers are to be circumcised 1. I had in my Examen noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon in that his Conclusion was of a sign of the Covenant indefinite and not of baptism only whereas the Lords Supper is also a sign of the Covenant which he would not have delivered to infants And to it he answers That he clearly in his Sermon shewed this Proposition to be only meant of the initial sign and not of the other But this doth not excuse his fault who taking upon him to prove infant-baptism concludes another thing in the argument though he might perhaps some pages of where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument limit his speech to the initial seal And for what he tells me he is sure that I who durst baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate durst not give the other Sacrament to it there being self examination and ability to discern the Lords body prerequired to the one not to the other I told him in my Apology s. 10. I durst do the one as I durst do the other and that self examination and ability to discern the Lords body is as well required to baptism as the Lords Supper Acts 2.38 8.37 Rom. 6.3 4. But were it that I durst not do the one as the other yet this would not help Mr. M. who would prove the title to the initial seal by that proof of interest in the Covenant which will conclude as well title to the after as the initial seal For the proof is usually the seal must follow the covenant which if true then not only the initial but also the after-seal must follow it But waving this is the fault mended in his Defence doth he conclude definitely of baptism here nay notwithstanding he was warned yet chorda semper oberrat eadem he still runs into the same fault concluding in both forms of an initial seal indefinitely not definitely of baptism and therefore may be interpreted to conclude of circumcision as well as of baptism yea rather his assertion if there be any good sense of it is of the circumcising then baptizing of infants sith all his proof is about the initial sign of circumcision and the limitations he puts into the Major are that it may be true of circumcision But this is not all the fault in his new forms notwithstanding I complained in my Examen sect 3. of his ambiguities which I shewed in my Apology s. 9 10. and Postscript s. 6. yet as if either he could not or would not speak distinctly he retains the same fault in his Defence Whereas I conceive the covenant of grace now contains only the promise of saving grace he saith p 90. The Covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church privileges but shews not where nor in which covenant of grace there are promises of the administration of saving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges It is true circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.13 by a Metonymia as Mr. M. confesseth page 32 but not because it was contained in the Covenant it is not Metonymia continentis pro contento but signati pro signo now that the sign should be said to be contained in the covenant is scarse good sense sure it is not meet to be used in disputes And therefore whoever useth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of saving grace or saith it contains any other than promises of saving grace seems to affect ambiguities unmeet for dispute as not willing to be understood Again page 92. he expresseth the covenant of grace he means to be that Gen. 17.7 and he cannot but know it to have diverse meanings one that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed which he confesseth pag. 102. to be the elect when he saith Secondly by the word seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9.8 and in this sense it is denyed by him that God hath made a promise of saving grace to the natural seed of believers and so they are not in this covenant in this sense Yet the Directory when it speaks of baptism as the seal of the covenant means it in this sense as the words before recited shew for what else can be meant when they distinguish between interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and the ouâ—ward privileges of the Church under the Gospel And Rom. 4.11 is alleged in the Confession of Faith for the proof of this that it is the seal of the Covenant of grace now that text speaks of being a seal of the righteousness of faith which is a saving grace and in the Confession of faith ch 7. art 3. and in the greater Catechism they make the Covenant of grace to offer life and salvation by Christ to promise faith and to be made with Christ and in him with all the elect as his seed and so the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal must mean it thus or else it is frivolous For if the Seal must follow the Covenant it must follow the Covenant which is sealed by it which is only the promise of saving grace there being no shew of consequence in it infants of believers have not the covenant of saving grace but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges therefore they are to be sealed with that seal which seals only saving graces And yet methinks they should not have avouched as the Directory doth that the posterity
seal would be limitted to invisible members But this is not true for then the being of the promise would be limitted to them not baptism It is false which Master Blake supposeth that baptism is limitted to them to whom the promise is and that the being of the promise to a person intitles to his baptism He saith it is a call unto such a Church-state as the whole â—â—tion of the Jews did then enjoy as the first-born in the family To which I reply The whole Nation of the Jews enjoyed a Church-state by which they were joyned in one national society under an high Priest and other Priest offering sacrifice at the Temple whither the Church-members were to bring their gifts and to observe the Levitical rites It is a dotage with a witness to conceive that Peter meant Acts 2.39 that the promise was to them or those afar off whom God should call to this Church-state It is certain that the calling of the Jewes and Gentiles by the Gospel was to remove them out of that society and Church-state as appears by v. 40. nor did the Apostles ever associate the Christians to the Jews as Proselytes to them nor did they ever draw them into any such Church-state as the Jews had to take in a whole Nation City or Family comprehending Infants into the Christian church but onely so many as believed as v. 41.42 c. shew yea to call them to such a Church-state as the Jewes had had been to call them not to baptism but to circumcision and the observation of Moses Law The call of God Acts 2.39 is no other then what is mentioned in the new Testament to be Saints to his Kingdom and Glory to the fellowship of his sonne by his word and spirit or one of them at least yea the promise being meant of Christ which Master Blake doth not deny as will appear in that which followes it can be expounded onely of those that are effectually called sith to them onely Christ belongs on the other side to understand it of a call unto such a Church-state as the whole nation of the Jewes did then enjoy is to limit the promise to Jewish proselytes or to national Christian Churches which is a wild conceit unfit for a serious and sober Divine But Master Blake goeth on from whence this Argument may be drawn those to whom the Covenant of Promise appertains have a right to baptism But the Covenant of Promise appertains to men in a Church-state and Condition and to their Children The Major cannot be denied by any that will not make themselves the Apostles opposites The Minor proposition is now onely to be considered that the Covenant of promise to men in a Church-state and Condition is in that latitude as to comprize their Children For which the words of the Apostle are full and clear To you is the promise made and to your Children on which Calvin rightly comments Peter observes saith he a due order when he assignes the first place of honour to the Jewes that it takes in Children it depends on the word of promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed where God joynes children with their parents in the priviledge of Adoption where Adoption is taken in the Apostles sense Rom. 9.5 to the inheritance of privileges belonging to all Church-members as he after explains himself Ans. The Major is ambiguous and in some sense it is true and in some sense false It is true in this sense Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by their beleiving and Covenanting to be Christs Disciples appertains have a right to baptism But in this sense in which Master Blake seems to understand it for he comprehends Infants in the Covenant Those to whom the Covenant of Promise by Gods Acts of Promise whether of saving Grace or Church-privileges appertains without their personal believing or covenanting have a right to baptism it is false Nor is the Contradictory thereto opposit to any thing the Apostle saith who doth indeed exhort to repentance and baptism but doth not from the promise without each persons repentance ascribe a right to baptism to any parent or child the promise is not urged by him to declare a right to baptism of it self without repentance but to encourage to repentance and baptism into the Name of Christ as their duty The Minor also is ambiguous it being uncertain what he means by the Covenant of Promise whether the Covenant whereby the persons promise to God or God to them and if of this latter whether the Covenant wherein God promiseth to them be of saving-graces or of Church-priviledges if he mean it of the former understand it universally it is manifestly false contrary to Scripture and experience whether the Church-state be in respect of the visible or invisible Church there is no such promise of God that if the Parent be in a Church-state or condition so as to be elect or true beleiver much less if he be onely in the visible Church that his child as his child shall be in the Covenant of saving grace have Christ his Spirit remission of sins and life everlasting by him Nor is it true of the promise of Church-priviledges that God will take the child of him who is in a Church-state and condition for a visible Church-member capable of the initial seat because he is his child without the childs personal faith and repentance Nor do I know of any Covenant of Promise now under the Gospel of such outward Church-priviledges but take it to be a faction of Paedobaptists nor is there in the Apostles words any thing to prove the Minor For neither doth the text say the promise is that Gen. 17.7 nor that it is made but onely is nor doth say it is to you as in a Church-state and condition and to your children as the children of men in a Church-state and condition And for Calvins words neither are they plain for Mr. Bls. purpose nor if they were should I take them for an oracle but should expect better proof then his or Master Bls. sayings As for the Adoption Rom. 9.5 it is clear from the text and confessed by Master Rutherford Due right of Presbytery ch 4. Sect. 4. pag. 192. to have been a prerogative of the Jewes as was the giving of the Law the descent of Christ c. and therefore it is untruly suggested by Master Blake to be an inheritance of priviledges belonging to all Church-members or that the Apostle doth after so explain himself and Master Blake continues his want of dictating without proofe He next takes on him to answer objections One is that the children are the same with sons and daughters mentioned v. 17. from Joel 2.28 and consequently the promise is of the spirit of prophecy and appertaining to none but those of age and capacity for prophecy To which he answers 1. That the promise cannot be that extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost in that visibie way
it for granted from Saint Paul that there is none at all that there is neither Greek nor Jew circumcision nor uncircumcision Barbarian nor Scythian bond nor free To which I reply there is no need I should shew any such priviledge held out in the Gospel to the Jewes seed above the Gentiles but that Master Blake should shew such priviledge as he speaks of to the Jewes seed held out in the Gospel But this I say if he will have the text Acts. 2.39 to be for his purpose he must shew that the children of the Gentiles of whom there is not a word are mentioned as those to whom the promise is as well as the children of the Jewes which he thus attempts And when the Apostle addes to those that are afar off even as many as the Lord shall call he plainly means the Gentiles as appears comparing Ephes. 2. And though I take not the boldness to adde to the words and to their children as Master T. challenges Doctor H. yet it is clear that the same is understood there in reference to the children of the Gentiles that is exprest before to the children of the Jewes If any shall grant an inheritance to Titius and his heirs for ever and to Caius every one will understand that the heirs of Caius are meant as well as the heirs of Titius especially if it can be proved out of the grant it self that the priviledge conveyed to Caius is as ample as that to Titius We can prove the priviledges granted to the Gentiles in the Gospel to be equal to those granted to the Jewes when the Jewes children are under the promise with their Parents the children of believing Gentiles cannot be excluded To which I reply that it appeared not plainly to Beza Annot. in locum that by those afar off Acts 2.39 are meant the Gentiles but rather the posterity of the Jewes which should be in after Generations or those in the dispersion among the Gentiles For it seemes unlikely that Peter did then consider or declare the calling of the Gentiles who was so averse from preaching to Cornelius Asts 10. or that it would have been born with them when even the brethren expostulated with him for that fact Acts. 11.3 nor do I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts. 2.39 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes. 2.13 this latter noting manifestly remoteness from God in respect of knowledge and communion the former remoteness from them to whom he spake either in descent or distance of place However were it resolved that the Gentiles are meant Acts. 2.39 as many Interpreters conceive yet it is too much boldness to adde to the text and to their children and not much less in Master Bl. that it is understood when there is neither word in the text nor defect of sense without it nor any ancient copy which necessitate that addition or supplement And for Master Blakes case in law it is not opposite For Acts 2.39 there is no mention of a grant to them and their heirs for ever but only a promise to them and their children which there is no necessity nor I think intention in Peter in those words to extend to any other then were then existent But if it were opposite yet so far as I know their mindes either by such experience in law-cases oâ— converse with Lawyers with whom I sometimes lived I presume they would say otherwise then Master Blake that a grant of an inheritance to Titius and his heirs for ever and to Caius without mentioning his heirs is not a grant to the heirs of Caius no not though it could be proved the priviledge conveyed to Caius is as ample as that to Titius As for what Master Blake tells us he and others can prove of the priviledges of the Gentiles granted in the Gospel equal to the Jewes I yield it if meant of believing Jewes and Gentiles and saving spititual blessings in Christ according to that Ephes. 3.6 But meant as Master Blake would have it of visible Church-membership and the initial seal I take it to be a vain brag neither he nor any other having yet proved it or that the Jewes or Gentiles children are or were universally under the pronise of the Covenant of Grace which is Evangelical with their believing Parents and by reason of their faith I know no more about Acts 2.38 39. in that ch to be answered I return to his answer to my exceptions ch 43. pag. 393. he thus dictates after his fashion Children as theirs whether they be called or no is he knowes with us a contradiction children are called in their Parents call and we say they are in covenant the promise is made to them they are visible Church-members till they reject the covenant and deny their membership To which I say I know many things to be taken for truths and contradictions with Paedobaptists which were neither truths nor contradictions but this conceit that Jewes children uncalled as calling is meant Acts 2.39 is a contradiction I had not so mean an opinion of Master Blakes and other Paedobaptists intellectuals as to imagine they would own it till Master Blake vented this foppery which how vain it is was shewed above In like manner I was secure of ever meeting with such a foolery as this of Master Blake children are called in their Parents call till I read the like in his brother Baxters vain-mocktitled-book plain Script proof c. ch 3. that he that converteth the Parent maketh both him and his infants disciples to which I have said somewhat in my Review part 2. sect 12. And for the other speech that they are in covenant the promise is made to them they are visible Church-members till they reject the Covenant and deny their membership it contains sundry inconsistencies with Paedobaptists hypotheses For first they say the children of believers are in covenant and visible Church-members as theirs children as theirs whether they be called or no is he knowes with us a contradiction saith Master Blake here If so then they are in â—ovenant and visible Church-members while theirs Quatenus ipsum includes de omni semper But they are so when they reject the covenant the relation to their parents ceaseth not then therefore neither their Church-membership if the hypothesis be true Secondly they suppose the visible Church-membership of believers children is by vertue of Gods promise to be their God Gen. 17.7 and this promise requires no other condition but the parents faith no condition from the 〈◊〉 for then it could not agree to infants therefore if the parent be a believer 〈◊〉 the Child be not a visible Church-member God keeps not his promise which he hath made according to their hypotheses and so they do make God a lyar which is blasphemy Thirdly they magnifie the priviledge of infants visible Churchmembership they enveigh against anti-Paedobaptists as robbing them thereof and parents of their comforts though they grant the Parents as much ground
ye see and heare Acts 2.33 to you and your children and all that are afar off that is for their benefit by moving them to own Christ. But me thinks if the promise were meant of that gift it should be meant thus The promise is to you that is God hath promised to give to each of you c. this gift of the holy Ghost because the words immediately before v. 38. are and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost But thus the proposition should not be true For all afar off who were called of God had not that gift and therefore it was not promised them Nor had this sense been so fit as to comfort them sith that gift might be given and was to persons whom God rejected As for the other exposition that the promise is that God will be a God to them and their children as to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 it cannot be the promise meant Acts 2.39 For 1. there is not the least intimation in the text of that promise 2. There was no such promise in all the Scripture that God would be a God to those to whom Peter then spake and to their children as their children no nor such a promise as this I will be a God to a believer and his seed For if this promise were made to the seed of every believer then either God keepes it or not If not then he breaks his word if he do then he is a God to them But that is not true For neither in saving graces nor in Ecclesiastical priviledges v.g. Church-membership and baptism is God a God to every one that is the seed or natural child of a believer Yet if it were true it had been false being spoken to those Jewes who were not then believers nor perhaps many of them evet believers in Christ. And it is most false that the Christian Church-membership and baptism did belong to the Jews as Jews by vertue of any covenant made with that nation For then John Baptist did ill to expostulate with them for coming to his baptism Matth. 3.7 and to disswade them from alleging they had Abraham to their father v. 9. and to tell them of another sort of children of Abraham that had more right to it then they Yea John the Baptist and the Apostles did ill to require personal repentance and believing if they had right to such priviledges by a promise without them Nor is the promise said to be to any children but those that are called of God and therefore not to infants uncalled and consequently this Scripture is very ill applyed to prove federall holyness of believers infants Master Cobbet addes Secondly it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent But let it be considered 1. That the Apostle doth not say the promise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the Fathers with respect unto them or in reference to Christ who was not now to come but already come as the Apostle proveth from v. 3 to 37. Nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled to express it thus in the present tense the promise is to you or to such and such but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same for which let Rom. 15.8 1 John 2.25 Ephes. 3.6 Nehe. 9.8 23. 2 Chron. 6.15 1 Kings 8.56 Acts 2.16 17 33. and 13.32 33. Josh. 21.45 and 23.14 Matth. 1.22 23. and 21.4 Luke 1.54 55 68 69. and Psal. 111.9 Rom. 11.26 27. be considered Ans. 1. How the verb substantive is in the present tense and the promise referred to Christ who was now come agrees with the words and scope of the Apostle is already shewed And my sense is like or the same with Master Ms. when he said in his Sermon pa. 17. The plain strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed and the new Annot. in Locum The promise is to you Christ is promised both to Jewes and Gentiles But the Jewes had the first place Which is agreeable to the speeches of Mary Luke 1.54 55. and of Zacharias v. 68 69 71 72 73 74 75. 2. It is true that the expression in that manner is not usual and it is confessed that in the places cited and many more the fulfilling of a promise is otherwise expressed But what then doth it follow that is not the meaning which I give If it did by the same reason neither Master Cobbets is right For it is usual to express a promise belonging to some of a thing yet to be done in some other expressions as 1 John 2.25 2 Pet. 1.4 yea in the place Rom. 9.4 of which Master Cobbet pa. 31. saith for the promise iâ— to you or belongs to you as Rom. 9.4 hath it the expression is not in the Dative case as Acts 2.39 but in the Genitive But it is needfull to consider how Master Cobbet himself expounds the words Sect. 1. He saith thus The promise is to your children not was to you c. as intending any legal blessing but a promise then in force after Christs ascension to effect some promised blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used to signify the free promise or covenant of grace to which they had visible right Sect. 3. remission of sins may not be excluded but must be one principal thing intended It is that promise to which baptism the seal is annexed Sect. 4. Nor was Abrahams charter less then what here avowed by the Apostle Scil. that the promise even of sins did belong to the Jewes and to their children in respect of external right and administration and no more is pleaded for But repent and be baptized de futuro for the promise in praesenti is to you Scil. in respect of external right Sect. 7. And this promise here mentioned Acts 2.38 39. containing in it remission of sins and so the righteousness of faith The promise of remission of sins is or belongeth to you Scil. in the external right and administration of it So then according to Master Cobbets exposition the promise meant is remission of sins and of this it is said that it is not it was to them and the manner how is that it is to them or it belongs to them in â—he external right and administration of it The promise or covenant he means here belonging to them to be Abrahams charter Gen. 17.7 Jerem. 31.33 34. holding out at least an external interest therein to them being Jewes not yet believing Fathers or repenting for that is rather mentioned as exerted after many words besides v. 40 41. yea rather they were offensive members of the Jewish Church which was then a true visible Gospel-Church they were as persons under censure though they had jus ad baptismum yet not jus in baptismo without repentance yet they were covenant-Fathers and dispensers of the external right of it to their children though their children were not
and that it is verified intentionally quoad Deum is besides the text which speaks not of Gods making a covenant but of Moses v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty not expressing covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
this was the reason why even the Jewes circumcised what ever their interest in the promise should be were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come But this though true and such as shewes a manifâ—st difference between ciâ—cumcision and baptism in their use and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet sith thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance nor is thereby any reason given of râ—pentance being required by Peter afore baptism Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jewes then of their unripe children onely he tels of their practice in New England that when any are received to fellowship with them though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches are admitted upon their former church-ingagement yet desirous to be fixed Members they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed not so of their children not sui juris nor capable of personal satisfaction so it was with them Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way But setting aside the question whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient the defilement being alike in both 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles but openly opposite to Christ and the christian church Nor was that which those Jewes perplexed did propound that they might be of their church as a purer church but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-priviledges but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences which was an act of doctrine not of jurisdiction 2. If it had been so yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jewes to baptism then formerly nor that he did it because they were to be incoâ—porated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism nor is the argument infringed that if covenant-interest intitle to baptism of it self without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child yea in priority to the child who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest then it should much more intitle the Father to baptism without repentance Idem qua idem semper facit idem so that after so many shifts absurdities unproved dictates vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jewes afore baptism against the connexion between covenant-interest and right to baptism Master Cobbet goes on thus nor must that needs follow that because it 's said they were added to the church that therefore they were not of the church before but after Peter spake those words v. 39. the promise is to you c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized as after that mentioned of their receiving the Word gladly and yet will our opposites conclude that therefore they were not of the church nor in the covenant before they were baptized but came into that estate by baptism If baptism were the form of the church or that which they so much urge wholly failed that a person must be first discipled and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized Ans. Either I understand not the force of words or else it is a cleer argument Acts 2.41 And there were added in that day souls about three thousand v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church and these were of the Jewes therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day and that addition For what is addition to a company but a joyning or bringing one more to them then was before even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned And this argument seems so plain to me that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus they are not said to be added till after Peters speech v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly of which there is no cause to doubt sith the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then v. 41. shew it the argument is good after Peters words it is said then and that day were added therefore they were not before of the church Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church it being one means of addition to the church and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church but that there may be a church without baptism nor the onely way of adding to the church for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it yet this I say that neither is a church regular nor the addition as it should be without baptism And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate meaning in covenant by Gods promise to him and in church-estate that is so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it Master Cobbet proceeds thus Nor is that cogent which is urged against the childrens right in the promise and unto baptism that they should be so priviledged when they came to be effectually called and to be turned from their sins as if this were quoad homines their onely rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof or at least the onely way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches courâ— For besides that it was not so of old in applying of circumcision as Gods appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right even with us
blanck childrens federal interest precious parental priviledge cavenant right and such like gibberish according to the Paedobaptists supositions about the imagined covenant to father and child right of infants to the first seal thereby and this a great priviledge without which no revealed grounds ordinary of hope and life this is the substance of the tale that if Peter had told them their infants were not to be baptized who before were circumcised he had added more grief to the spirits of the Jewes pressed with the sense of their wish against their children Matth. 27.25 and therefore he is to be conceived Acts 2.39 to have told them of their infants right to baptism Now surely in my apprehension if Peter had told them such a tale as Master Cobbet imagins he did even then when so great perplexity of spirit was upon them by reason of the horrid sin of crucifying Christ and their imprecation on them and their children they being then indisposed to laughter must in all likelyhood have been much moved either with grief or anger against such a Doctor as would mock them with such a receipt as was no more to their disease then the promise of a feather to weare is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the collick For what comfort could this be to them concerning themselves who expected the heaviest wrath due to them for their sin or concerning their children on whom they wished a most heavy curse to be told of a priviledge for them and their children which as it was to them before was painfull in the use so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation to be continued in an other rite which of it self was but washing with cold water and in the fruit of it before God yielded no benefit without faith and repentance and in the church yielded at best but a title of church-membership by which they had no benefit but what they might have without it noâ— would stand them in any stead for church-communion without their actual believing It is clear Acts 2.39 is an encouragement to the duties and expectation of the good mentioned v. 38. Now what encouragement is it to repent to be told that the promise was already to them in external right and administration and to their infants though not as yet penitent or believers such a motive might rather have tended to keep them in impenitency being in so good case already in the estate they were in And for baptism into the Name of Christ such a motive tended rather to disswade them from it as might fill their mindes with high conceits of their and their childrens covenant-right even by vertue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ or joyning to the christian church And for the good of remission of sins before God which they needed what assurance could they have of it by telling them of their and their childrens having the promise already as Jews without personal faith and repentance in external right and administration before men As for the falsity of the speech as expounded by Master Cobbet it is shewed before what he would burden his opposites with as if denyeng infant-baptism they counted them as Pagans strangers from the Covenant without hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12.13 is a meer Calumny For setting aside their talk of initiatory seal and external covenant which they cannot say assure life to the infants of believers without election we assure as much by the covenant of grace justification by Christs bloud and sanctification by his Spirit which is effectual calling and they can in trueth assure no more nor any other way though to uphold their credit and to win the affections of credulous parents they befool them with idle talk of a covenant which the Scripture never mentions and of sealing that covenant by baptism which the Scripture is silent of The texts Ezek. 16.21 20. Deut 30.6 will be examined afterwards Why he bids see Deut. 29.29 I know not unless it be that we may discern his weakness in alledging the Scriptures impertinently sith it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong that they may heare them and do them in infancy The second consideration is in brief this that the Apostles who as yet preached not for the abolishing of Mosaical rites but were indulgent to the Jewes Acts 21.20 22 23 24. would not give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham it self whereof circumcision was a visible seal as the places quoted in Gen. 17.11 13. and Acts 7.8 declare To which I answer By my exposition there is no exclusion of babes from the promise Acts 2.39 though it be restrained to those who are effectually called sith babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election nor doth my exposition exclude the Jewes infants from the Covenant Gen. 17.7 or circumcision or in the least manner meddle with that point Nor do I think the promise Gen. 17.7 to be the same with that Acts 2.39 If it were yet how it may be understood otherwise then Master Cobbet conceives is shewed above The third consideration setting aside his phraseology is this that if Peter should intend to exclude infants from baptism it were to be cross to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15.8 who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his coming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17.7 or Deut. 30.6 or the like or respecting parents or children but to confirm the same Ibid. But how this consequence is made good I cannot conceive but do deny it and expect a proof of it ad Graecas Calendas Master Cobbet concludes the chapter with an answer to the objection that if this were granted of those Jewish children what is this to our childrens federal interest in the daies of the Gospel and he answers 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace is of divine authority and iâ— no humane invention Ans. 1. In the objection the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denyed to be visibly in Abrahams covenant which Master Cobbet alters thus are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abrahams covenant and yet denyed that they are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the covenants being not the same every way and it being certain as in the case of Saul and others a person may be visibly interessed in the covenant of Abraham and yet not in the covenant of grace 2. Infants visible interest in the covenant of Abraham I know no otherwise then by circumcision and this sure the Apostles taught
of no other then the Jewish children 3. The text Acts 2.39 speaks not of visible interest in the covenant of grace by external administration 4. If it did yet it speaks of none other children but Jewish and so not of ours and therefore the tenent may be an humane invention notwithstanding this text and the concession of the objectour 2. Saith Master Cobbet these Jewes are eyed by the Apostles as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians as was baptism and therefore what extent of federal right and priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way Ans. the Jewes were not tyed by the Apostles to partake of baptism without the repentance of each person to be baptized nor is it by the Apostle made a federal right and priviledge but a duty to which the promise did encourage nor is the promise said to be to them or any of their children but the effectually called so that were the conclusion granted Master Cobbet yet his purpose is not gained that the Gentiles infants are to be baptized 3. Saith he to suppose God by Apostolical ratification to allow to children of Jewish parents coming on to Christ c. a larger priviledge then to Gentile parents as came on to Christ c. is to make God a respector of persons Ans. 1. It is not yet proved that the Apostle allowes to children of Jewish parents the priviledge Master Cobbet means 2. the Jewes Acts 2.39 were not considered as coming on to Christ but as guilty of crucifying him and under horrour of conscience for it 3. The priviledge of baptism or the promise in respect of external right and administration as Master Cobbets phrase is could not belong to the Jewes at that present therefore the Apostles speech had been false in Master Cobbets sense For he cannot assert they were then come to Christ but coming on to Christ nor is it certain that many of them ever came to Christ. But the promise is de praesenti in respect of external right and administration which is Master Cobbets sense is false of persons which were not come to Christ except he will have the Apostle assert a right of baptism to them without faith 4. The Jewish parents children had then a larger priviledge then the Gentiles in the first offer of the Gospel as they had larger priviledges before Rom. 9.3 4 5. and they shall have larger priviledges at their calling hereafter if I understand the Apostle Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. And herein God is not such a respector of persons as Peter Acts 10.34 denies him to be so as not to accept a Gentile who feareth him and worketh righteousness as well as a Jew Acts of special grace undue to some persons not to others argue not unjust respect of persons in God but acts of judgment awarding good to one that fears him and works righteousness because of such a Nation and not to another who doeth the same because he is not of that nation contrary to his declarations promises lawes by which he hath bound himself would argue unjust prosopolepsy his declarations promises and lawes being general and so the being of that Nation extirnsecal to the cause Saith he the force of the words seem to carry it that the same promise which was to those Jewes actually in Church and Covenant-estate was intentionally to these afar off which were strangers actually from a like estate whether those of the ten tribes or rather those of the Gentiles and should be actually to them when they came to be called actually into the fellowship of that covenant and Church-estate Now what promise was that verily a promise which carried with it a partial reference unto their children The promise is to you and to your children And the same is unto them afar off whom God shall call Scil. in reference to their children also Ans. There is no colour from the words that Acts 2.39 the promise is meant to be actually to those Jewes and intentionally to those afar off nor doth this conceit agree with Master Cobbets exposition who will have it to be de praesenti to belong to the persons recited and consequently actually to all there named Nor do I know how to make true sense of this his speech For the promise is either said to be in respect of the act of the promiser or of the thing promised In the former sense the meaning of Master Cobbet should be this that God had made the promise to the Jewes already actually but he had not made the promise to those afar off but intended to do it afterwards But this sense agrees not with Master Cobbets and other Paedobaptists conceit who would have the promise to be that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 But that promise was made almost 2000 years before not made to those Jewes then nor to any afar off afterwards that can be shewed In respect of the thing promised whether it be as I say Christ manifested in the flesh for the remission of sins before God it is not true that it was actually then to the Jewes mentioned Acts 2.39 For they were not yet repenting believing persons or it be meant of remission of sins in respect of external right and administration it is not true that the promise was actually then to them in external right they had no right then to claim baptism being not then believers neither had they the promise in external administration de praesenti for they were not actually baptized which I think is the external administration meant I cannot imagine Master Cobbet would be so vain as to conceive Peter told them they were circumcised but Peter exhorts them to be baptized and therefore the promise was no more actually to the Jewes then present then to those afar off Nor is it true that the Jewes present were then actually in Church and Covenant-estate if it be meant of the Christian Church and Covenant of grace in Christ for they were not repenting believers and if it be meant of the Jewish Church and Covenant-estate which they had as descended from Abraham by natural descent and by reason of circumcision so the Gentiles were never ealled or to be called actually into that fellowship of that Covenant and Church-estate but rather out of it Nor if they had been called into it had that Church and Covenant-estate at all conduced to their interest into the Christian Church and Covenant of grace but rather to the contrary And for the promise it is true there is a reference to their children but not because they were believers children or their children but by vertue of Gods call and it is true the promise is to Gentiles childâ—en and Jewes when called of God and no otherwise and consequently no Birth-priviledge to either intitling to baptism And thus is that magnified chapter of Master Cobbet abundantly answered SECT XXIII Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is
Burgersdicius Inst. log l. 2. c. 5. Keck Syst. Log. l. 1. part 2. c. 3. and others Scheibler Top. c. 29. n. 36. bounds it with sundry cautions And indeed we must cashier many received divisions if that rule hold as e. g. in morality of good into honest pleasant and profitable in divinity of the law into moral ceremonial and judicial of the divine persons into the Father Son and holy Ghost of the Bookes of the Old Testament into Moses the Prophets and the Psalmes and so blame Christ himself What Master Sidenham infers so that it is most clear the words must be understood as they are translated is not denyed by me and yet the words Acts 2.39 as many as the Lord our God shall call limit the first part of the v. Nor do I deny the promise is to you Jewes and your children at present to express the Apostles meaning in the sense I have given nor do I gainsay what he addes and to those afar off also and their children when God shall call them if he mean it of the calling the chileren as well as the parents though withall it is to be noted that in the text there is no mention of the children of those afar off But what he saith further else that is if the promise be not to the children of those afar off when God shall call the parents calling can with no sense be applyed to any tittle of the former part of the verse without you make it monstrous and unlike it self is either false or unintelligible by me For though the promise should not be to the children of those afar off when God called the parents yet this is in my apprehension good sense The promise is to you being called and to your children being called nor is any monstrosity or unlikeness to it self more in this sense then if the term called were applyed only to the latter part But there would be non-sense if the distribution were reduced to dichotomie as Master Sidenham would have it and the proposition would be false that the promise which Master Sidenham makes to be of remission of sins Christ and his Spirit justification sanctification and all graces is to them or their children without calling or though God should not call them There is some more of the like stuff in that which followes 2. It 's against another rule about distribution which is that partes divisionis ambulent equali passu that the parts of a distribution should be equally set together Now here will be a mighty inequality as to the communication of the promise if the words should be taken in their sense the Jewes will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles if children be not equally added to both the Jewes had the promise made to them and their children at present these afar off shall onely have the promise to themselves but not their children Ans. It is one of the vexations that befals men that write bookes that they are necessitated to answer such silly scriblings But so we must do or else the world will be befooled with that which is most vain The objection to which this Author answers is that the latter clause as many as the Lord shall call is a limitation of the verse and no more are under the promise and so children if God shall call them shall also enjoy the promise now that which he contends for is that children is to be added equally to both parts of the v. which was not in question but shewes not the promise to be to the children if God call them not which is the thing in question And as he shootes besides the mark proving what was not to be proved so his argument is nothing to that he takes on him to prove He sets down a rule in Logick which I find in Scheibler â—op c. 29. n. 39. with this explication hoc est sumantur ex eodem genere But in this sense it seemes this Author meant it that the thing divided be communicated equally to the parts of the division it is not true For then the division of being into substance and accident God and the Creature with many more were not right divisions But were his rule right as he means it as it is not yet it is nothing to his purpose He would prove if children be not equally added to both parts of the v. Acts 2.39 then the Jewes will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles which might be granted without absurdity for there would be a mighty inequality as to the communication of the promise which is against the rule of Logick he mentions as if the promise or the communication of the promise were a whole divided into parts and one part were the Jewes and their children and the other were the Gentiles and their children which were ridiculous nor do I know any other way he can understand his arguing from this Logick rule but that it will appear alike frivolous But the Reader I doubt will think I insist too much in answering such trifles I go on therefore 3. Saith he consider how comes this word your children to be kept in for what end and use if it were not to shew some spiritual priviledge they have with their parents when God calls or converts the parents what stands it for but a stone of offence to consciencious hearts Ans. 1. he asserts in this passage that your children is kept in to shew some spiritual priviledge they have with their parents when God calls or converts the parent but a little before he observed a change in the tense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praeseuti of the present application of the promise and supposeth under the call of God already here your children is to shew a speciall priviledge when God calls or converts the parent which intimates that he had not then called or converted the parent and therefore the one passage crosseth the other 2. He had said before that as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children and yet here he refers it in a necessary sense as he conceives to the parent 3. If the special priviledge to the children doth suppose the parents call why not also the childrens call 4. Yea the special priviledge in the Text to the father and child is the promise and that Master Sidenham makes to be of justification sanctification and all graces and can he imagine this promise to be to a child barely on the parents call without his own personal calling by God I think he durst not assert it If he did I am sure it is false as being contrary to Rom. 8.30 and therefore of necessity to make his own exposition good we must limit the former part of the verse in what is said both of parent and child by the words as many as the Lord our God shall call As
there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant If it be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose Answer It is true I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon pag. 9 10. in these words That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families the one called the Kingdom City Houshold of God to which all who own the way of life were to joyn themselves and thâ—se were called the children of God the sons of Abraham the children of the Kingdom all the rest of the world the Kingdom of the Devil the seed of the Serpent strangers from the covenant of grace without God in the world c. The substance of this covenant of grace on Gods part was to be Abraham's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life Gen. 17.1 c. Gal. 3.15 Rom. 4.3 John 8.56 On Abraham's part the substance of the covenant was to believe the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Gal. 3.16 Gen. 17.1 18.19 Gal. 3.17 19. In which passage I did conceive that Mr. M. meant by the substance of the covenant of grace the promise as it is purely evangelical which I conceived to be the same with the new covenant mentioned Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. 10.16 17. And this I was sure was not made with all Abrahams natural posterity much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such but onely so many of either as are elect and believe as Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.29 is determined and so none of a believing Gentiles children are in this covenant but they that are believers or elected to faith in Christ. But then this would not serve Mr. Ms. turn And therefore notwithstanding those words in his Sermon yet in his Defence pag. 90. he saith The covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church-privileges but in what sense he means it contains them he declares not That which is contained in a covenant is either the promise or the condition The seal writing writer pen and such like adjuncts are never called the covenant nor contained in it though they be instrumental to hold forth the covenant Now where any promise is of outward ordinances and Church-privileges or how they should be a condition of the promises I understand not He distinguisheth pag 106. of the covenant of grace thus The covenant of grace is sometimes taken strictly sometimes largely as it is considered strictly it is a covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justifi-fication regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly as the covenant of grace is taken largely it comprehends all evangelical administrations which do wholly depend upon the free and gracious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in types shadows and other legal ordinances this covenant of administration God said Zachary 11.10 he did break with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration we live under where also he rejected the Jews or broke them off from being his people in covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branch and broken off as your self pag. 65. do with Beza rightly express it But herein Mr. M. confounds what in his Sermon he distinguished the covenant of grace and the administration of it He saith The covenant of grace largely taken comprehends all evangelical administrations and saith This administration is fulfilled By the evangelical administrations he means the old legal ordinances afore Christs death and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lords Supper pag. 120. he saith Our Divines own the outward administration of the covenant under the notion of foedus externum the outward covenant Now if there be sense in these passages I must needs charge my self with dulness who cannot discern it Is it sense to call that a covenant without a Trope which is neither a promise nor a condition of a covenant to say that the covenant contains or comprehends evangelical administrations and yet to call it the administration it self to say this administration was administred and not something by the administration administred But let us considee what others make of this distinction of covenant strictly and largely taken or which is all one the inward and outward covenant I have met with none that speaks more distinctly than Mr. Anthony Burges in his Book entituled Spiritual Refining Sect. 8. Serm. 64. pag. 393. who was one of the Assembly The external covenant is that whereby in an outward visible manner God doth own a people add they externally profess their owning of him but yet in their hearts and souls they do not stedfastly cleave unto God and faithfully keep this covenant in the conditions thereof The internal or inward covenant is that whereby God doth in a spiritual powerfull manner take a people to him working in their hearts all those gifts and graces promised in the covenant as regeneration remission of sins adoption and the like And in this sense onely the truly godly are in the covenant and they are onely Gods people and he their God This distinction of a covenant into outward and inward is not a distinction of a genus into its species so much as a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it In this passage there is want of clearness as well as in M. Marshals He tels us negatively that it is not a distinction of a genus into its species yet with some mincing of the matter so much as if it might be the distinction of a genus into its species though not so much which is an expression of a man who would say somewhat but cannot well tell what to say But if it be not a distinction of a genus into its species what distinction is
it were made to any mans seed but Abrahams not to every believing Gentile and his natural seed And certainly this difference between the covenant Gen. 17. and the covenant of grace will be much to the purpose to shew the Covenant Gen. 17 not to be to a believing Christian and his seed and that though circumcision of male infants should have its reason barely from the interest of the circumcised in that Covenant yet such a Covenant-interest not belonging to our children who are of the Gentiles cannot be a reason to entitle them to baptism though it should be granted which is not that our baptism succeeds their circumcision and seals the covenant of grace as theirs did that made with Abraham This mixture of the Covenant and the inference thence that Circumcision did not belong to all believers and their children but as in Abrahams family is observed by Mr. Allen and Mr. Sheppard in their Defence of the Answer to the nine Positions chap. 8. and because their words are apposite to my purpose though otherwise applied by them I shall recite them Now that we hold the right proportion in the persons may appear first in that as was granted Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant but this Covenant was not simply and onely the Covenant of grace but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham whereby on Gods part they were assured of many special blessings whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable and whereby Abraham and his seed and family were bound for their part to be a people to God and to observe this sign of the Covenant which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to Secondly as is granted it was Abraham and his houshold and the seed of believing Jews that were to be circumcised and therefore not visible believers as such for then Lot had been included so by right proportion not all visible believers as such but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to be the people of God according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seal of Baptism is given and therefore as all family-churches but Abrahams being in a new form of a Church were excluded so much more such aâ— are in no visible constituted Church at all In which it is expresly yielded that the Covenant with Abraham was mixt in my sense that Circumcision did not belong to all visibly in the Covenant of grace that it belonged peculiarly to the Church in Abrahams family that Baptism follows the Christian Church constitution which sure is much different from the Jewish and therefore not the Covenant made with Abraham But Mr. M. seems to be sensible of this and endeavours to pâ—event it in that which follows But saith he the first doth almost recall it wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. as if it did onely contain the Covenant of grace in Christ whereas it is apparent say you out of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporal benefits the multiplying of Abrahams seed possession of Canaan the birth of Isaac besides the spiritual blessings To which I reply I meant so indeed and so I plainly expressed my self that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham and the Covenant made with us lies onely in the manner of administration of the Covenant and not in the Covenant it self The Covenant it self in the substance of it holds out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us Answer By mixt Covenant I mean a Covenant consisting of some temporal blessings proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity and some spiritual blessings common with him to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles And I say those promises of temporal blessings were of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham that they cannot in any fit sense be called the manner of the administration of the Covenant that the Covenant it self in the substance doth not hold out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us And all these things I thus prove 1. Those promises were of the substance of the Covenant which are in Scripture called the Covenant it self without mention of the spiritual promises but this is true of the promise of the Land of Canaan c. Psalm 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 Gen. 26.3 28.3 4 13 14. 1 Chron. 16.15 16 17 18 c. In which places the Text expresly saith God made a Covenant with Abraham and then recites the Covenant that it was to give the Land of the Canaanites c. which were temporal mercies not now promised or performed to us Ergo To deny those promises to be of the substance of the Covenant and to call them administrations which the Scripture calls the Covenant it self so often if it be not to thwart the Scripture sure it is unwarrantably to alter its expressions God himself so expresly calling the giving of Canaan his Covenant Exod. 5.45.8 refutes this conceit 2. Those promises are of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham which are integral parts of the Covenant But those promises of temporal blessings are integral parts of the Covenant made with Abraham Ergo the major is in it self manifest for the Covenant is nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises and so if a Covenant have any substance in it it must be the integral parts The minor is apparant from the very words Gen. 17.4 c. where God having in general terms told Abraham My Covenant is with thee he expresseth to the 9. verse wherein his Covenant was with him and that is set down in those peculiar blessings to Abrahams natural posterity Verse 6.8 3. The promise of Canaan can be called no other way the administration of the Covenant of grace than in that in the hidden sense under that promise spiritual good was intended to be shadowed But this very thing shews that the promise of an earthly inheritance was in the first place thereby intended to Abrahams natural posterity and the other onely as an additament or appendix to the promise in its first meaning Now then if the promise of Canaan in the first sense be not of the substance of the Covenant neither is the promise onely implied mysteriously in the more hidden sense which is but an appendix to it of the substance of the Covenant 4. The Covenant made with Abraham holds not out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to Abrahams natural posterity and to us Ergo there is more difference than in the administration The Antecedent is apparant for the promise of the Land of Canaan the birth of Isaac Christ to come of him according to the flesh c. are not made to us Ergo But Mr. M. thinks to prevent this by telling us Godliness having all the promises both of this life and that which is to
sense of the duty oâ— by foundation of a duty may be understood the Rule according to which that duty is to be performed and this may be understood either thus to whomsoever there is a promise of that thing by which a duty is urged on others they are bound to do that duty and then it is false for Christ promised Matth. 28.19 20. to the Apostles whom he bid preach the Gospel and baptize that he would be with them and Matth. 18.20 to two or three gathered together to be in the midst of them doth it therefore follow that every two or three gathered together in his Name are commanded to preach and baptize or it may be understood thus that he to whom the promise is upon the doing of that duty is bound to do it and this I grant to be true but this will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn for there is no promise to infants that upon their baptizing themselves they should have remission of sins nor is Mr. Sidenham so absurd as to make baptism infants duty but their right now as Mr. Sidenham would have it that because there 's a promise to infants therefore others are in duty bound to baptize them as having right to it it is false sith the institution of Baptism is not to whom God hath promised to be a God for that is according to his election which is unknown Rom. 9.6 7 8. but to them who are Disciples or believers in Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. There are ambiguities in the speeches that commands in the Gospel do suppose promises that promises made to persons do include commands that all the New Testament Ordinances are annexed to promises which would be too tedious and unnecessary to unfold it is sufficient to shew they will not serve Mr. Sidenhams turn in the sense they are true and will as well serve to prove infants right to the Lords Supper as to Baptism That which he saith We have as much in the New Testament to prove infant-baptism from the true principles of right to Ordinances as they have for those whom they baptize for they baptize grown persons on such and such considerations and we shall hereafter shew we baptize on as strong and equivalent grounds is notoriously false for we baptize according to the qualification required in the institution of Christ and the Apostles and other Preachers baptizing and directing the use of Baptism in the New Testament which are acknowledged the true principles of right to Ordinances and it is acknowledged even by Paedobaptists that they have neither precept nor example in the New Testament of infant-baptism and therefore cannot have as strong and warrantable grounds as we who are Pistobaptists that is baptizers of believers Nor is it true that it is requisite we should shew them expressâ—command against Infant-baptism it is enough that they cannot prove in its institution Infants never by divine warrant enjoyed Baptism and for Circumcision it was more unlike than like to Baptism and of it an authentique repeal is easily shewed Acts 15. and elsewhere In the rest Mr. Sidenham shews not why infants should not have been baptized at first as well as grown men if it had been Christs minde Ishmael and all Abrahams males were circumcised the self same day in which Abraham was Gen. 17.26 27. and therefore if Paedobaptists Hypothesis were right infants as well as persons of years should have been baptized by the Apostles which they did not for in that it is not exprest it is enough to shew it was not done unless we make the Spirit of God defective in what was needfull to have been set down and to say as Mr. Sidenham doth There is enough to shew it was done though not written is with the Papists to maintain unwritten traditions Rule â—f manners There is no hint left by Christ or the Apostles to deduce as a infant-baptism from And it is false which he saith God hath always ordained some Ordinances in the administrationâ— of which for the most part the subject hath been purely passive He names nor can name any till the institution of Circumcision which was not till after the world had been above two thousand years The rest of his speech savours of this corrupt principle that what we conceive fit in Gods worship is to be accounted his minde This is enough in answer to the first Chapter In the second he saith untruly that the Covenant Gen. 17. was first made with Abraham and his seed in the name of all believers and their seed both Jews and Gentiles nor is it true that if he should finde the same Covenant reaching Gentile believers and their children as Abraham and his they cannot be denied the new external sign and seal of the same Covenant that is Baptism And for what he saith the Covenant Gen. 17. was a Covenant of pure grace I grant it so far as it was Evangelical but deny it to be a pure Gospel-covenant nor do any of his Reasons prove any more than I grant that there were Gospel-promises meant by God under promises of temporal mercies proper to Abraham and his natural posterity and those that joyned with them in their policy which I have proved before out of Scripture to be termed the Covenant it self without a Metonymy and God is said to keep that Covenant by establishing the Israelites in Canaan and therefore it is but vain talk that the promise of Canaan was but an additional appendix added ex super abundanti if he mean it of the Covenant Gen. 17. if he mean it of the Gospel-covenant it is more true that was added to the other as a more hidden sense under the promises of civil and domestick privileges I do not make a mixture in the Gospel-covenant but in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. nor by mixture do I understand any other than a composition of various parts not a mixture in the nature of it or substance or circumstances but that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of two sorts some promises in the first obvious sense of the words proper to Abrahams natural posterity some spiritual common to all believers in the more hidden sense of the words which with what hath been said before is enough to answer that Chapter aâ—so proceeding upon mistakes of my meaning in the term mixt in many passages and the rest if not answered before I let pass because dictates without proof In the third after he hath allowed the distinctions of Abrahams seed into carnal and spiritual natural and believing he sets down six considerations 1. That Abraham 's spiritual seed were as much his fleshly seed also Isaac as Ishmael except Proselytes and Servants which may be granted with these limitations 1. That it be not understood universally for Christian believing Gentilesâ— neither Proselytes to Israel nor servants to them are Abrahams spiritual seed yet not at all Abrahams fleshly seed 2. That Isaac was as much Abrahams fleshly seed as
Ishmael according to the meaning Rom. 9.8 as fleshly seed is called from natural generation simply considered but not as Gal. 4.23 it is meant of fleshly seed called so from natural generation in some respect to wit as begotten in a baser way The second consideration of Mr. Sidenham is this The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually profess Abrahams faith If he mean by the Covenant onely Circumcision I grant it of all Abrahams natural male children if he mean the covenant of grace which is Evangelical though I deny not that it was administred by the mediation of Christ and the work of the Spirit to many elect infants afore believing yet I deny that it ever was or shall be administred to any but the elect of God who have the denomination of Abrahams spiritual seed For I know not how the Covenant which promiseth remission of sins justification regeneration adoption eternal life is said to be administred but by giving these which are given onely to the elect not to Abrahams meer natural or fleshly seed Meer outward Ordidances and outward gifts and privileges as they are not promised in the Gospel-covenant which we call the covenant of grace either as made to Abraham or confirmed by Christs bloud so neither are they administrations of it but arise from Gods command or providence without the Covenant as Evangelical His third consideration is It 's no contradiction in different respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation and a childe under the same promise made with the parent for they both agreed in Abraham 's case which I grant if meant of Isaac and Jacob and such other Heirs of the promise as the Scriptures term them But I reject that which follows that none was a childe of promise but as he came of Abraham 's flesh for believing Gentiles are children of the promise though they come not of Abrahams flesh yea it is not onely true to the contrary but expresly avowed Rom. 9.8 That none are children of the promise as they come of Abraham 's flesh Nor is it true that as he came from Abraham 's flesh so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh for this is not true of males under eight days old or females and therefore this inference is vain Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed His fourth consideration is There was no distinction of Abraham 's fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the Old Testament but all comprehended under the same Covenant untill they degenerated from Abraham 's faith and proved themselves to be meer carnal and rejected the promise But this is manifestly false Esau was Abrahams fleshly seed but never his spiritual seed The Apostle determines Rom 9.11 afore he had done good or evil he was rejected and with the Apostle a childe of the promise and an elect person are the same No man is Abrahams spiritual seed but an elect person or true believer Scripture makes none else his seed spiritual Rom. 4.12 16. 9.7 8. Gal. 3.29 John 8.39 This very Authour makes the distinctions of fleshly and spiritual believing and natural taken out of Rom. 9.7 8 Gal. 4.23 3.16 most true And if a person may be Abrahams spiritual seed a while then the degenerate the elect and true believers may fall away finally and totally and if they that be Abrahams fleshly seed be under the same covenant with the spiritual till they degenerate then a person may be in the covenant of grace and be meerly carnal having not the Spirit of God then a man may be in the covenant of grace and not abide in it then the covenant of grace may be defective mutable and if there be no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual in the Old Testament untill they rejected the promise then there is no distinction of elect and reprobate till in time they embrace or reject the promise contrary to Rom. 9.11 He that holds this position must become an Arminian His fifth is There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the New Testament as our Opposites must acknowledg as well as Infants so are the most visible Professours which they baptize which may have no grace and many prove carnal indeed through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions Answer It is ackdowledged that there is a carnal seed of Abraham under the New Testament in the Jewish Nation but visible Professours of the Gentiles which are baptized although they be many of them carnal men and so are many of the congregational Churches not baptized yet they cannot be termed the carnal seed of Abraham being not his seed either by nature or by believing as he did His sixth is when there is mention of Abraham 's carnal seed in oppâ—sition to spiritual seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abraham 's flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham it must be therefore of those of Abraham 's seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel and these were properly the carnal seed Answer The distinction of Abrahams carnal and spiritual seed is as the distinction of the Church into visible and invisible in which the members may agree to the same persons though on the other side also they may not agree The same persons may be of the Church visible and invisible and yet some persons may be of the Church visible who are not of the invisible and some of the invisible who are not of the invisible so some are Abrahams carnal seed who are also his spiritual as Isaac Jacob Christ some â—re his spiritual seed but not his carnal as Gentile believers some his carnal seed but not his spiritual as unbelieving Jews some neither his carnal nor spiritual seed as unsound Professours of faith of the Gentiles who are no way Abrahams seed nor ever called his carnal seed in Scripture There are but two places I know in which the term of Abrahams fleshly seed or childe is used Rom. 9.8 Gal. 4.23 in both which is meant of his seed by natural generation though in the later in a worse way In the former way those that embraced the Covenant without degenerating from Abrahams faith being descended from Abraham by natural generation are as properly termed Abrahams carnal seed as those Israelites that did backslide I grant Abraham was a natural father to many of thâ—se to whom he was a spiritual father as to Isaac and Jacob and the godly of their posterity but not to all He was a spiritual father to believing Galatians though not a natural Gal. 3.29 But what Mr. Sidenham saith That all to whom Abraham was a natural father were under the Covenant and had the seal untill they rejected themselves
1.2 3 4 5. If any should deny it yet the matter and form of expression v. 6. shewes it to be opposed to something which might be objected against what was before implyed For the speech the word of God hath not fallen or not taken effect intimates that there was some word of God which seemed to be without effect or to fall if the Jewes were cast off from being Gods people And it appears by the answer that the word of God was some promise concerning Israel as v. 6. shewes and Abrahams seed as v. 7.8 9. shewes The word of God concerning Abrahams seed which might be conceived to fall appears upon inquisition to have been that Gen. 17.7 either only or chiefly Piscat Sch. in Rom. 9.6 that word of God to wit that promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Dickson expos annalyâ— Rom. 9.6 the word of God hath fallen when he said to Abraham I will be thy God and of thy seed I conceive it needless to adde any more it being so manifest and so conceived by interpreters of note Hence it appears also that the objection answered by the Apostle is this God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations in an everlasting covenant therefore if the Jewes who are Abrahams seed are rejected the word of God falls To this the Apostle answers 1. By denying that every Jew who was descended from Abraham by natural generation and so a child of the flesh is meant by the seed there named who should be the child of God and so the promise of being God to them is not meant of all Abrahams natural posterity 2. By asserting that they who are counted for the seed and were children of the pâ—omise that is those to whom that Evangelical promise Gen. 17.7 belonged were a peculiar number whether of Jews or Gentiles according to Gods own choice and calling distinguished by no other discriminating reason but Gods will as he proves in Isaac and Ishmael v. 9. Esau and Jacob v. 10 11 12 13. and otherwise in that which followes Whence it appears 1. That the promise Gen. 17.7 was not made to Abrahams natural posterity as such and if so then it is not made to every child of a believer 2. That only the elect whether of Jews or Gentiles are the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 is made and consequently to no other of a beleivers children but the elect nor any other in covenant with God by vertue of that promise but they This to be the Apostles determination I confirmed Exam. part 3. sect 4. by the speeches of Beza Twisse Ames Bayn Walaeus Dounam new Annot Ainsworth Pareus Estius who though a Papist yet is reputed more solid and right about the the point of grace then the Jesuits are and added in my Praecursor pag. 36. the words of Mr. Rutherford of Scotland and Mr. Noâ—ton of New England To which I have added more testimonies of Beza Chamier and the Belgick Professors at the Synod of Dortâ—n â—n my Refutation of Dr. Savage his Position in Latin Sect 5. And because Mr. Blake seeks so much to possesse people as if I drew this from the Jesuits I will add Mr Dicsons words on Rom. 9.7 8. Neither doth it follow bâ—cause the Jewes are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh that therefore they are all sons in the Scripture sense or the seed promised For so even the Issmaelites should be accounted for Abâ—ahams seed contrary to Scripture which hath restrained the right of sons to Isaac and his family by saying In Isaac shall thy seed be called The sons of the flesh are to be distinguished from the elect sons of God for this God would when Ismael being secluded he called Isaac the seed of Abraham that not all are the elect sons of God but onely the children of promise or whom God determined of grace to make with Isaac sons of the faith of Abraham are the children of God and that seed to whom the promise is made Dr. Owen of Perseverance Chap. 5. Sect. 10. The Apostle Rom 9 8. calleth the elect the children of the promises or those to whom the promises to Abraham and his seed were made Chap. 7. Sect. 23 The persons to whom this promise Isai. â—9 21. is made are called thee and thy seed that is all those and onely those with whom God is a God in Covenant God here minds them of his first making of this Covenant with Abraham his seed Gen. 17.7 Now who are this seed of Abrhaam Not all his carnall posterity not the whole nation of the Jewes Our Saviour not onely denies but also proves by many Arguments that the Pharisees and their followers who doubtless were of the nation of the Jewes and the carnall seed of Abraham were not the children of Abraham in this sense nor his seed but rather the Devils John 8.39.40 41. And the Apostle disputes and argues the same case Rom. 4.9 10 11. and proves undeniably that it is believers only whether circumcised or uncircumcised whether Jewes or Gentiles that are this seed of Abraham and heirs of the promise So plainly Gal. 3.7 Know yee therefore that they which are of the faith are the children of Abraham and then concludes again as the issue of his debate verse 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham Mr. Marshal himselfe in his Defence pag. 102. saith secondly by the word Seed was meant the children of the promise the Elect Rom. 9 8. â—s Mr. Bayne nay Arminius himselfe confesses onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon foresight of their faith And indeed so far as I discern in the reading of Arminius his Analysis of the ninth of the Romanes the cited Remonstrants Defence of their opinion at the Synod of Dort on the first Article Mr. John Goodwin his late Exposition of the ninth to the Romans it is agreed that in the mystical sense the promise Gen 17.7 is determined by the Apostle Rom. 9 6 7 8 to belong onely to the elect though the Remonstrants would have them elected upon consideration of believing and the Contra-remonstrants according to the Apostles determination verse 11 c. assign no other reason of the election of some rejection of others but Gods will All do agree that the Apostle determines that every child of Abraham much lesse of every believer is not a child of the promse or the seed of Ahraham to whom the Promise is made Gen. 17.7 but the elect or true believers whether Jewes or Gentiles 7. It is proved that the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelicall or as the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.17 the Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fore-confirmed of God unto Christ was not to every believers naturall seed but to the true believers or elect persons who are meant by Abrahams seed because it can be true onely
senses of his words which I set down might not be conceived to be his meaning and therefore his complaint of me is ridiculous and I shall have cause to censure him as a confused Dictâ—tâ—r rather than an accurate Disputer who doth so indistinctly set down his main conclusion That an adversary cannot determinely resolve what is the meaning and so neiâ—her easily examine his proofs nor know what to oppose Bâ—â— he tells me he meant it of a visible priviledge in facie Ecâ—lesiae visibilis yet he doth not tell what that visible priviledge is He tells me That they have their share in Foedus externum but sets not down what share they have nor what he means by Foedus externum in which they have share And after he saith God would have the children of them who by externall vocation and profession joyn to the Church of God even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge wiâ—h them which hath also ambiguity in it For whereas there are many priviledges which the parents enjoy as R. G. to be baptized to be admitted to the Lords Supper perhaps the Father to be an Elder teaching or ruling or a Deacon in the Church and by Children may be meant persons of ten or twenty years old and while they are children may be understood either during their infancy or during their relation as children to their parents which is as long as they are men the words may be understood either that they have the same priviledge of admission to the Lords Supper or Church-government while they are infants or that they have even in infancy the same priviledge to be baptized that the parent had upon his profession Which last if it were his meanng as most likely it was then his second conclusion being the same with his Antecedent in his Euthymem his argument is an inapt tautology Infants of professors have the same priviledge with the parents to be baptized Ergo they are to be baptized which is to prove the same by the same yet this I must needs take to be his meaning till he shew what other priviledge wiâ—h their parents children of vi-sible professors have in infancy Then he distinguisheth of the Covenant of grace taken largely and strictly which distinction is shewed before Sect. 25 to have no footing in Scripture and to be inaptly used by Mr M. He distinguisheth of Jewes some Abrahams seed according to the promise some onely in the face of the visible Church and of being in Christ by the mysticall union and by visible and externall profession Which distinction I mislike not though they be not of use here sith they were not the terms used in his Conclusion He distinguisheth of Seals belonging to the Covenant the Seal of the Spirit and externall Seals But he neiâ—her shewâ—s where the externall seals as he calls them are tearmed Seals of the Covenant nor was the term Seal of the Covenant at all used in his conclusion Yea to shew how unskilfully he handles the matter in all these distinctions he doth not distinguish any of those terms that were in question and were the predicate in his proposition to wit to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils And this piece of unskilfulness is in that which followeth When therefore I say they are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I mean look what right a visible professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quà visiâ—le professor that right hath his child so to be esteemed But first this speech here explained was not in his Conclusion in his Sermon these words were not there They are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents but this They are to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the Devils 2. Were the sense here given the meaning of his Conclusion it would not be true For if the right belong to the visible professors quà visible professors the same right cannot belong to the child except he be a visible professor For what agrees to any quà talis as such agrees universaliter reciproce and therefore by this expression every visible professor is to be received and esteemed and every one to be so received and esteemed is a visible professor which cannot be said with any truth or shew of truth of the infant child of a believer Besides if this Conclusion were good an infant should have right to be admitted to the Lords Supper sith the parent hath right thereto as a visible professor But Mr. M. makes a large discourse to prove That to those to whom the spiritual part of the Covenant belongs not yet there are outward Church-privileges which belong to them as they are visible professors And to prove this he cites Gen. 6.1 Deut. 14.1 Gal. 3.26 Matth. 8 12. Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 9.3.1 Iohn 8 17. Psal. 147.19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 In answer to which I say â— That I grant this speech to be true 2. I deny that the Texts are pertinent to the purpose of Mr. M. who intends this speech of Gentile visible professors whereas the texts are most of them of the privileges peculiar to the Jewish people namely Deut. 14.1 Matth. 8.12 Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 3.1 Iohn 8.17 Psal. 147 19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 Of the other two the former is of those before the Flood who whether they were called Sons of God by descent or profession or some other way it is uncertain The other Gal. 3.26 is to be understood of being the Sons of God really and the term All is to be limited as v. 27. by ye that are believers as the very words shew For when he saith Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus it is plain this is meant onely of those who had faith in Christ Iesus 3. In all this discourse he doth not shew a Text proving the privileges he mentions to belong to the infants of Gentile visible professors Certainly some of them cannot be applied no not to the Infants of the Jewish nation as v. 9. that to them were committed the Oracles of God that to them God shewed his word c. 4 Nor doth Mr M. distinctly tell us which of these â—or what other outward priviledge it is that belongs to the Infants of visible professors which is the onely thing pertinent to the present business After this he asserts That there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible Membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges and undertakes to prove it from Rom. 11. But I have in the first pâ—rt of this Review shewed Mr Ms and others mistakes about the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 and proved that it is meant of giving faith according â—o election Yet I grant it true which Mr M. asserts in those word and do take notice that pag. 110.
he acknowledgeth that I grant in my Examen pag. 149. a lawfulness of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holiness be unknown to us And yet in the next pag. 111. he tells me This mistake runs through your whole Book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of Grace but onily such as partake of the saving graces of it But of this calumny more may be seen in my Apologie Sect. 10. pag. 47. After all these expressions of his meaning in his Conclusion he adds pag. 111. This then was and is my meaning when I say that infants of Believers are confederates with their parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their parents have by being visible professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such externall priviledges as their infant-age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both In answer whereto I say 1. Neither Mr M. in his pretended explication keeps the terms of his second Conclusion in which the words were not as Mr. M. sets them down That infants of believers are confederates with their parents Nor 2 do any of the words explain that proposition Far would any that knowes the meaning of words take this for a right paraphrase Infants of believers are confederate with their parents that is they have the same visible right c. Is confederate all one with to have visible right to be reputed Church-members to be admitted to externall Church-priviledges to be of the visible Church Yea would not a Grammarian count such a paraphrase to be quite besides the words paraphrased and the words paraphrased plainer than the paraphrase it self Sure Confederate is being in Covenamt together And yet in all this Paraphrase there is not so much as the term Covenant mentioned much lesse any explication in what covenant and in what manner by what act believing parents are in covenant together with their infants 3. By this Paraphrase we have 4 propositions of one like so many Hydra's heads rising up in the place of one The first is That Infants of believers have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their parents have by being visible professors But this is manifestly false For if the visible right be by being visible professors infants cannot have the same visible right but by being visible professors which to assert of them is all one as to say the snow is black The second And are therefore to be admitted to all such externall Church-priviledges as their infant age is capable of is ambiguous for the capacity of their infant-age may be understood of Capacity from the institution of God and so infants of Gentile-believers are to be admitted to no externall priviledges Sacramentall for none are appointed for them or naturall capacity in respect of receiving the Sacrament and then if by the Sacrament be meant not onely the outward element but also the use or signification by it they have not a naturall capacity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism if onely of the elements they are capable also of the Lords Supper as well as baptism For they may eat and drink bread and wine as well as be washed by baptism The third proposition is That the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children This is indeed the conclusion of the Assembly in their Confession of Faith ch 25. art 2. and they cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezek. 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 The impertinency of which is shewed before in the first part of this Review and in that which goes before in this part of this Review Of the impertinency of two other texts to wit Gen. 3.15 Gen. 17.7 Somewhat is said also before and more is intended to be decla-in the remainder of this Review The fourth proposition That the invisible neither takes in all of the one nor the other but some of both I grant to be true After all these Mr M adds I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I mean of them as I mean of other visible professors they are taken into covenant both wayes respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in covenant in respect of out-ward priviledges the elect over above the outward priviledges are in covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to be said of visible members both parents and infants under the N. T. in this point of being in covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children Answer Here again Mr M. explains the term Of Infants being taken into Covenant which was not in his second conclusion However I note first That in respect of saving grace all the infants of believers are not taken into covenant but onely the elect 2. That when he asserts That all the infants of visibls professors are taken into covenant in respect of outward priviledges 1 He never shewes what those outward priviledges are 2. Nor any where â—lse that I know instanceth in any but the initiall seal which is now no other than baptism and this then being the antecedent in his Enthymeme his argument is this All infants of believers are taken into Covenant in respect of the outward priviledge of Baptism Ergo they are to be baptized which is all one as to say They are to be baptized Ergo they are to be baptized unlesse he mean they are taken into covenant de facto and so his assertion should be They are already baptized wich is false and if his inference be Ergo they are to be baptized his argument is They are already baptized Ergo they are to be baptised which were to assert Anabaptism 3. Nor doth Mr. M. tell where that covenant is that promiseth the outward Church-priviledge of an initiaall seal nor by whose act they are taken intoâ—covenant or who takes them into covenant 4. If he understand it of the outward covenant meaning thereby the outward administration he useth the word improperly by a Trope and so speaks obscurely in his main conclusion on which his whole dispute râ—sts which is contrary to Logick Rules and â—ll right Disputation Besides he doth but trifle thus in his arguings Iâ—fants of believers are taken into covenanâ— that is the outward covenant that is the outward administration that is now Baptism Ergo they are to be baptized which is to prove the same â—y the same Lastly if that speech of his be true That in respect of outward priviledges the same is to be said of visible members both parents and infants under the New Testament in this poynt of being in covenant as was to be said
of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children it is apparent to me that he makes the covenant now and then not onely the same for substance but also in respect of administrations contrary to his first conclusion For what are those outward priviledges in respect of which they are the same but outward administrations And if so his speech is in my apprehension professed Judaism opposite to the Apostles determination in the Synod Acts 15. And yet Mr. M. tells me he endevours in all this to speak as clearly as he can possibly which makes me hopeless of any thing but confusedness in his writing when after I had distinctly opened the various senses of his terms yet he wilfully declines making answer in which of those senses I should take his words and when he takes on him to explain his meaning he takes on him to explain other terms then were in his conclusion and yet his explications are as dark as his terms which he would explain and in the upshot his second conclusion can have no other sense consistent with his own Hypothesis but such as asserts Judaism or being coÌ„ceived to be the antecedent of his Enthymeme is the same with the conclusion of it which is meerly to trifle proving the same by the same which course how unfit it is for him who is to dispute I leave it to them to judge who know what belongs to Scolastick exercise Mr. M. next chargeth me with holding no more promises for believers children in reference to the covenant then to the children of Turks And yet page 119. he doth in these words maintain the same which I do I joyn with you that it is an error to say that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the covenant for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people and that experience teacheth us that God uses to continue the Church in their posterity and that Gods election lies more among their seed then others yet neither to Iew nor Gentile was the covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all which is directly to contradict the usuall plea of Pedobaptists that the covenant of grace is made to every believer and his seed and particularly the words of the Directory The pâ—omise is made to believers and their seed seeing the covenant of grace is made to none but those on whom the spirituall part is conferred nor can without wresting the words from the plain meaning according to the Grammar sense the spech of the Directory be understood of any other promise than saving grace Mr. M. and with him Mr. G. Vindic. Paedob pag. 12. charge me that in my judgement believers children are not actually belonging to the Covenant or Kingdom of God but onely in possibility that they belong to the Kingdome of the Devil actually which calumnies are reâ—uâ—ed in my Apologie Sect. 14. Next he speaks thus to me But say you to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church which Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply It overthrowes it not at all for they all include the infants of such professors as the visible Church among the Iewes did include their infants male and female too lest you say that circumcision made them members Answer Though Protestant Divines do hold many of them that infants belong to the visile Church yet they put them not in their definitions There are many definitions cited by me in the first part of this Review Sect. 14. in which infants are not included not in that definition of the Church visible which Baxter plain Scripture proofe page 82 saith Certainly all Divines are agreed That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God or called out of the world c Not in that of Dr. Featly Dipper dipped pag. 4. A true particular visible Church is a particular Congregation of men professing the true faith known by the two markes above mentioned the sincere preaching of the Word and the due administration of the Sacraments Norton Resp. ad Appollon pag. 10. Immota Thesis Idem illud in professione constituit Ecclâ—siâ—m visibilem quod internâ suâ naturâ constituit Ecclesiam mysticam i. e. Fides usque adeo luculenta est haec veritas ut vel invito Bellarmino lib. de Eccles milit etiam à praecipuorum inter Pontificos calamis excidisse videatur The Assembly Answer to the reasons of the seven dissenting brethren pag. 48. Precog 1. The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. himself in his Sermon at the Spittle April 16 52. pag. 15. Secondly that part of the Church which is upon earth in regard that the very life and being of it and of all the members of it lye in internall graces which cannot be seen in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church But now as the said Church and members doe make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eyes and ears of others in that respect it is called a visible Church But the visible is not one Church and the invisible another but meerly the same Church under severall denominations the one from their constituting graces the other from the external profession of them The Church visible of the Jewes consisted of the whole nation and was visible otherwise than the Christian and therefore the definition of the Christian Church visible is different from that of the Jewish Church visible and infants included in the definition of the one are not included in the definition of the other Mr. M. saith I add also Baptisme now as well as circumcision of old is a reâ— all though implicite profession of the Christian faith Answer Baptism of it self I mean dipping in water is no reall explicite or implicite profession of faith but onely when it is done with consent of the baptized to that end Otherwise the Indians driven into the water by the Spaniards against their wills should be profâ—ssors of the Christian faith The like may be said of circumcision Mr M omitting my next reason That to make infants visible Church-members is to make a member of the visible Church to whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree saith thus to me But say you Infants are onely passive and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians I answer Even as much as the infants of the Iewes could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members I reply It is so yet that which made a visible Church member in the Jewish
to all or believers onely and baptism by it must be of all men or onely believers And for a third covenant which they call outward Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 66 67 and elsewhere before cited hath proved it to be a signment and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants as their priviledge Nor if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed can the certainty of their salvation dying in infancy be thence gathered nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms then do Mr Bailee and others in pri nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers robbing parents of comfort concerning them when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they and do give as much comfort as we truly can As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it I objected that if the child of a Christian be a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians whereas it was wont to be a current saying Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge how are they children of wrath by nature To this Mr. M. answers It is his birth-right to be so esteemed to be reputed within the covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church and alledgeth Gal. 2.15 Rom. 11.21 Naturall branches that is visible Church-members To which I say were I to write as a Geographer I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians but as a Divine I should not so speak forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity Acts 11 26. 26 28. 1 Pet. 4.16 The term Jew by nature Gal. 2.15 is not as much as visible Church-member by nature but by natural birth of that nation nor is the term Naturall branch Rom. 11.21 as much as visible Church-members by nature but onely descendents as branches from Abraham the root that is the father by naturall generation To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with to be in the covenant of grace but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh Rom. 9.8 The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain and to serve onely for a shift I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian but he that is so made by preaching I said it is a carnall imagination that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible as well as visible Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations For I grant it was the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel Mr. M. his cavill at my words In this all is done by free election of grace had been prevented if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as discent from men Christianity is no mans birth right Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance that the child should be baptized with the parent and therefore the objection still stands good The speech of Mr. Rutherfâ—rd are Mr. Cotton and not to be reconcâ—led without making contradictories true My answer beaâ—s not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7 Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him but it is refused by M's own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech that in the time of the Jewes if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries Apostates from Iudaism draw up the foreskin again and yet the children were to be circumcised which he denies not but saith Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together I grant this but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine Then he tels me If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance not of parents who remain Gods people in external profession though their lives might possibly be very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their infants left out Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists Mahometans excommunicate persons who are accounted baptizâ—ble by vertue of their Ancestors faith or for defect thereof because nationâ—s â—s Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch 12. concl 1. arg 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same â—â—less he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab Ahaz c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace not including the external way of administration with it Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way â—s a ridiculous charge it being all one as to
accuse a man of nonsense because he speaks good sense to say I do equivocate because I do not equivocate For he that useth a word onely in one sense doth not aquivocate equivocation being when a word is used in more senses than one Fallaâ—ia aquivocationis est quando ex unius vocis multiplici fignificatione sophisticè concluditur Dr. Prideaux Hypomn Log tract 4. c. 7. Sect. 2. Arist Sophist Eleâ—ch l. 1. c. 3. reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when with the same names and vowels we signifie not the same thing which evidently proves Mr M. guilty of equivocating from his own words For in the first conclusion of his Sermon he distinguisheth the covenant of grace for substance which he makes the Covenant of saving grace from the externall way of administration and yet blames me for not including it And if he by covenant of grace include the way of externall administraâ—ion how could he say in his Sermon pag. 26. in the recapitulation of his two first conclusions If the covenant be the same and the children belong to it Sure he will not say the way of externall administration is the same Wherefore from his own words he is deprehended to equivocate in the term Covenant of grace in the first conclusion meaning by it the covenant of saving graces and distinguishing it from the externall administration but in the second conclusion when he saith children belong to it he understands not the inward but the outward covenant not the covenant of saving grace buâ— the way of externall administration And yet he dare not say the â—nfant children of Gentile Christian believers belong to it that is the same way of externall administration for that is in the Jewish Legall Rites Asemblys Confess of Faith chap. 7. Art 5. Therefore he sophistically equivocates in the use of that term which is his frequent manner and yet he is not ashamed to accuse me of that of which his own words acquit me as if he had learned the Artifice in scolding to call another that first of which himself might be detected Nor is Mr. M. clear from equivocating in what follows in which I find muâ—h confusednesse and ambiguity CHAP. XXXVII That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an externall priviledge of visible Church-membership and initiall seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. M. asserts AFter twenty pages spent about the explication of his second Conclusion having varied it five or six times and as I have shewed in every of them still speaking ambiguously even then when he tells us he speaks as plain as he can possibly I pitch upon this which is pag. 116. as his second Conclusion Having said Infants of believers are made free according to Abrahams Copy he thus expounds himself True according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed that look as Abraham the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here By which words it appears thar Mr. M. took this to be Abrahams Copy as he calls it that according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed Abraham and his seed the proselytes and their seed upon their the parents visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Godt Kingdom and Houshold with their parents 2. That so it is in the Christian Church by vertue of that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Gentile believers upon their visibly owning of God and his Covenant have this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents Concerning which Conclusion I say still Mr. M. useth ambiguities of speech there being divers Covenants of God to wit the Old and the New and divers wayes of visibly owning God as by sacrificing circumcision c. by Baptism the Lords Supper frequenting the Church meetings of Christians c. divers kingdoms and housholds of God as the whole world and his Church the visible or invisible which might occasion various senses of Mr. M. his words But I ghesse his meaning to be thus As the Jewes and proselytes being circumcised their children were to be so also so Gentile-believers being baptized their children are to be baptized as visible Church-members which being the same with the Antecedent of Mr. M. his Enthymeme and the consequent it is evident Mr. M. his argument is a meer trifling tauâ—ology as I have often said But I shall not insist on it having in my Apologie Sect. 10. and elswhere shewed it That which I shall consider chiefly in his glosse on Gen. 1â— 7 which to me seems as or more absurd than the glosse of Papists Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church i. e. The Bishop of Rome shall be my Vicar generall of the Oecumenicall Church For 1. according to Mr. M. his Glosse Thee that is Abraham to whom the words were spoken is put for without all rule of Grammar or Divinity or as they speak in Logick supponit by every Jew or Proselyte and every believer or Christian Jew or Gentile who doth not visibly own God and his Covenant 2. According to this glosse the naturall seed of proselytes though but visibly owning God and his Covenant are called Abrahams seed without any use of Scripture which speak of no other seed of Abraham but 1. Christ Gal. 3.16 By excellency so called 2. by grace the elect Rom. 9.7 3. Believers Rom. 4 1â— 12 16 17. Gal. 3.29 4 By nature Gen. 21 12. Psal â—05 6 Gen. 15.13.18 Neither oâ— which are proselytes who do onely own God and his covenant 3. The promise of God to be a God to Abrahams seed is thus expounded The naturall seed of Abraham and the naturall seed of Proselytes and of Gentile Christians visibly owning God and his covenant shall have this visible priviledge that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents In which paraphrase I note what he calls to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom a visible priviledge Now to be accounted I must refer to some person who doth so account and the accounting must be either an act of opinion or science or faith and then to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom is not a visible priviledg but invisible it being in the thoughts of anonother and the sense should be I will be a God to thy seed that is men as v. 9. administrators shall in their thoughts take proselytes and their children to belong to my Kingdom or it is some outward transâ—unt act and then it is an initial seal or I cannot conceive what it
should be if an initial seal either of Circumcision or Baptism if either of these then this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed hath this sense I will bring it to passe that thou thy seed proselytes believers of the Gentiles and their seed even infants shall be circumcised or baptized If any can make any other sense of the words I shall be his debtor And if this be the sense then the promise is made a preâ—iction of infant-Circumcision and Baptism which whether it be not a ridiculous exposition I leave it to any considerate man to judge The Apostle Rom 9.6 7 8. where he expounds this very Scripture understands being a God of saving grace according to election and by Abrahams seed the elect onely Rom. 4 11 12.13 16 justifying of believers by faith Gal. 3.16.29 inheritance and blessing to believers throâ—gh Christ Jesus Our Lord Christ Luke 20 36 37 38. Of being the children of God and of the resurrection Mr. M. his self in his Sermon pag. 7. makes these words a promise of salvation to the infants of believers dying in their infancy pag. 10. he saith The substance of the Covenant on Godâ— part was to be Abrahams God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion to be an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life And this he distinguisheth from the administration of the Covenant Yea in his Defence of his Sermon pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron That Circumcision did seale primarily the temporall promise sanctification secondarily to have an untoward look as being incâ—ngruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratifie temporall blessings which they may have that shall have no portion in Christ. Hath it not then a more untoward look to make this pretended visible privilege to proselytes children though but visibly owning God and his covenanâ— of having an initiall seal Circumcision and Baptism communicated to them meant by the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Much more to call this the Copy of Abraham the Father of believers Not that I deny temporall promises in that Covenant which I have proved to be mixt but I allege these passages onely to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches Besiâ—es the promise were not true so expounded for if this were the sense I will be the God of the posterity of proselytes owning God and his Covenant that they shall be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents then God doth promise that visible privilege to them for the words are a promise of an event not a declaration of a right and show what God would do not what they might claim which in many he performs not there being may of the seed of proselytes that never had the privilege and many of the children of Christian gentile believers who never had the visible privilege of being accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom whereas the word of God must be so expounded that it do not fall as about this very text the Apostle resolves Rom. 9.6 Mr. M. Defence part 3. pag. 127. saith It was not a personall privilege to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed and p. 129. This I add to make it more clear that that promise Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of believers Answer 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant is somewhat doubtfull to me by reason of his using the term Covenant sometimes for the outward covenant or administration sometimes for the promise of God and confounding these terms taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant being covenanters entring into covenant sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace sometimes of the initiall seal termed by him the Covenant and taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant sometimes being understood as they should always be in order to Gods act who alone takes into covenant and puts a man into covenant with himself but frequently though abusively by another mans act aâ— the administrators act of Circumcision and Baptism very seldom of being in covenant or belonging to the covenant by the circumcised or baptized persons own act of promise though in respect of it onely in right speech a person is said to be a Covenantâ—â— or to enter into covenant Of which thing I have often though in vain complained it causing obscurity which a man who is a teacher of others should avoid But concerning the promise Gen. 17 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee in their generations 1. I deny that Abrahams naturall posterity were taken into covenant that is circumcised as I conceive he means by vertue of that promise as I have often proved and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defence pag 182. when he saith The formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God 2. I deny that under the term Thee is meant any other than Abrahams individual person 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed is ever â—eant in Scripture the naturall seed of proselytes or Christian believing Gentiles 4. I deny that by the promise I wil be the God of thy seed can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts That thâ—s promise Gen. 17.7 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise wâ—iâ—h from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer or that this was Abrahams Copy That upon his and the proselytes visibly owning God and his Covenant their posterity should have this visible privilege that they should be accounted to belong visibly to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents Nor doth Mr. M. prove this sense of that promise Gen 17.7 either from the words or their coherence or by comparing it with any other Scripture as yeelding that exposition of it elswhere but saith something pag. 127 128. of his Defence to which though I have answered it sufficiently in my Postscript to Mr. Blake Sest 6. pag. 119. yet I repeat it with addition because much of pleading of Paedobaptists is hence First saith he though Abraham was the Father of the faithful and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and pertake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God and gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant and none but himself yer it was so beneficial
and advantagious to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdome and houshold and partake of the external priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so be fitted for spiritual privledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus traâ—ned up so shall it be with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Ans. 1. Privileges of Abraham in that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are either Evangelical belonging to Abrahams spiritual seed that is elect persons or true believers or domestick and political as that of multiplying his seed the birth of Jsaac continuation of his church in and from him in his inhereting posterity till Christs comming the birth of Christ deliverance out of Egypt possession of Canaan these belong to Abrahams natural seed yet not to all but to the inheriting not to Jshmael nor the sons of Keturah The former all are partakers of it who follow the faith of Abraham whether Iews or Gentiles but none are in refference to these promises reckoned Abrahams seed but those who are real believers in Christ. A Proselyte owning barely God and his covenant vissibly is not either Abrahams seed or partaker of the spiritual priviledges of sanctification justification salvation The latter sort of promises belonged to Abrahams natural posterity yet not to all but to the â—eed inheriting nor to all of them but to the Iewes and in them for one of them to the line from whence after the flesh Christ came None of these were made to the bare vissible Proselites and their children though I grant their children where taken into the polliâ—y of Israel and were to be circumcised and to eat the Passover yet neither did this priviledge belong to them by vertue of the covenant but the command nor for their faiths sake as the immediate adequate reason for then these shouâ—d have belonged to prâ—selites of the gate who beleived in God as Cornelius the Centurion who was a believer but they did not for he was not Circuâ—cised nor to be circumcised with his children if he had any nor blamed for defect of it but meerly so far as is exprest in Scripture because it was Goâ—s wâ—lâ— to have it so Now Mr. M. brings not a word to prove either that the children of prosylites vissibly owning God and his covenant or the natural postâ—riâ—y of christian proâ—essors of the Gentiles are either Abrahams seed or have such an Interest in exâ—ernal church privileges as Mr. M. asserâ—s by vertue of that promise or thaâ— whaâ— agrees to Abraham in respect of exâ—ernal church privileges for his faiths sake must agree either to only vissible prosylites or christians or real believers but speaks like a dictator not a disputer Nor is there any good consequence in this what agreed to Abraham for his faith's sake agrees to every believer For then every believer should be Father of the faithful as Abraham was for his faith's sake It is true that if the truth of Abraham's fâ—ith were the immediate adequate reason of external privileges as iâ— was of justification it would follow them what exâ—ernal privileges agree to Abraham for his faith's sake should agree to every believer but such believers then must be true real believers as Abraham was not bare vissible prosyâ—iâ—s or christian professors But surly Mr. M. means no more by for Abraham's faiths sake but this that Abrahams faith was the motive or occasion God took to enter into covenant with him nor was it simply his real true faith but his remarkeable exemplary faith described Rom. 4.18 19. which was the motive or occasion of Gods entring into covenant with him which is not verefied of every true believer and the motive or occasion was not barely the truth but the eminent degree of his faith In my Postscript Pag. 119. I gave a like instance Matth. 16.18 19. the keyes of the kingdome of heaven binding and loosing were given to Peter for his confession sake yet it follows not the keyes are given to every one that makes the same confession as he did And the reason because the confession was eminent and exemplary at a special time and it was but the occasion not the immediate adequate reason of that gift to him for that was onely the special grace and purpose of Gods will 2ly saith Mr. M. Abraham's natural seed prosilites of other nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abraham's faith have brought their children into covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-member-ship as we know they did Answ. I do not know that the proselytes natural seed had the visible church-member-ship Mr. M. Mentions by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 and their parents faith but of Gods command Exod 12 48. 3ly saith he And we know also that this promise of being the God of believers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundreds of years after Abraham Jsaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30.6 so Esa 44.2 3. so likewise Esay 59.21 and this last promise your self acknowledg Pag. 54. to be intended chiefly of the nation of the Iewes at their last calling in And whereas you use to elude these texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to believe and reach not to any privilege which is external I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Jsaac and Jacob for to believers then as well as believers now were these promises made Answ That which I say is no elusion of the texts but so plain and evident that Paedo-baptists of note do concur with me Mr. Rich. Baxter in his letter to Mr. Bedford in the friendly accommodation between them To this and that which followeth I answer 1. These following arguments perswade me that you erre 1. no such promise thaâ— giveâ—h certainly Cornovum or the first effectual grace to all the rightly baptized or to all the children of believers can be shewed in Scripture I will circumcise thy heart and of thy seed seems to me to be none such 1. because els it should not be the same circumcision that is promised to the parent of the child but there is no intimation of two circumcisions in the texr one to the father being only an increase or actuating of grace and the other to the child being the giving the first renuing grace 2. the text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant state but in their adult Deut. 30. For. 1. v. 2. The conditon of the promise is expressly required not onely of the parents but of the childâ—en themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the sam acts which are tequired of the parents viz to returne to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth
to be meant onely of those that were capable of the act v. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God So that it is not ment of those that are uncapable of so loving And after A new heart is given to the elect onely By this doctrin you feign a new heart not to be proper to the elect which is contrary to all the Anti-arminians that I know of Out of which it plainly appears that Deut. 30.6 Speaks not of an external privilege but a spiritual grace proper to the elect nor can be meant of the seed of believers in their infant staâ—e but in their adult In the text Jsai 44.2 3. speaking of Gods pouring his spirit on the seed of Jacob his servant And Ieshrim whom he had chosen whom he bids not to fear and his blessing on his off-spring and that they shall spring up as amongst the grass c. the terms Jacob and Jeshurim are taken not personally for it were in vain to bid Jacob dead long before not to fear but Collectively either for the nation of Israel or the church of God called the Jsrael of God Gal. 6.16 In the former acception the seed and off-spring must be ment of the children of Israel that is the Israelites by natural generation and then the sense is as Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on that text my spirit that is my blessing the one expoundeth the other whereby they and their state should thrive and flourish and mulâ—iply and increase that had been almost clean exhaust and exceedingly impaired in a manner beyond al hopes of recovery before ch 26.19 Ezek. 37.3 11 14. So of their land ch 32.15 and of their â—eed ch 61.9 He followeth still the comparison taken from grounds well watered as ch 58.11 and the seed sown in soil ch 32.10 In the latter 〈◊〉 he it is a type oâ— that spiritual growth and increase of Gods church and the members 〈◊〉 under the Messiah by the graces and comfortâ— oâ— his spirit Acts. 9.31 Eâ—hes 4.12.15 Col. 2.19.2 â—et 3.18 Sâ—e ch 2â— 6 and 37 3â— and 61.9.21 Take it either way it makes noâ—hiâ—g for aâ— external vissible privilege from age to age belonging to the natural seed even o◠〈◊〉 believers but in the first acception it nâ—â—es a future multiplying of the Jewes then much wastâ—d in the laâ—ter spiritual graces and comforts to 〈…〉 And for the last tâ—xt Ames Coroâ— Acts. 5 c. 2â— versum vicesimum quem in hanc partem Remonstrantes trahunt in alteran partâ—m accipit Apostolus Paulus Rom. 11.27 promissionem absolutâ—m electorum propriam in eo Contineri manifestis verbis confirmans Extermâ—n nihil sonâ—t spiritus meus qui est in 〈◊〉 â—eminis etiam inculcatio solos electos â—â—â—caciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc citulum interpretante Rom. 9. â— Gal 3.16 4.28 Mr. Gataker annot on Esai 59 21. thy seed the faithful the seed according to the promise Deut. 30.6 Rom. 9.6 8 Gal. 3.16.29 Se Dr. Owen of Perseverance ch 3. Sect. 41. ch 4. Sect. 3. ch 5. Sect. 9. ch 7. Sect. 23. And for what Mr M counts absurd I yeild iâ— that my answer cuts off Isaac's and Iacob's natural posterity from these promises except they be elect And as for Mr. M. deprehending me in absurdity and trifling such as I cenceive in Mr. Cottonsâ— words I tell him that his discourse runs upon a mistake of my words and meaning which he doth almost in every thing he repeaâ—s of mâ—nâ— and censuâ—es out of hast to frame his book as I am willing to conceive For where do I say that which he ascribes to me and from which he would infer like triflinâ— and absurdity as was in Mr. Cottons speech that God made this promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed in all generations And yet if I had said it such trifâ—ing as Mr. Cotton used would not have followâ—d on those words ascribed to me unless I had said also that Abraham Isaac and Jacob were put for every believer and â—heir seed had been meant in â—hat proposition ascribed to me of their spirituall seed by faith And for the close of that discourse in which he tells me Thus by your own argument you cut off all the Jewes but such as were elect and inwardly holy as much as you do the Gentiles from having any visible communion in externall privileges I say Mr. M. fathers on me his own brats first a proposition I deliver not then an argument which was none of mine as he makes it and then a conclusion I never owned nor would follow on that proposition or that argument he would father on me For if it were granted that I asserted that God promised to Abrahaham Isaac and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed in all generations and that my reasoning on Mr. Cottons words would prove this proposition must be meant onely of the elect and inwardly holy as Mr. M. falsly imagines I do not cut off the Gentiles from having any visible communion in externall privileges unless I had said the elect Jewes or Gentiles onely had visible communion in externall privileges by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 whereas I never said that externall privileges as v. 9. of the initiall seal of Circumcision was proper to the elect and inwardly holy or derived it from the promise Gen. 17.7 but onely from the command v. 9.10 SECT XXXVIII Animadversions on the third Chapter of the first part of Mr. T. Cobbeâ—s Jusâ—â— Vindic. Sect. 1 2 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church-Covenant and externall privileges of the covenant of grace are refelled TO how little purpose Mr. M. hath alleged the promise Gen. 17 7. hath been considered I shall now view what Mr Cobbeâ— Just. Vindic. part 1. â—hap 3. brings for his doctrine of federal holiness of Church-members children from thence First he begins Sect. 1. with certain distinctions The Covenant of grace saith he is considered either nakedly or as invested with a visile politicall Church covenant if not explicite yet implicite We are to consider this place Gen. 17. not so much in the former as the later sense God making of it with ference to the Church which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac v. 18 19 20 21. albeit at present it be to be contained in Abrahams own family whence also he ordaineth an initiatory seal and way of restipulation to which they submitting together as one selected body collectively and as members thereof distributively they did implicitly make confession and promise to God and bind themselves in a nearer religious tie one unto another Hence then renewed Deut. 29. 2 Chron. 15. 30. 34. Nehem. 10. Ezek. 16 8. Answer It had been well if Mr. C. had defined the covenant of grace in this sense and how it is feâ—cht from Gen. 17.7 that I
according to men children of the promise as Mr C speaks Heb 4 1 4 proves not that the promise of grace and glory may be to one as his legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short For though there be mention of a promise left yet not of a promise left to any that come short of it unless by being left be meant propounded or tendered onely Antipaedobaptists do grant they admit false brethren to baptism and the Lords Supper called by Mr Cobbet seals of Church and Covenant fellowship but it is not in them to admit them into the fellowship of covenant meaning the covenant of grace for that is Gods peculiar We admit them to baptism on this ground not because to us they are in covenant we suspend any judgement about their interest in the covenant as being out of our cognizance and no Rule for us to admit or keep back from baptism but because we know them to be professors of faith in Christ. If by Blanks be meant such as to whom the promise of the covenant of grace is not made and by Seals Baptism and the Lords Supper we think we do ordinarily put seals to a blank nor do we make scruple thereof or think it true that the seal must follow the covenant or that Gen 17.9 10 11 13. Acts 2 38 39. 1 Cor 11 25 prove it That it is not taught Gen 17.7 10 11 13 Ast 28 39 is shewed in the fore part of this Review Sect 5 and in this part Sect 5 8 13 20 21 22 23 37 and elswhere 1 Cor. 11 25 the cup in the Lords Supper is called the new Testament in Christs blood but that all or onely those who are in the covenant of grace must have the the cup is not proved thence and the falshood of it is shewed above often We do not say when we admitted persons to baptism we judged them to be in the covenant of grace else we had not admitted them but we knew they professed faith in Christ and so were Disciples of Christ and thereupon admitted them according to our Rule Matth. 28 19 leaving it to the Lord whether they be in the covenant of Grace or no we being not directed to enquire whether they were in the covenant of grace but whether believers and disciples by profession I for my part agree not to it that either according to Scripture or the best Protestants any are said to be children of the promise or that the covenant of Evangelicall grace in the N. T. confirmed by Christs blood is made to them or belongs to them besides the elect Such Doctrine gives great advantage to the Arminians undermines perseverance in grace and the Polemicall Doctrine of our choice Divines as I shewed Exâ—men part 3. Sect. 4. and elswhere in this part of the Review Mr. Norton Mr C. his Colleague commended by Mr Cotton with Mr Cobbet as a prime writer in the New English Churches Resp. ad syl quaest Apollon p. 30. saith Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi objectum faederis Ecclesiastici sunt tum electi tum reprobi My own Tertulliâ—n in his book de Anima chap. 21 22 when he urgeth that Texâ— 1 Cor 7 14 for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed means not the federall holiness Mr C. teacheth but holiness by reason of the freedom from that unholiness in their procreation which the Infidels children had from the many gross idolatrous superstitions by which they were defiled and as it were dedâ—cated to the Divell as I shew in my Apologie Sect 16 page 85. Paraeus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancthon Mr. Philpot are all Neotericks Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerom Austin though they did plead for Paedobaptism from the Argument of Circumcision yet did not mâ—inâ—ain Infants covenant-estate as Mr. C. but a necessity of baptism to Infants ready to die because of the Text The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people Gen 17 1â— Instances whereof in Augustine and others are many cited by Chamier Pausir Tom 4 l 3 c. 3 Sect 39 40 41. And they thought the Infant dying baptized was infallibly saved whether believers child or not As for others they denied their entring into the kingdom of heaven as I shew you in my Examen part 1. Sect 7 8 9 10. I have often considered Zech 11 10 and I conceive the sense as Mr C. makes it of the covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9 and their externall right in that his covevenant to be very vain For if it be meant of the covenant of grace then it is as much as to say That I might not write my Lawes in their heart forgive their sins c. as I â—romised them Jer. 31.33 and then God should break his promise theâ—e should be falling from the covenant of grace c. If the sense be of the covenant of grace in respect of externall administration thereof amongst them and their externall right in that his covenanâ— then it is as if he had said That I might take away Circumcision the Passover and the rest of the Temple-service and the peoples right to them For what is the externall administration of the covenant of grace but the seals as they call them and the rest of the service of the Sanctuary Now this neither agrees to the phrase for Circumcision is never called Gods covenant with all the people and to break circumcision what is it but either to draw up the fore-skin and to forbid circumcision If this be referred to the time of Christs coming this had not been a prediction of an evill to them but of a benefit to be eased of that yoak verse 9 mentions not externall administration of the covenant of grace or externall right there o. But whenever it was accomplished whether at the siege of Jerusalem or at some other time it was the taking away of some who might be their protectors whereby they were exposed to destruction which whether they were the Maccabees or some others may be doubted However it is so frigid an interpretation to interpert it as Mr C. doth that methinks he should be ashamed to blot paper with it The Covenant ch 10. whether it were that Gen. 17. or that Exod. 19. or 24. or Deut. 29. â—t is certain it is meant not of the Covenant of grace common to all believers Gentiles or Jews but of the covenant which he made with the Israelitish nation which he brake by taking away their Leaders whether Governors or Teachers Maccabees or some other and so exposing them to ruin by the Grecian or Roman Lords or some other Psal. 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31 32 33. to deal falsly in Gods Covenant and to forsake the holy Covenant and to do wickedly against the Covenant do not intimate that Mr. C. would infer that there are some said
an abuse in Stapleton by Dr. Rainold Apol. Thess. Sect 20. to interpret the flock of God redeemed by his blood of any reprobates Of 2 Pet. 2.1 I have spoken before An externall being in the covenant of grace quoad homines by the parties profession I never denied but an externall being in the covenant of grace of believers infants by vertue of the parents faith in the New Testament I still deny Mr C. takes upon him to answer my Dilemma Examen pag. 52. and tells me The covenant is theirs externally and quoad homines considered as invested with Church-covenant and in reference to covenant-ordinances whereof they are capable as of old they were of Circumcision and are now of baptism Thus it is theirs at present in respect of the visible faith and interest of the parent or parents in the covenant and for the future it 's theirs in the further grace of the covenant upon condition of their believing if they do live to years of discretion Answer The position I intended to prove by the Dilemma was set down page 48. That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen 17 7. in these words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is not made to a believer and his naâ—urall seed to which Mr C. his answer is by telling me The covenant is theirs externally c. which is to answer nothing to the Argument which proceeded against the asserting Gods Covenant Gen. 17.7 as a promise of saving grace to belong to a believers naturall seed Nor doth he prove but dictate that Gen. 17.7 Ther 's a promise concerning the externall covenant or to any Gentile believers naturall seed or that there is any mention of Church-covenant or that â—itle to Church-ordinâ—nces as Baptism and Circumcision is derived from interest in the promise Gen 17.7 Or that the parents visible faith or interest in the covenant makes it the childrens or that the covenant is such an ambulatory or revocable contract as to be the infants for the present in respect of the parents faith but for the future it 's theirs in the further grace of the the covenant upon condition of believing if they live to years of discretion These Dictates are hatched in Mr. C. his nest but have nothing in the Text for them nor doth he attempt to prove them in that chapter which is termed The Explication of Gen. 17.7 c. In like manner he dictates in that which follows I had said if the covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not â—f he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 Or if some are not saved though they be in the covenant of grace there may be Apostasie of persons in the covenant of grace In answer to which he tels me God may be said absolutely to covenant with believers seed collectively and specifically considered and yet all the individuall children not saved It is absolutelely made and made good that that sort of persons shall be and are saved by virtue of Gods covenant for some of them are infallibly saved the covenant is to the indefinite collective seed or children in respect of internall saving interest else none of them dying Infants should be saved Whereto I reply The promise is to Abrahams seed Gen. 17. â— But that the promise is to be a God to any Gentile believers naturall indefinite collective seed in respect of the internall saving interest as such is not true The promise is not made indefinitely but definitely to Ahrahams seed under whom none but believers of the Gentiles or elect persons are meant nor is it made specifically to a sort of men but to such and such numericall persons as were Abrahams seed by nature or grace Nor is it made collectively to any of them as part of the whole number of Gentile-believers naturall seed but as Abrahams seed by grace and if any of them be elect it is made also to Gentile unbelievers naturall seed under the same consideration It is true some of the believing Gentiles seed dying infants are saved nor can we say that none of the unbelievers infants dying in infancy are saved notwithstanding the Arguments brought to prove their perishing But none of them are saved by virtue of a promise made to that sort of persons that is believers naturall children for there is no such promise but by vertue of Gods election conformable to which is the promise of saving grace Gen. 17.7 as the Apostle expresly determines Rom. 9.6 7.8 and consequently as election is of individuall persons not of a collective indefinite specificall seed as Mr. C. speaks so is the covenant M. C. goes on thus Supposing they are the Israel of God a part of the elect seed yet the means of saving effect in and upon them is the word of the Covenant Rom. 9.6 It 's through the effectuall word and engaged truth of God that that part of the Church are savingly purged Eph. 5.25 26. Answ. I grant this to be true yet conceive that Eph. 5.25 26. speaks of the word of promise not barely as made but also as accomplished in Christs performance and published by preaching whereupon baptism follows by both which Christ sanctifies and purgeth his Church savingly by the one as the means by the other as the sign He adds The covenant is to the individual seed of all and each of them in respect of externall interest and yet many of them not saved Answer This is an exposition which is without proof or example of the like 1. That where God saith I will be a God to Abrahams seed he means other believers even Gentiles naturall seed 2 That he means this in respect of externall interest onely to some 3. That some of those to whom he promiseth to be a God according to the covenant of grace in Christ may not be saved 4 That by Abrahams seed he meaneth in respect of saving effects the indefinite collective seed of Gentâ—le-believers so as that it is onely made good to that sort of persons which were true if none but Isaac and Iacob were saved For if the promise of salvation be onely to the sort of persons it is made good in one or two of believers seed but in respect of externall interest to the individual seed all and each of them yea though the parents be but hypocrites and not savingly in the covenant of grace themselves He goes on Nor yet is Gods faithfulness impeached or impaired nor need the faith of believers be shaken if this or that child should prove live and die wicked the force of the covenant is not to be measured by the fatall miscarriage of many of Abrahams Church-seed Answer Neither is Gods faithfulness impeached nor need the faith of believers be shaken though all their chidren die wicked It is not true
any gracious parent concerning his naturall children It is true Rom. 9.6 it is said the word took effect and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then it is expresly said v. 7 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation but the speciall choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature or ingraffed there 's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents but by vertue of Gods election v. 11. The Text Ephes. 5.26 seems to me to contain not onely the word of promise as sanctifying or purifying the Church but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4 10.36.44 Joh. 17.8.17 Rom. 10.8 preached and believed not by the parents but the parties purified Acts 15.9 who as they hear the word and believe so are baptized upon their believing It is true that the Jewes hereafter to be ingraffed again are said according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers Rom. 11.28 But this is meant of the Jewes onely and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jewes reingraffed for they doubtless will be Infidels but of the ancient Fathers Abraham Isaac Jacob out of the remembrance of their following God and Gods covenant to them which were both singular and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them 2. There 's not a proof for the other part of the comparison that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible For Ezek. 16 8. mentions Gods covenant which he swear not their's by which they became his and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured had caused them to be slain and deliverd them to pass through the fire for them Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind even the sacraficing their children and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God and to his spouse the visible Church then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenant and therby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols yea the Devils in a most horrid manner there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God to his spouse the visible Church for their children Horrendum dictu The meaning of the text and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly by Mr. C. and others hath been often shewed Jerem. 13.11 makes nothing to the purpose God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai and by his special deliverances and providences for them What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God oâ— the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege 3. were the first part of the comparison proved that the Covenant laid hold on 〈◊〉 the lively faith of the parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect seed yet there is not any liklyhood that the other part should be true that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church as if because Peters faith and confession obtains from God a special privilege Judas his profession must obtain something of God for his children though he were a Devil If there be strength in these dictates of Mr. C. their 's weakness is nothing The answers to the objections of I. S. proceed upon a conceit of a relative grace and implicit calling and of in-being in Christ without either Christs spirit or faith or profession of faith which are things that have no Scripture grounds The absurdity objected against his opinion that it entails grace to generation that it upholds a national Church â—e puts off only thus He knowes we in N. E. which hold the one yet do not maintain the other in the usual sence of a national Church But this shewes not how he will acquit his doctrine from maintaining that by consequence which is disavowed by those of N. E. For if there be such a covenant and Church covenant now as there was Deut. 29.10 11 12. and Ezek 16.20.21.22 of validity to beget an external filial relation to God and to his visible spouse the Church it cannot be denied but that the worst Idolaters even Papists are visible Church-members and by consequent the whole nation elder and â—onger are in the Church Which what it makes less than such a national Church as was of the Jews I understand not SECT XLII Animadversions on Sect. 7 of the same chap. shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein IN the seaventh Sect. Mr. C sets down this conclusion that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church Covenant in respect of external interest therein In which as almost in all his writings about this point there 's much ambiguity He neither sheweth whom he means by the body of the Jewish Church whether every Jew or some only and if some who those are whether the most part or the chiefest nor what he means by the Covenant of grace what promise they are under nor how they are under it Nor doth explain what he means by Church-Covenant or investing with it nor what is the external interest therein which they have nor how they are under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church covant in respect of external interest therein and not with respect to internal interest For my part so far as I am able to discern his meaning this is it that all the Jews from the promise made to Abraham I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 have this privilege that all should be accounted members of that Church and the males circumcised But I know not how it comes to pass this author either affects or it is his vein to use ambiguous expressions when he might use plain and to talk in a new phrases hard to be understood of the Covenant seal Church-seed c. And not to explain his conclusions afore
he proves nor to shew how he proves out of the text he allegeth but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages However I shall view his dictates He denies that the Jewes had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel but the elect only Rom. 9.6 7 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of workes as is plain from Rom. 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. Gal. 3.12 and 4.24 25. Heb. 8 9 10 11. c. and 12.18 19 21. It is false that he hath any where proved that the external Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision for he did not appoint the females or males under eight dayes old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight dayes old He bids us see Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26.3 4 5. and 28.12 13 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan the multiplying of them c. that God injoyned circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant This covenant as containing the promise of Canaan c. to the natural postority of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is expressed to be by reason of Abrahams obedience Gen. 26.5 circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levit. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak sutable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16 c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith Iohn 8.56 and elswhere Now it is not true that those covenant Fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob recieved the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and workes made with them For though the Jews succeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17 18 19 21. noâ— is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10 as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law It is no where said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16 nor they termed his seed lump branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually that is by natural generation or by following his faith by vertue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches but as propagating the branches Nor need we say that he either received a covenant oâ— works alone in referrence to them all elected or that he recieved the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above Mr. C's dictates are meer phantasms without Scripture The substance of the Covenanâ— is a novel expression and ambiguous I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical yet I concieve it not purely such but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixt that is containing political and Evangelical promises I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came yet so as that when thay set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22 23. They had also Gods oracles with them deliverance from Egypt Christ to be with them in the wilderness nor do I deny these to have bin by vertue of Christs mediation yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews What ever be meant by the Covenant the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers And though I say they were by vertue of Christs mediation yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only for others only obliquely by consequent and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth I deny not that filling the Temple with smoake Rev. 15.8 allusively to that which was 1 Kings 8.10 11. Isai. 6.1 2 3 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies I neither do nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 But the wrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gr translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4 c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21 22 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuelâ— land Esâ—i 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3 laâ—â— compared with ch 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief If God promised to be a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17 7 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise I wil be a God to them If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision yet had no lots in Canâ—an then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices For though the typical sacrâ—fices in respect of purifâ—ing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation yet none were purâ—ed by Christs blood but the elect The high Preist bare the
names of the 12. tribes and these represented the elect for whom Christ made intercession and atonement not every Iâ—raelite Rom. 9.6 What Mr. C. saith the Covenant of works holds out pardon or mercy to transgress I do much question It seems to me that Aâ—ab though under a Covenant of works yet had some mercy 1 Kings 21.29 And whether the offence against some of the laws were not in some respect forgiven Levit. 4. to them who had not faith in Christ for the sacrafice they offered which were all offered according to the Law Heb. 10.8 I do make question Nor do I think but that by the Covenant of the law in respect of temporal evils there was some pardon by vertue of obedience to legal prescriptions though some sins as of presumption Num 15. were not no not to them that were in the covenant of grace as its liâ—ely in Eli. his Case 1 Sam. 3.24 see Gethard Ioh. Voss. resp ad Judic Ravensp c. 22.23 Concerning the Covenant of the Law though it require no faith in Christ or repentance for justification yet whether according to the covenant of the law some repentance were not accepted for revoking some temporal evils contrary to the promises of the Covenant with the Iews at mount Sinai may be doubted from Deut. 29 21.25 and 30.2 3 8 9 10. But of these Chapters more hereafter in answer to M. B. I grant no salvation but by Christ but denies that therefore al the Iews best worst had salvation external covenant-right nor though al the Iews best worst had the same dispensers of the covenant mentioned Exod. 19.5.6 24.7.8 wil it follow they had all right at least externally in the covenant of grace For that speaks of the covenant of the law I grant that the first Covenant of works was made withal in Adam and that the Covenant Gen. 17. was a particular covenant made with the seed of Abraham yet the Covenant at mount Sinai was not made with all men without distinction but only with Israel whom he brought out of Egypt the Jews Ro. 11.20 were broken off from the invisible church of true believers which was in that nation in their progenitors as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. c. I agree with Mr. C. that the Covenant in Horeb Deut. 29.1.2 with Deut. 30.6 had the stipulation of do this and live and that the Covenant of the law was differnt from the promise Gen. 17. that it held out temporals this externals How the Gentiles were ingraffed in the room of the Iewes and not into the externall right privilege as by Mr C. imagines is shewed in the Review ubi supra That the covenant of Sinai was without mercy I question as above And methinks Ezek. 16.60 proves That God would remember his covenant with Israel in the dayes of their youth and shew them mercy for it Now the covenant made with Israel in the dayes of its youth is meant of the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt for so the whole description of their pitiful estate which can be referred to no other than the time of their bondage in Egypt v. 4 5 6 7. after which was his covenant in the dayes of their youth v. 8 shews the covenant in the dayes of their youth to have been the covenant at mount Sinai And so the new Annot. on Ezek. 16 8 I sware unto thee I made a solemn covenant with thee that I would take thee to be my people Exod. 19 24 chapters Ier. 2.2 Piscat S hol in v. 7 nudissima i. e. destituta omni ope pressa sc servitute in Aegypto in v 8 visitari te per Mosen educendo te ex Aegypto pangendo tecum fedus atque ita ducendo te in uxorem Grot. in Ezek 16.5 Populus enim in Aegypto natus est in v. 7. sic exprimitur miseria Geâ—tis in Aegypto in v. 8 ingressus sum pactum tecum in Sinai As for Mr C. his paraphrase on Ezek. 16.60 I will remember my covenant with Thee not with this or that particular Jew but with them all in an Ecclesiastical way and in respect of externall right albeit some onely had the saving benefits thereof as being the select covenanters mainly intended He therein supposeth that some had the saving benefit of that covenant which is contrary to Rom. 3 20. That by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in Gods sight And he supposeth the covenant was made with them all in an Ecclesiasticall way and in respect of externall right Which what it is else but this that they should all have a right to circumcision and other Ecclesiastical privileges I know not Whereas the covenant was of prosperity in Canaan continuance of long life c. to them upon obedience to the law he gave them by Moses which notwithstanding they had broken were carried captive yet he would remember his covenant made with that people when he brought them out of Aegypt and upon the prayers of Daniel c. restore them to their own land Esay 48 1 2 3 c. teacheth the Jewes that notwithstanding they were evill yet he would for his names sake that the heathens might not say that God could not deliver them and bring them from the north v. 10 11 14. The like is Ezek. 20 14. The objection from Rom. 9 7 8 is ill framed and as ill answered 1. it is proved from the Text that the promise of fulâ—â—lling of which the Apostle speaks was the promise to Abraham I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 from the terms used Rom. 9.7 8. which shews that the question was how Gods word could be true concerning Abrahams seed if the Jewes were rejected as the Apostle supposeth v. â— 2. That the answer is directly this that this promise was not made to all Israel or to all the children of the flesh that is begotten of Abraham by naturall generation for it was not promised to Ishmael and Esau but to the elect as Isaac and Jacob whence this proposition ariseth They onely are children of the promise that is by an usuall Hebraâ—sm subjects of the promise to whom it belong as children of wrath to whom wrath belongs a son of perdition to whom perdition belongs who are elect therefore not all the naturall seed of Abraham And consequently the promise Gen. 17.7 belonged not in the Evangelicall sense to the body of the Jewes even the worst Now what doth Mr. C. answer He distinguisheth between children of the promise in respect of externall filiation and externall salvation and applies it thus In the later they were not but if you take it of the Church-seed of the promise and such as were externally adopted of God and instated in the covenant of grace as invested with church covenant so they were children even of the free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3 25 26 and had
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
not as a part of that covenant but as a School-master to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadowes of rites and sacrifices c. But to say that this covenant mentioned in the eighth of the Hebrews was the covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine Look into the text and you shall find that the covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first covenant in opposition to this better covenant had ordinances of divine worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High-priests Sacrifices and other rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Mr Anthony Burgess another Assembly man Vindic. Legis Lect. 24 maintains with a distinction the Law at mount Sinai to be a covenant of grace Like whereto are the opinions of Mr John Ball of the covenant of grace ch 7 page 102 Dr. Samuel Boulton True bounds of Christian freedom page 130 c. Mr Thomas Blake Vindic. Foeder c. 24 c. But as in other things there is much dictating besides the Scriptures in the received writings of men so in this Mr C. saith The difference between the old and new Covenant is in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Concerning which it is to be observed that to dispense is to lay out as a Steward doth lay out money To dispense a Covenant may be understood either by making it known or performing the things promised on either side the same may be conceived to be meant by administration The ceremony of administration I understand not what it is unless by it be meant the rites of the Old and New Testament This then seems to be either all or the main difference Mr C. makes between the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai and the new covenant confirmed in the blood of Christ with Jewes and Gentiles that the former had Circumcision the Passover Sacrifices c. by which the covenant of grace was made or the things promised conferred the new covenent had Baptism and the Lords Supper A Covenant is a promise and so an action and when mutuall there 's a reciprocall action I know not what other predicament to place it in The essentials of a thing are in corporeall substances matter and forme in other beings those things which in proportion to them shew what it is and wherein it is differenced from others under the same genus which essentials the Logicians call the genus and difference The essentiall difference of one action from another is the terminus or effect as heating from cooling in the object subject end A Covenant being essentially a promise differs essetntially from another promise when the things promised are different as the promise of land differs essentially from the promise of life and when the conditions are different though the things promised be the same as the promise of land to one for so much money is essentially different from the promise of land upon the condition of thanks The covenant of works and of grace are terms not used in Scripture But Rom. 11.5 6 Election by grace and of works Rom 4 4 it is said to him that worketh the reward is reckoned not according to grace but according to debt Ephes. 2.8 9 Yee are saved by grace not of works 2 Tim 1.9 who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace Titus 3.5 He saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his own mercy Yet I think the distinction right and good of the covenant of grace and the covenant of works And the difference between them is 1. in the thing promised the one promiseth life upon obedience to the Law given but not strength to do it the other promiseth the Spirit to inable for doing 2. in the condition the one promiseth life upon perfect obedience the other upon faith in Christ. These differences are confirmed from sundry Texts Rom 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 10 Gal. 3.10 12 22 c. I think in a promise the different end of the promiser makes not an essential difference I think it is the same promise essentially when one promiseth land upon condition of giving thanks to shew his bounty and another to engage him to his party though the ends be different My determination in this Writing is as it was in the former Exam. page 102. That the new Covenant is not the old renewed but that they differ specifically in the essentials and not onely in Rites and that the Covenant at mount Sinai was a covenant of works And this I prove 1. From that Text which here Mr. C. Mr M. the Assembly and others stand so much upon to wit Heb 8 8 9. 10. The old covenant there meant is the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai which appears in that it was the covenant which God made with the Fathers of the Iewes in the day that he took them by their hand to bring them out of the land of Aegypt Now that covenant differs essentially more than in Rites from the new covenant yea as a covenant of works is diffrent from the covenant of Evangelical grace â— Because the new covenant is said to be established or setled as a Law â—n better promises Heb 8.6 Now if the promises be better promises it is because they be of better things and if of better things then of different things and so the difference is more than in Rites yea it is in essentials for promises of different things essentially make different covenants essentially And that the difference is in the meliority of promises and that these promises be of better things is apparent from the recitall of the promises Heb â— 10 11 12. 10. â—â— â—7 where also by the offering of Christ that Testament is said to be of force By this also the covenant at mount Sinai is proved not to be the covenant of Gospel-grace For then it had had as good promises yea the same promises 2. If it had been the covenant of grace they had abode in it For that is a covenant which they that are in continue in But in the old covenant or that at mount Sinai they abode not v. 9. Ergo c. 3. That is not the covenant of grace which is faulty or which is the meaning of â—t occasioning God to complain for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Faultless is that which is without complaint and the meaning is the first covenant occasioned complaint of the Israelites as it is v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 complaining of them he doth not say it as Mr. M. seems to have understood it as if God had found fault with the covenant that 's a
mistake he should then have found fault with his own act he saith therefore for remedy of such complaint and jarring a second covenant was established which should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plaintless and therefore the covenant of grace takes away occasion of complaint or finding fault because it provides for them to whom it was made that they should not occasion God to complain by their breaking of it as the first covenant had done which was faulty occasioning God to complain in that it was broken Mr. C. saith it was faulty comparatively not absolutely and his meaning seems to be that the first covenant was faulty because of its imperfect manner of teaching the Gospel But he is therein mistaken For as I shewed from the words the first covenant is said to be faulty because of the complaint of God against the Israelites as not keeping â—t as the holy Ghost expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. by the expression v. 8. proving it not to have been faultless that is without complaint because he complained of them v. 8 to wit that they abode not in it v. 9. which if it had been the covenant of Evangelical grace they should certainly have done because that provides for the keeping and perseverance in it by writing the lawes in their hearts and forgiving their sins 2. The same is further proved from chap. 12.18 c. where 1. the covenant at mount Sinai is set down as given with horror to shew that it begat nothing but affrightments even in the best Moses himself whereas the covenant of grace begets joy and gladness before God 2. It is said the Hebrew Christians were not come to therefore it was not the covenant of grace 3. That they were come to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant v. 24. in opposition to Moses the Mediator of the old 3. From ch 10 29. where the blood of the new covenant is said to sanctifie And ch 13.20 Christ brings back the sheep by the blood of he everlasting covenant This everlasting covenant is that which was confirmed by the blood of Christ oppositly or in contradistinction to that which was confirmed by the blood of Calves and Goats Heb. 9.19 Therefore that covenant was not everlasting nor confirmed by Christs blood and consequenâ—y not the Covenant of grace 4. The same is the express doctrine of Paul Gal. 4.24 where he saith Agar and Sara are two covenants and he saith Agar or one Covenant was from mount Sinai and that this genders to bondage and is in bondage with her children v. 25. calls them that are under it such as are begotten according to the flesh v. 29. to be cast out v. 30. and opposeth it to Sarah that is the promise the Jerusalem above who is free mother of all believers begetting children of the promise born after the spirit children of the free woman Now what is this but the covenant of grace and the other of works For the covenant of grace never genders to bondage nor is in bondage with her children who are not according to the flesh to be cast out but free the mother of believers bringing forth children of the promise born after the Spirit children of the free woman Therefore the covenant at mount Sinai was not the same with the covenant of gospel-Gospel-grace but a covenant of works 5. In the same Epistle chap. 3.12 he saith the Law is not of Faith that is the covenant of the Law doth not promise righteousness before God upon faith but by works v. 13. therefore the covenant of the Law was not the covenant of Gospel-grace 6. The same is expressed v. 16 17 18 21 where the Law is opposed to the promises the inheritance is denied to be by it or that it could give life or righteousness by it therefore it is not the covenant of grace for life righteousness and inheritance is by it The like is Gal 2.21 Rom 4.13 14 15 16 3 20 21. 7. From Rom 10.5 where the Apostle expresly saith that Moses described the righteousness of the law that the man that doth them shall live in them and this he makes opposite to the word of Faith whence it follows it was the covenant of works which was the Law For what is the covenant of workes but that which promiseth life by doing the Law Nor doth it make against it to say the Apostle v. 4. saith Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth for in whatsoever sense that be meant yet it is certain the denomination of a covenant of grace or of works is not taken from the end of the Covenanter or the consequent on the covenant or command but the promise and condition therefore what ever end God had in giving the law or what event soever fell out upon it yet the covenant of the law promising righteousness upon perfect obedience to the law and not otherwise it is to be termed a covenant of works not of Gospel-grace 8. From Rom. 6.14 where the Apostle saith Sin shall not have dominion â—ver you for ye are not under the law but under grace which supposeth that they who are under the law are not under grace which cannot be understood of the command of the law for men may be and are under the command of it and yet under grace therefore by the law is meant the covenant of the law and then they which are under the covenant of the law are not under grace which they should be iâ— the covenant of the law were generally the same with the covenant of grace 9. From Rom 7.4 We are dead to the Law by the body of Christ v. 6 We are delivered or as I would read it we are discharged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law even the Moral law v. 7. not as a rule of obedience but as a Husband or Covenant on which we depend for maintenance help supply sentence countenance reward But if the law were the covenant of grace we should not be dead to it or delivered from it Ergo. 10. From 2 Cor. 3 6 the covenant of the law is called the letter which killeth opposite to the new covenant in which the Spirit which quickneth is ministred and v 7. he expresly calls it the ministration of death graven in stones the ministration of condemnation v. 9 opposite to the ministration of righteousness of which Paul denies himself to be a Minister therefore it was not the covenant 〈◊〉 Evangelical grace but of works Yea Mr Cobbet himself page 65. The covenant in Horeb had the stipulation of Do so and live not so in the covenant of grace that was imbondaging shewed the way of worship gave not grace to act it was against us c. The Assembly Confess of Faith c. 7. Art 2. ch 19 Art â— cite Gal 3.12 Rom. 10 5 Gal. 3 10 which speak of the covenant of the law to shew the covenant of workes made with Adam which shews
all believers and God to them a justifying and saving God in Christ Mr. B's words in his Friendly accommodation pag. 361. And for that which you urge Ero Deus tui seminis I doubt you will not prove that it reacheth so far as you speak It sufficeth that God will be to them a God of mercy and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum and Mr. C's own exposition I will be a God to some in respect of external interest shew that to be a God to some doth not necessarily infer they shall be regenerate and so the covenant of saving grace in Christ be gathered thence And therefore I deny that Deut. 30.6.11 12 13 14. compared wiâ—h Rom. 10 6 7 8. do evidently or obscurely prove that the Covenant-interest external as he cals it of inchurched stipulating parents children is Gospel or that the Apostles preached this doctrine or that believers are to eye the covenant in such a latitude as to their children with them by faith or that the essentials of the Covenant of grace in the latitude of the extent thereof to covenant parents with their children held forth in the old Testament was delivered and held forth as valid to the faith of the Saints in the new and after Christs incarnation Nor doth Peter propound the word of true faith in such a latitude as with reference to their children in Mr. C's sence Acts. 2.38 39. And though Paul hold forth Rom. 5.14 15. the abounding of Christs grace to them that are Christs in the gift of righteousness yet that any such thing as external Ecclesiastical covenant interest to the natural seed of believers is held forth Rom. 5.14 15. is Mr. C's palpable dotage And how Acts. 2.38 39. Rom. 11.16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 7 14. are mistaken is shewed in the first part of this Review and in this third part But Mr. C. faâ—ls to disputing thus That which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace that is Gospel but this is of that in nature ergo The major needs no proof the former text also clearing the same the major de jure is evident they ought to believe the whole Covenant made with them as is evident faith must be as large as the object the Covenant is the word of faith And so he proceedes in more words Whereunto I answer I grant his major but Mr. C. seems not to heed his own Syllogism For he tels us the minor de jure is evident they ought to believe and by which words he seems to have concieved that this was the minor that they ought to believe the whâ—le Covenant whereas his minor to be proved was this the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace But Mr. C. as a man weary of disputing fals to his dictating way again after his confused manner leaving his reader to aim at what he would prove and how That which he should prove is that the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the covenant of grace surely if they ought to believe it he should produce some promise or declaration that avowes it as a constant and certain thing But instead thereof he fals to Gen. 17.7 and tels us God in making a Covenant in a Church reference especially as was that with Abraham Gen. 17.7 he taketh in their seed or children as joint covenanters but what he means by Gods making a covenant in a Church reference or in which words he takes believers seed as joint covenanters with their parents or in which words the external Ecclesiastical interest of every believers natural child may be proved he shews not nor can shew there being no mans seed but Abrahams there mentioned He goes on thus Hence the phrase of seed in their generations taking in parents generating and children begotten as those in and by whom Churches are like to be continued Answ. It is true it is said Gen. 17.9 to Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations and this Covenant is v. 10. every man-child among you shal be circumcised But that this phrase seed after Abraham in their generations should infer that God taketh in believeng parents generating and children begotten even of the Gentiles in the Covenant of grace at least in respect of external ecclesiastical interest is yet to me a riddle I know no more to be inferred thence but this that not only Abraham but also the Israelites his posterity were bound to circumcise their males in their generations But we have more of this stuffe Whence saith he God when to speak in reference to the Church-seed as well as to the choise elect-seed of Isaac's line in which the visible and not meerly the invisible Church was to be continued he saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael Ishmael was Abrahams seed too and therefore externally in the Covenant and therefore sealed but God knowing that Ishmael would reject this he warneth Abraham of it a little before that it might not trouble him afterwards It is not to be with him in his generations for that cause Gen. 17.8 compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12 13. but with Isaac in his generations God not opposing therein Isaac to his Church-seed who by rejecting the Covenant will and did love he and his to be cast out Answ. Mr. C. in this passage speaks so obscurely that it is hard to say what he drives at and I may take up the saying reed me a riddle what 's this He makes a difference between Gods speech of Ishmael and Isaac that God saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not wiâ—h Ishmael it was not to be with him in his generations who was to be cast out all which I grant true and thence infer that God never made his Covenant with to or for Ishmael and yet he was to be circumcised and therefore the initial seal as it is called was given to him to whom the Covenant belonged not But Mr. C. using this blind index whence leaves us to ghess what he drives at whence importes it is from somewhat before that God said this of Ishmael but that before was that God takes in parents generating and children begotten But me thinks it is from the contrary as the Apostle conceived Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. that God speaks this of Ishmael who was Abrahams seed and yet not taken into the Covenant who yet should be taken in if yet Mr. C's principles were good that the Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed in their generations And how Mr. C. reckons Ishmaels as not Abrahams Church-seed I know not nor do I understand how
made as Turks or Indians so far forth in regard that not being in covenant nor Church-estate the Apostle truly states such persons cases they are without hope and without God in the world He maketh no distinction of potentia remota and propinqua in that case Answ. It is a grievance to us their brethren in the faith that Mr M. and such men of name and worth in the Church should so misrepresent our Tenet as they do with whom Mr C. seems to concur Mr. M. his calumny in misrepresenting my words in his Defence part 2. sect 10. as if I had said That I know no warrant to think election to reach believers children more than unbelievers children that I know no more promise for them than for the children of unbelievers is answered in my Apologie sect 14. I have shewed here and in my Examen Part 2 Sect. 10. and in my Apologie Sect. 14. that I put the elect of them into the covenant of grace and in the invisible Church and this onely is the ground of a sure hope of their interest in God and Christ and salvation And that they are elect I give 4 probable reasons which are not competent to the infants of Turks and Pagans 1. generall indefinite promises not made to Turkes and Pagans 2. The payers of parents and godly for them 3. Their education and breeding among the godly whereby they are in a neerer possibility to be godly than others 4. The â—requent experience that the children of the godly prove such which yet because those promises are not particular and definite that is determining this particular goâ—d of salvation to each particular person prayers are made and heard with limitation of Gods will the education may faâ—l in its effect and experience is not so constant but that it falls out otherwise in many therfore there 's no sufficient ground for certain hope but only probable Mr M. Mr C. and others assign â— more to wit being in Covenant Church-estate But Mr C. pag. 93. confesseth It is peculiar to the elect to be in covenant in respect of the saving effiâ—acy of it Rom. 9.6 7 8. And that being in covenant and Church-estate which he makes common to all elect and reprobate cannot assure them certainly of salvation therefore were it granted that there were such a covenant of Church-privileges and that they were visible Church-mâ—â—bers and to be baptized which I conceive to be fictitious yet this câ—uld 〈◊〉 mâ—ke the hâ—pe of their salvation more than probable no noâ—â—o probable as the reasons I give where I infer that they do us wrong to instil into peoples 〈◊〉 thaâ— which tends to make us odious that our doctrin takes awâ—y all 〈…〉 hope of infants salvation dying in infancy wheÌ„ in truth the promise of salvation as we assign it is the same wthâ—he promise as they assign it the grounds we give of the hope of the infants interest are as sufficient to make it probable as thâ—iâ—s â—f they were supposed true which yet notwithstanding all they say we know aâ—e fictitious Now hereby is a plain answer to Mr. C. If Infants of Turâ—s be any of them elected which Mr. C. seems to grant when he saith God may and sometimes doth and will have some souls brought on to him from Rome and even amongst the Mohometans c. We do grant they are really and before God in as good a condition as believers children though not in appearance to us and in respect of their present estate nor can they be said to be without Christ without God in the world in all respects But in respect of present state and appearance to us neither Infidels nor their children are in any condiâ—ion so hopefull as believers and their children because of the generall indefinite promises they have the benefit of prayers which are not with a like aâ—dency for Infidels though we pray for them also in a more generall manner the benefit of their education which if it be to Indians children yet not with a like care And if it be we should not think it absurd to say that if they be brought into godly families their salvaâ—ion is hopefull as well as believers children Else why doth Mr Cotton conceive in the way of the Churches of New England in the latter end they may be baptized And the experience is very frequent concerning godly mens children proving godly but very rare that an Infidels child living among Infidels is converted And for a word of promise for faith and hope to rest upon as I said it hath been shewed that neither Mr M. nor Mr C. nor any other can produce any promise in Scripture that assures the salvation of an Infant of a reall believer much lesse of a meer professor dying in infancy yea to retort Mr C. his Argument we are not to sorrow without hope concerning our brethren that dye at age yet we have no certain word of faith to relye on but that Go â— will be the God of elect and true believers Luke 20.36 37 38. But thaâ— this promise reacheth to our brother deceased at age we know onely probably though the probability is greater by reason of his profession and conversation yet at most but probable notwithstanding those signes we are not certain he is elect he may live and dye an hypocrite Many are canonized for Saints in â—eaven who perhaps are among unclean spirits in hell We therefore in this case are fain to suspend our judgment about the certainty and to content our selves with a likely hope upon probable grounds And so we may do concerning our children according to my doctrine though I confesse the hope is more probable of such a one than of an infant yet sometimes also there appears as much cause of â—ear How ever this I say that were it not to make our doctrine of Antipaedobapâ—ism odious to parents who being indulgent to their children are easily moved to passion towards them thâ—t say any thing of them that seems harsh and are very much inclined to them and their words that tend to feed â—hem with such conceits as occasion their hopes though but fond of good to them our doctrine would be free from this exception But such courses should be far from men of worth who should present truth nakedly without respect to mens affections As Mr C. tells us he hath been the longer in proof of this seventh Conclusion in that it is the very Hinge of the Controversie So I have answered it more fully though it have been very tedious to me by reason of Mr. C. his confused and impertinent Dictates And I do declare that I do not see reason from that which Mr. C. hath said to unsay what I said that the children of believers covenant-estate at least Ecclsiasticall as asserted by Paedobaptists is a new Gospel not elder than Zuinglius and therefore rejecting it I shall hold that to be Gospel which I find so called 1 Cor
think it is not a condition of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. to wit of restoring from captivity upon their seeking of God But if it be made a condition of the promise v. 6. yet it is not a condition competent to Infants nor is it there made to any but the Israelites and to them onely at the time of their return from captivity in reference to their re-establishing in the land of Canaan and so was not common to them all much less to all believing Gentiles at all times It is untrue that the promise of saving grace is made to any onely externally or that it takes not effect in all to whom it is made or that any such thing is meant Rom. 3.3 9.6 7 8. though I deny not that there were many promises to Israel after the flesh which being indefinite in respect of persons and conditionall upon obedience to the lawes given by Moses took not effect in all the Israelites though in generall propounded and therefore notwithstanding some attained them not yet the faith of God was not without effect But all this is nothing to the objection concerning Gods covenant of saving grace in Christ which is not shewed to be made to any but the saved nor shewed to be in respect of the persons taken into covenant conditional 3 Saith Mr. C. This Argument supposeth that one cannot be within the Covenant of saving grace externally but they must be in a saving estate the contrary whereunto appeareth Concl. 3. And it is said of sundry illegitimate Jewish Children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the Author cannot mean other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate Even Esau's Birthright was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it was a Church blessing as well as a Naturall and Civill Ans. That any one is in the covenant of saving grace onely externally is not proved before My words Examen pag. 78. which Mâ— C. seems to mean â—hâ—t Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar Jephie of Gilead and many others were within the covenant of saving graces and Church-privileges are not meant of the covenant of saving grace exâ—ernally onely but also internally Esau's birth-right was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it is that which Jacob was not born to for it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the right of the first born which Jacob had not but by purchase and blessing nor is it denied to be a Church-blessing but that it was the spirituall blessing promised to Abrahams seed to wit justification and salvation from the covenant of saving grace I do not conceive for that was not limited to the first born as the birth-right was and therefore it seâ—ms to have been either the superiority or the inhâ—ritance of Canaan or the descent of Christ and the Chuch of God from him to which I most incline the losse of whâ—ch being a great losse and having with it the privation of interest in the covenant of saving grace he being hâ—ted of God made Isaac tremble and Esau cry and were a 〈◊〉 instance to set before the Cristian Hebrews lest thâ—y through prophane underâ—â—â—â—ing Christ fail of the grace of God Mr. C. adds 3. Object But saith â— S. the Covenant of grace being a Covenant there must be a mutuall agreement betwixt the Covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the terms thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Henry Den a little differently maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant-right and not meerly Gods entering into Covenant with the creature for so he entered into covenant with the Beasts c. Gen. 9 10. Answer To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a Testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb 9. Now a Testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without their knowledge nor do any usâ— to deny a Childs right in the Testators will because it was taken in amongst other Legacies in the bequeathed Legacies before it understood the same Nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed the choice parties in Gods Covenant Gen. 17. That they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promise or that that solemn Covenant Deut. 29.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30.6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the Covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed No rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant-estate being the parents privilege whence the encouragements to Abraham to walk with God Gen. 17.1 c. from that amongst other encouragements that God would become his Seeds God also v. 7. and so Deut. 29 and 30. amoongst other encouragements to the parents that is one v. 6. that God will do so for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham c. Yea the externall avouching a Covenant may be of God being owned as the childrenâ— Deut. â—6 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the parents covenant duty whence called the Covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or duty as well as the token of Gods Covenant Gen. 9.7 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as well upon their childrens part as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Cvenant-condition and Bond too after imitation of their Father Abrahams purposeâ— S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenanâ— yea the bastard children of Judah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to be in the Covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like Answ. The Objection as it is not mine so I might let it and the answer passe but that there are some things in the answer to it that do requiâ—e consideration In the first part of this Review Sect. 5. answering Mr. Stephens his argumenâ—s for the Convertibility as he caâ—ls iâ— of a word of promise and a word of command from the general nature of Covenants between men and men I had said the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—o not alwayes note a mutuall covenant and mutuall performancâ—s and instanced in Gen. 9.10 and said there is a single covenant as well as muâ—uall and further added that if it be true that such a convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall nature of Covenants then there can be no Covenant between God and Infâ—nt 〈◊〉 Infant cannot contract If any say the Parents
Evangelical grace which is the onely Covenant the people of God are now under and which alone is the question now Who are in this Covenant or to whom is this Covenant or the promiseâ— of it made by God I assert as before Sect. 33. That it is made onely to the Elect And M. Bl. pag. 191. yeelds that many Orthodox writers seemingly restrain the Covenant oneâ—y to the Elect and regenerate But he addes some distinctions whereby he thinks what they say may be salveâ— from self contradictions 1. Of a two fold Covenant 1 a single 2 a double to perform both parts to save upon repentance and to give a new heart But he doth not shew that there is any Evangelical Covenant now which is not double nor that either the double or single is made with any but the elect 2. Of an inward Covenant which â—e grants to be made onely to the elect and an outward which he saith is a Covenant properly so called and which Scripture holds out for the Covenant of God with his people in which all professed Christians so called are which puts them into a capacity of Sacraments and their children of the initial Sacrament But what this outward Covenant is or where it is to be found I know not what I find about it â—s shewed to be vain Sect. 25. and Mr. Bs. refutation of it in his Apology against Mr. Bl. pag. 66 67 10â— saves me any further labour to shew it to be a figment 3. Of being in Covenant according to title to the Covenant or to the benefits of the Covenant and saith the right of Covenant belongs to all that externally makâ— profession the benefit onely to the elect But I know no right of Covenant but what is by Gods promise and surely all to whom God promiseth have the benefit of the Covenant and to imagine that the Covenant of grace is to any to whom the grace following the Covenant is not is to make Gods Covenant and word to fall which the Apostle abhorred Rom. 9.6 and to make the Covenant of grace as liable to complaint â—s the first Covenant contrary to Heb. 8 6 7 8 9 10 4. Of entring into Covenant which all visible professors do and stedfastness in it which do onely the elect and faithfull Psal. 78 3â— But this text speaks not of the Covenant of Evangelical grace as if any were entred into it who were not stedfast in it but of the Covenant of the Law with the Jewish people which is not the Covenant in which the Gentiles are under the Gospel And to Mr. Bls. confused talk I again say 1. That the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God onely to the Elect and that in respect of Gods promise none but they are in the Covenant nor is there to any right to Sacraments or capacity of an initial Seal barely by that being in Covenant 2. That profession of Faith may cause a man to be taken to be in the Covenant by the guides and brethren of the visible Church in the face of which he may have title to Sacraments but his infant children have no title thereby to Baptism 3. That from the beginning none but the elect had the Covenant of grace made to them 4. That from the beginning it is not proved the children with their parents to have been no not in the imaginary outward Covenant But letâ—s vâ—ew what Mr. Bl. saith 1. He alledgeth Matth. 28.19 and takes it as freely conâ—est that a Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God and tels us that the Covenant Matth. 28.19 is committed to man to work and to judge of it being wrought to put a seal for ratification and confirmation of it which cannot be restrained to the elect for they onely are known to God an elect person and a Church member should be termini convertibiles the seal of the Spirit and the seal of the Sacrament are in equal latitude to baptize an unregenerate person is to put a seal to a blank as high an abuse of that sacred Ordinance as the circumcision of the Sichemites Gen. 34 24. Answ. It is not confest by me that a Disciâ—le of Christ that is every Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God meaning it in respect of Gods Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace made to him nor do I know of any Covenant Matth. 28.19 committed to man to work and to judge of it being wrought and to put a seal for ratification and confirmation though I grant every Disciple professing Christ is in some sense in Covenant with God that is by his act of profession doth engage himself to follow Christ and so in that respect is in Covenant with God and that Matth. 28.19 the Apostles are injoyned to make Disciples by preaching the Gospel and baptize them which may be done without working a Covenant between God and man which phrase doth imply that a Minister can work God into Covenant which is in my apprehension an absurd conceit or judging of a Covenant being wrought or putting to a seal for confirmation of it And for the absurdities Mr. Bl. infers from the denial of restraining the Covenant to the elect I count the first not to follow upon my tenet sith I conceive a man may be a Church-member who is not in the Covenant of grace and for the second I count it no absurdity according to my explicatâ—on before given Sect. 34 35. though I do withal declare that the seal of the Sacrament is a term I reject for the reasons given before Sect. 31. And for the third I count it no abuse to put a seal to a blank that is to baptize a person who is not in the Covenant of Evangelical grace As for the 2d argument Mr. Bl. would draw from Matth. 28.19 to prove that the Covenant of God is onely a Covenant professed because Matth. 28 19. a whole Nation is in Gods ordinary way of administration in a capacity to attain and enter into it it is answered in the 2d Part of this Review sect 9. where it is shewed that Matth. â—8 19 there is no such command as to make Disciples and bapâ—ize the whole of a Nation even the infants Mr. Bl. adds a 2d text Matth 20.16 22.14 whence he argues thus If there be a call from God in the times of the N. T. in a far greater latitude then the grace of election that of many called few onely are elected then the Covenant in the N.T. times is not to be restrained to the elect and regenerate but contains all that professedly accept the terms of the Covenant and visibly appear a people of God This is evident seeing the call is into Covenant all at the feast were called ones all the hired Labourers were Covenant-servants To conceive men to be called of God and not to be in Covenant with God is a full contradiction The call hath its terminus a quo and its terminus ad quem a state which upon
the Gospel of God held out of God to his peâ—ple salvation is made over by vertue of Covenant to all thus in Covenant in that sense as Christ speaks Joh. 4.22 salvation is of the Jews In that sense as Christ usâ—th it of Zacheus family this day is salvation come to this house Luk. 19.9 In that sense as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaks of it where he sets out the danger of neglecting so great salvation Heb. 2.3 In that sense as I conceive the Apostle speaks of it where he saith that upon the call of the Jews all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 Answ. That by salvation Luk. 19.9 Heb. 2.3 Rom. 11.26 is not meant outward priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained hath been shewed before Sect. 44. And though I grant that salvation is said to be of the Jews in that from them was the doctrine of salvation yet I see no necessity to expound the term salvation metonymically as if by salvation were meant barely the doctrine of salvation but the sense may be truely conceived thus salvation remission of sins justification adoption eternal life is of the Jews as instruments by preaching the Gospel of converting and so saving men But that God when he promised Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as this promise is Evangelical meant this all the professors of faith and their seed shall enjoy those priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained is proved false 1. In that the writers of the New Testament never so explain it but where the promise is mentioned as Evangelical they declare it imports a further thing proper to the elect and true believers 2 That they never by Abrahams seed as Evangelically understood mean any other then elect persons and true believers both which are proved largely before Sect. 28. 3. That in this sense the promise were not made good for God doth not make good to every professour of faith that he shall have â—hose priviledges as to be baptized be in Church-communion have the the Lords supper have a Pastour to preach the Gospel much less to every one of his natural seed as frequent experience shews 4. By this exposition nothing is assured to the infant of a believer or to a professour of faith which is not also to an unbelievers child yea to an unbeliever who as well as they have title to saving grace and justification to eternal life upon termes and conditions in the Gospel of God held out of God to his people Mr. Bl. adds And this that professors of faith or believers upon their call shall enjoy those priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained is all that câ—n by any means be squeezed out of their words that say the Covenant of grace was made of God with Abraham and hiâ— natural seed or with believers and their seed It is even irksome to read the large business that Mr. T. makes of it to finde out Mr. Ms. meaning about the Covenant of God made with Abraham and his seâ—d and both Mr. M. and my self must per force confess that we mean â—t of a Covenant infallibly absolutely to confer grace and consâ—quently salvation Answ. 1. That more may be squeezed out is proved in my Exam. part 3. sect 3. in this parâ— of the Review sect 30.31 c. And if no more be mâ—ant by them these things wâ—ll follow 1. That they mean by the Covenant of grace a covenant of outward priviledges of viable Câ—urch-membership Baptism the Lords Supper to every beleever by profâ—ssion though a Gentile and his natural seed under the pretence of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which pretended outward Covenant of outward priviledges is a meer counterfeit neither Gen 17.7 nor any where else to be found in the holy Scripture 2. They do most grosly abuse the text Gen. 17.7 for proving such a Covenant quite besides the expositions given of it throughout the New Testament as is proved in this Part of the Revew sect 28. and quite besides the expositions even of the reformed Divines though Paedobaptists in their commentaries on the N. T. and writings against Arminians 3. They do mock Readers most palpably 1. in telling them the Covenant of grace cenâ—ains the promise of remission of sins c. is for substance the same in all ages and say it belongs to all the infants of beleevers that they are in it that is that Covenant of grace they are confederate with parents as the words of the Directory Mr M. and others cited by me Exam part 3 sect 3 shew and yet deny this Covenant of saving grace is made to them all but upon such conditions as upon which it is made to unbeleevers children yea to every man in the world 2. In that they when they make the Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace and attempt to prove it from Rom. 4.11 which mentions onely a seal of the righteousness of faith they make them seals of the righteousneâ—s of faith and say infants are in the Covenant and the seal must follow the Covenant and yet nevertheless deny all the infants they baptize by vertue of being in the Covenant of which Baptism is a seal to be in that Covenant of which Baptism is a seal but say they are in a meer imaginary Covenant which they call an outward Covenant of which Baptism is no seal but rather according to their conceits the thing it self covenanted or promised 3. They mock parents by telling them in wrâ—tings and sermons that they are to be comforted concerning their children that if they be beleevers their children are saved by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 that they are bound to beleeve it and yet when they are pressed with the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. and other arguments they deny that they understand it of the â—ovenant of saving grace which alone can infer salvation infallibly and absolutely to confer grace but either they make it onely conditional if they repent and beleeve which no man is sure any infant doth or they say in the judgement of charity which is fallible and is no object of faith we are to take them to be in Covenant and to bâ— saved or else they say which is now the common shifâ— they are in the outward Covenant which is a figment and of which they cannot say but that a person may be in it and not saved 4. That sith it is commonly conceived by readers and hearers that they mean that which Mr. M. Mr G. Mr. Bl. c. do disclaim Paedobaptists are bound to â—each the people at their baby sprinklings and at other tiâ—es when they avouch the infants of beleevers and of meer visible professors of faith to be in the Covenant of grace Genâ— 17 7. and thereupon derive their title to Baptism that they mean but as Mr. M. Mr. Bl. say that they may acquit themselves from deceiving the people and being
to the terms of that Covenant their God There is not a place where God calls them by the name of his people which are almost endless but there we have this confirmed tâ—at that people were the Lords by vertue of this grant made to Abraham and his seed Answ. This last speech might be granted and what else Mr. Bl. infers from the Text yet he attains not his end unless he prove that by vertue of that Covenant all the Israelits by natural discent weâ—e Godâ— regenerate jâ—stified people for the thing he should prove against me is that Gen. 17.7 God promiseth to be a God in respect of Gospel benefits to all Abrahams natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. Yet I conceive there are places wherein the Israeliâ—es were termed Gods by vertue of the Covenant of the Law Ezek. 16 8. 20.5 c. without mentioning the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle conceives differently of Gal. 3.16 17. And the speeâ—hes Exod. 20.2 Deut. 5.6 Exod. 5.1 Deut. 14.1 2. though spoken of the body of Israel yet may and are to be understood at least in some senses of them not of every individual Surely he was not God Evangelically to those that believed not nor were they his people nor legally so as to afford them that protection and temâ—oral blessings which are promised in the Laâ— Deut. 28. c. to Ahab Achan Korah and such like But in the Evangelical sense the denomination is from the better part the people he fore knew as the Apostle himself expounds it Rom. 11.2 5. and in respect of political blessings according to the Covenant of the Law to the obedient to the Law as of long life to dutifull children safety whiâ—e they kept the Solemn Feasts Exod. 20.12 24.24 Nor doth Amos 3.1 2. which he saith is full to his purpose say that God was a God to that whole family which he brought out of Aegypt by vertue of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 much less to every one of them Evangelically nor doth he say he had known them â—ll Evangelically but had known them onely that is had distinguished them from other people by giving them his Laws c. which makes nothing to prove according to Gen. 17.7 God took every descendent from Jacob into Covenant in respect of Gospel benefiâ—s In the 4th place saith he I argue from the practise of the people of God making this Covenant of God entred with Abraham and his seed a Plea to obtain mercy from God for all Israel the worst of Israâ—l in their lowest state and condition Deut. 9.26 27. If this Divinity had been thâ—n known Moses might have been sent away with this answer That he spake for dogs and not for children not for Israel but for Aliens and strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel But as this anâ— the like requests of the people of God were made in faith so they prevailed with God Moses there urgeth they are thy people and thine ineritance v. 39. as doth the Church Isa. 64.9 and Moses petition takes as the History shews Exod. 32.14 Yea when God vouchsafes mercy to his people thus in Covenant Levit. 26.42 it is upon this account of the Covenant And appearing for the deliverance of Israel out of their hard and pressing bondage he saith to Moseâ— Exod. 3.6 and that to stay up his faith in confidence of deliverance â—nsw Thaâ— which Mr. Bl. should prove is That Covenant exprest in those words Gen. 17.7 in their fullest latitude as they are spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. And in his answer to my Letter ch 10. pag. 55 56. he urgeth Exod. 32.13 Deut. 29.27 Levit 26.42 Exod. 3.6 to prove that Gen 17.7 was a promise of grace and mercy to Jacobs posterity such as of which Circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 which he saith is no other then a Covenant of grace and saith Circumcision did seal that Covenant to be the God of believers and their seed Gen 17.7 10. But not one of the petitions or speeches alledged do prove either the former or this last assertion The petition of Moses Exod. 32.13 was upon occasion of the making of the golden Calf Gods speech to Moses concerning the consuming of them for it and making Moses a great Nation Moses to divert God from this thing alledgeth 1. That they were his people which he brought out of Aegypt with great power and a mighty hand and if he should consume them the Aegyptians would reproach him as intending mischief to them when he brought them out of Aegypt Where it is true God calls the body of them his people But this must be understood if Evangelically in respect of the better part onely if Legally either de jure because they ought to have been his people being delivered from Aegypt and having engaged themselves Exod. 19.8 to obey God or de facto because he had done so great things for them and thereby owned them in respect of his actings for them above other people 2. He presseth God with his Oath to Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But the Oath he mentions is concerning the multiplying the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as the stars of heaven and giving the land of Canaan to them and that they shall inherit it for ever not a word of being God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical blessings nor a word tending to shew the extent of thâ— promise Gen. 17.7 in respect of gospel grace The same answer I give to his allegation of Deut. 9.26 27 28 29. And to Mr. Bls. flirt I answer this Divinity was then known to God and God might have sent away Moses with this answer That he spake for some who were dogs or reprobates and not children of God according to the election of grace which is the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.10 11 16 17 18 19. and that they were strangers from the Coâ—monwealth of Israel that is of the Israel of God Gal 6.16 And tâ—is is also the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 and therefore I count this no absurâ—ity But I grant they even the worst of them were not dogs but children and of the Commonwealth of Israel political in respect of their outward state and in that respect holy and different from other people To the other I answer it is true Moses prayed in faith and was heard but there is no mention in the places alledged of his praying for spiritual Evangelical grace for every particular Israelite but for the preventing an utter destruction of them Nor doth he at all express any such faith whereby he believed God had promised to be a God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical benefits but that God would not destroy them in which respect he was heard And in like manner
view his proofs First saith he Rom. 9.1 2 3 4 5. The Apostle aggravating his sorrow for Israel not respective to civil or domestick but higher concernments for the whole body of Israel he reckons up their priviledges the priviledges of all that according to the flesh were Israeâ—ites priviledges formerly enjoyed but now lost nine â—n number Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in Covenant tâ— be of Gods adopted seed under the promises Answ. He might more truely have said here sure is nothing as it was printed to conclude all the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be of Gods adâ—pted seed under the promise of spiritval blessings in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it contained Gospel grace The priviledges could not be oâ— all that according to the flesh were Israelites for of them all as concerning the flesh Christ could not come now were all if any of them priviledges Evangelical from spiritual promises in the Covenant of grace but rather all of them Domestick or civil priviledges which believers of the nations had not Nor were the priviledges to the Israelites at all times but at some times And therefore this text is impertinent to Mr. Bls purpose yea this Scripture and that whâ—ch followes put together are an antithesis to his thesis Secondly saith he Rom. 11. The Apostle speaks of the casting off of Gods people Those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people those that are put out of Covenant were a people in Covenant but the natural issue of Abraham called natural branches v 21. being by right of birth of that Olive are there broken off cast off therefore the natural issue were the seed in Covenant Answ. The conclusion is granted the natural issue of Abrâ—ham who were also the spiritual seed were the seed in Covenant and such were a great part of the Jews in former ages but those broken off were never in the Covenant of grace Nor is it said they were put out of the Covenant of grace or broken off from the Olive in which they were in their persons but in which their progenitors were nor are they said to be natural branches v. 21. because by right of birth of that Olive but by reason of their descent from Abraham they are natural branches of that Olive which at first was by natural as well as spiritual descent from him but never by right of birth It is false if meant of casting off from being his people as it is meant Rom. 11.1 2 that those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people understanding it in their own persons But of this text and this argument more hath been said in the first part of this Review and more will be if the Lord permit in that which follows Thirdly saith he Matth. 8.11 12. whence he thus argues Children of the Kingdome that are to be cast out are in the Kingdome onely upon an inâ—erest of Birth for the fruition of the priviledges of Ordinances and not upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation But the children of the Kingdome were upon our Saviours sentence to be cast out therefore they were in the Kingdome onely on an interest of birth Answ. This argument 1 concludes not Mr. Bls. position that the Covenant exprest Gen. 17.7 in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entered with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. 2. It contradicts his own position for if it bee as he here saith thaâ— they were not children of the Kingdome though the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation and yet the Covenant Gen. 17.7 wherein God saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed comprehends such saving grace as creates a spiritual title infallibly giving interest in salvation as the Apostle Gal. 3.16 17 18 c. expounds it then the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in the fullest latitude of the words as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripâ—ure they can be taken therefore this argument overthrowes his own positiâ—n 3. If by being in the Kingdome be meant being visible members of the visible Church Jewish the conclusion is granted but withal it is proved from the same text that they were never in the visible Church Christian but were opposite to it in that they embraced not the Christian Faith but opposed the Lord Jesus Christ and so had no right to baptism though they had circumcision and did eat the passeover 4 It is manifest from the text and agreed upon by interpreters that the Kingdome of Heaven in that place notes the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances For 1 the Kingdome of heaven is that wherein Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were then sate down for it is said v. 1 1. they shall sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven But they were then sate down not in the visible Church onely nor had being in it for the fruition of â—he priviledges of ordinances but in the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaven ergo 2. The Kingdome of heaven there is directly opposed to the outer darkness where is weeping and gnashing of teeth v. 12. But that which is directly opposed to the outer darkness in which is weeping and gnashing of teeth is the Kingdome of glory or the state of eternal life and blessedness in heaâ—en and not the visible Church onely or a being in it for the fruition of the priviledges of ordinances ergo 3. The scope of the speech of our Saviour is conceived by most interpreters to be to abate the insolency and pride of the Jews who contemned the Gentiles Upon occasion of the Centurions faith v. 10. he tels them though they now despised the Gentiles as not worthy to eat with them yet they should come from East and West and should sit down with the best of their Ancestors in the best highest and happiest place and condition 4. Exâ—ounding it of the visible Church it were not true which our Saviour speaks For the Gentiles did never sit down with them in the visible Church for the fruition of the priviâ—edges of ordinances such as Câ—rcumcision the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper for some of these Abraham Isaac and Jacob did never partake of nor ever shall nor may the Gentiles with them partake of circumcision and the passeover for that had been to have foretold that the Gentiles should have been circumcised with those Fathers which had been to establish Judaiâ—m contrary to the Apostles decree Acts 15. to Pauls
so as to be the people of God and to enjoy all priviledges of his people in order upon Gods termes to everlasting salvation But 1. not one nor all prove that God did promise to all Gen. 17.7 or any such outward priviledges as he means to wit to be circumcised or right to it and the Passeover nor that all enjoy them 2. The promises of justification adoption eternal life upon Gods termes without the promise of regeneration and effectual calling make noâ— a person to be in the Covenant nor a people holy to the Lord Evangeliâ—ally Now this promise Mr. Bl. hath not proved to be made to all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob and till he doth so he proves nothing against my assertion Exercit. pag. 3 which he pretended fully to oppose but hath failed to do it His 36. ch is answered before sect 29. I pass on to ch 37. which is thus entituled The Covenant in New Testament times takes in parents with their children This he sets himself to make good first by interrogatories and then by Peters words Acts 2.38 39. which is answered before sect 21. A little oâ— his interrogatories To his first if by the grant he mean the Covenant of grace Evangelical I deny it to have been ever made to a beliâ—ver and all his seed nor is it proved by Mr. Bl. If a Covenant of visible Church-membership and initial seal I deny any such Covenant ever made by God to a believer and his seed or the grant thereof to have been held by the Church of God in fee from Abraham to this present hour and therefore need shew no reverse of such a grant To his 2d demand I grant a whole nation may enter into Covenant as Deut 29. nor do I restrain any from engagement of their infants and posterity unborn by an oath and curse to own God But I finde there no promise or grant of visible Church-membership and initial seal to believers and their seed by vertue of such a Covenant His other frivolous questions in that demand are answered often that the difference ariseth fâ—om the different institution of Circumcision which is the rule of administring them not interest in the Covenant if there were such To his 3d. demand I know no scandal ever given or likely to be given to the Jews by not baptizing infants His random talk of sâ—riking out of the Covenant infants is shewed often before to be vain as going on suppositions not proved To his allegâ—tions of Gen. 17.7 Ezek 16.20 1 Cor. 7.14 I have often answered before To his 4th that the reason why in the Apostles dayes and the next age to them no question was moved about the baptizing of infants though infants were circumcised by the Jews is manifest to wit Christ had not appointed infants to be bapâ—ized the Apostles and primitive Christians did not at all use it it was contrary to the end and use of baptism as appointed by Christ they knew not of the Paedobaptists doctrine about the title to baptism from the Covenant and its succession to circumcision But Mr. Bl. further refers me to Mr. Baxters Treatise of Infants Church-membership proving that infants were sometimes Church members pag 26 27. that there is no repeal of this grant vouchsafed of God pag. 27 28. waiting for some fair answer to the former demands Whereto I shall address my self as being very desirous wiâ—h the assistance of the Lord to do my endeavour for the freeing of men from the delusion of that Book wherewith a great number of Paedobaptists have been gulled SECT XLIX The 4th Ch. of Mr. Baxters Part 1. of Plain Scripture-proof c. is examined his conceits about Infants visible Church membership and their admission considered and sundry Animadversions made on that Chapter MR. B. part 1. ch 4. of his Plain Scripture-proof c. writes thus My 2d argument and the chief I shall make use of is this All that ought to be admitted visible Church-members ordinarily ought to be baptized But some Infants ought to be admitted visiblâ— Church-members therefore some Infants ordinarily ought to be baptized Mr. T. hath gone over and over the terms of this Argument so oft as if he could not possibly find out my meaning in them when they are as plain as I well know how to express my self A great while he fain would have denied the major Proposition but at last he is content to deny onely the minor And indeed that is the very heart of the controversie The question between us is noâ— so muâ—h Whether infants may be baptized as Whether they are in the number of Christians and to be added as members to the visible Church If Mr. T. did grant the minor and not deny our children Christianity and to be members of the Church I should for my part think his errour though foul yet of less consequence in denying of Baptism But it is their Church-membership that he denieth and yeeldeth that all that ought to be admiâ—ted members should be baptized Answ. That I did often in the dispuâ—e at Bewdly go over and over the terms of this argument need not seem stâ—aâ—ge when Mr. Thomas Hooker having the book he was to examine before him in Print in a like point saith thus survey of the summe of Church Discipline Part 1. ch 12. When I had read over Mr. Rutherford once and again I was at a stand in mine own thoughts to determine certainly what was his proper intendment by the catholick and visible Church I might well doubt what he meant by the visible Church how he defined iâ— wherein his notion is different from what others have as is shewed before in the 2d part of this Review sect 17. whether he meant the visible Church catholick or particular and if particular whether Jewish or Christian. And for the admission what he meant by it how and by whom it ought to be was doubtfull I perceived in the very entrance of the dispute by his preface and his propounding the question about our baptizing representing it as odious as if it were murder and adultery and after by his denying liberty of repeating to mee refusing to explain his own terms scoffingly putting if off as if it were catechizing of him when I desired him to open some terms to me which he used and when I told him that it was needfull the people should understand us he replyed he came to dispute with me not to instruct them nor would clear them except I could by distinction force him to it I deprehended that he was as I found him bent to catch advantages to insult over me and carry away the same of a victory and not in a brotherly candid way to discuss the point that truth might appear to all the hearers which I hoped from a man so seemingly godly Upon which reasons I confess I was hesitant both about the answering of this and other arguments all along the dispute finding that Mr. B. had
his assent to his verbal profession But infants baptism is no profession of any faith either explicit or implicit there being no act done by them tending to make any shew of faith which they neither understand nor take â—o bee true upon the trust of their teachers as Papists do in their implicit faith which yet we dâ—ny to be christian faith but are every way passive both in respect of the act of the baptisers and the reason and end of it they neither do any thing towards their baptism nor understand any thing of it Yea were it true that such an implicit profession of faith were in infants baptism yet were it not enough to make them visible members of the christian church no not according to the definition of Protestant writers who when they define the church to be a company of professors of faith do mean more then an implicit profession to wit an intelligent and free profession and do blame the baptising of the Indians by the Spaniards forcing them to own the Christian Faith afore they understand it though there bee more implicite profession of the faith by them then is or can be by an infant 3. I argue They are no visible members of the christian church to whom no note whereby a visible christian church or church-membership is discernible doth agree For that which is visible is discernable to the understanding by some sensible note or signe by which it is known But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church or church-member is discernable doth agree Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by shewing the right notes of the visible church and church-members not to agree to infants The right notes of the christian church and church-members are the profession of the whole Christian faith the preaching and hearing of the Word administration and communion in the Sacramenâ—s joyning in Prayer discipline c. with believers Hudson vindic pag. 229. But none of these agree to infants Not profession of of the whole Christian faith For they neither understand nor shew by any thing they do that they assent to the christian faith Not the preaching or hearing of the Word For infants can neither preach nor hear the Word I mean as it is speech or significative language though they may hear it as a sound much less as yeilding assent to it which hearing alone is a mark of a visible church-member Nor do they administer or have communion in the Sacraments None will say they administer nor though they should be baptised in water by a Minister or eat bread or drink wine at the Lords supper can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament For he onely hath communion in a Sacrament who useth it as a signe of that for which it is appointed and this use onely is a note of a visible church-member otherwise a Spaniards forcible baptising of an Indian without knowledge of Christ should make him partaker of the Sacrament or doing it in sport or jest should make a visible church-member See Mr. B. himself correct sect 6. pag. 253. But infants neither use baptism nor the Lords Supper as a signe engaging to Christ with acknowledgement or remembrance of him therefore they have no communion in the Sacraments no not in baptism nor is their pretended baptism any note of visible Church membership Nor do they joyn in prayer discipline or any part of Christian worship or service which might shew they own Christ as their Lord and therefore they are not discernable to be of the visible Church christian by any right note 2. By shewing that the notes whereby they are conceived to bee discernable as visible Church-members are not notes of their visible church-membership Two notes are usually alledged the one the covenant of God the other the parents profession of faith neither shew them visible Christian church-members nor both together Not the covenant or promise of God For there is no such covenant that promiseth to every believers childe much less to every professor of Faith's childe saving grace or visible church-membership and a promise to save indefinitely not expressing definitely who is not a note whereby by this or that person is discernable to be the person to whom it belongs Besides if there were such a promise to every childe of a believer yet unless it were a promise of it to them in their infancy it would not prove they were actually visible church members but onely that in the future they should be Nor is the parents Faith a note of the infants visible church membership For whether it be a note of it self or conjunctly with the covenant it is a note of the infants visible church-membership because it is his child and if so then it is a note of his child 's visible church-membership at twenty years of age though he should be then a professed Infidel as well as a day old a note of an Embryo's visible church-membership in the mothers womb as well as a childe born which are absurd Other reason then this I know not But sure I am there is not the least hint in Scripture of a childes being discernable to be a visible Christian church-member by the parents faith or profession but to the contrary To this argument briefly propounded in my Examen of his Sermon part 3 sect 3 Mr. M. replies not in his Defence and therefore I see not but it stands good 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member are not visible Christian church-members This proposition is most sure according to Logick rules take away the form the thing formed is not if the form denominating agree not the denomination agrees not Scheibler Top. c. 5. de forma Stieri praec doct Log tract 2. c. 4. But the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member infants have not Ergo. The minor is proved thus They which have not the outward profession of Faith within have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member For profession of Faith is the form constituting and denominating a visible church-member as is proved from the constant sayings of Divines Ames Marrow of Divinity first book c. 31. § 11. Faith is the form of the Church § 25. visibility is the affection or manner of the Church according to its accidental and outward form § 27. The accidental form is visible because it is no other thing then the outward profession of inward faith which may easily be perceived by sense c. 32. § 7. It is a society of believers for that same thing in profession constitutes the visâ—ble Church which in its inward and real nature makes a mystical Church that is Faith Ball trial of separat c. 13. p. 302. A lively operative faith maketh a man a true member of the Church invisible and the profession of faith and holiness a member of the Church visible Norton answer to Apollon â— 1. prop. 2. pag. 10
infants but also all infants if it be so much for their good welfare preservation real happiness and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement and sith they are in their power as well as parents yea before them and they may list them into Christs army enter them into Covenant and the Church they are bound to do it Yea considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds that by Christs commission Mat. 28.19 Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born and none can do it so soon as Midwives they ought to do it according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses immediately upon their birth Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the infant is not sui juris but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own childe As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but onely for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already and more shall be Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called this last speech is denied He goes on thus And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world perfectè sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the lawes and capable of honors and right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers and that nature revealeth to us that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Under the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents and have the immunâ—ties of that society 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much lesâ— under the Gospel to the members of Christ then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence Exod. 34. and in the 2d Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes as many texâ—s of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or naturâ—l guilt So much of that Answ. 1. All these considerations if they were yeelded to be true would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible which would contradict the Scripture Rom 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. yea rather sith the 4th consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption which is into the invisible rather then the visible Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 3. It is a gross conceit and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau which is intimated as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be that as the members or seed of Adam so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire as I conjecture I do not contradict peremptorily as not knowing how he stated the question nor what his proofs were Yet it seems to mee to be an errour nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid Once more saith he Yet before I cite any more particular texts I will add this one argument from
the tenour of the Covenant of grace as expressed in many texts of Scripture According to the tenour of the Covenant of grace God will not refuse to be their God and take them for his people that are in a natural or law sense willing to be his people and to take him for their God But the infants of believing parents are thus willing Ergo. The major is unquestionable The minor is proved from the very law of nature before expressed Infants cannot be actually willing themselves in natural sence ergo the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sence and that is of the parents who have the full dispose of them and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them for their good â—ill they come to use of reason themselves The parents therefore by the light and law oâ— nature choosing the better part for their children and offering and devoting them to God by the obligation of his own natural law he cannot in consistency with the â—â—ee grace revealed in the Gospel refuse those that are so offered And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth he wiâ—l in no wise cast out ... And he will be offended with those that would keep them from him that are offered by those that have the power to do it though they cannot offer themselves For legally this act is taken for their own Thus I have shewed you â—ome of the fundamental title that infants of believers have to Churchmembership and our obligation to dedicate them to God Answ. They are as I conceive Mr. B. willing to be Gods people in a natural sence who do in their own persons actually will this in a law sence who having not use of reason themselves do will by another who hath the dispose of them as v. g. a parent That some acts of a parent are legally taken for the childs it 's not denied But in this argument of Mr. B. I deny the major And whereas Mr. B. saith it is unquestionable I say it is manifestly false there is no such thing in the tenour of the Covenant of grace yea God did refuse Ishmael and Esau though Abraham and Isaac prayed for them and dedicated them in Mr. Bs. sense to God What Mr. B. dictates by way of proof whether of the major or minor which I think he did not well heed is not true Infants cannot will of themselves therefore the reason and will of another must be theirs in law sence For it follows nâ—t unless the Law-giver do ordain it so Nor doth it follow that if the infants cannot will and anothers will must be theirs in law sence it must in Church matters be the will of the natural parents For in such things it may be as well conceived that the will of the mother the Church as it is termed the Church-governours or as some will the Gossips should be their will in the law sence and that they have the power to dispose of them and are warranted by the law of nature to choose for them for their good as the natural parents The speeches the parents by the â—ight and law of nature choosing the better part for their children and offering them and devoting them to God by the obligation of his own natural law he cannot in consistency with the free grace revealed in the Gospel refuse those that are so offered is false the Gospel no where â—ssuring grace to those that are offered by anothers will but to those who repent and believe themselves The speech And those that thus come to him in the way that nature it self prescribeth he will in no wise cast out Joh. is false it being certain God hath cast out many so comming as Esau Ishmael c. and hath a tincture of Pâ—â—agianism and the Text Joh. 6.37 to which Mr. B. alludes is grosly abused by him sith it speaks onely of thâ—se that come to Christ by their own faith and of not casting out from the invisible Church and everlasting life as v. 39 40. shew not meerly from the visible Church And the speech and he will be offended with those that would keep them from him that are offered by those who have the power to do it though they cannot offer themselves being meant of not baptizing them is also false and the contrary is true that he will be offended with those who baptize infants which he never appointed but profane the ordinance being appointed onely for them who are themselves disciples and believers And thus Mr. Bs. fundamental title to infants visible Churchmembership is blown up Mr. B. adds You must now in reason expect that infants Church-membership being thus established partly in the law of nature and partly in the fundamental promise what is after this spoken of it should not be any new establishment but confirmations and intimations of what was before done rather giving us the proof that such a law and promise there is that did so establish it then being such first establishing laws or promises themselves And from hence I may well add this further argument If there be certain proof in Scripture of infants Churchmembership but none except this before alledged that makes any mention of the beginning of it but all speaking of it as no new thing then we have great reason upon the forementioned evidence to assign this beginning which from Gen. 3. we have exprest But the former is true ergo the later You confess that infantâ—s were Churchmembers once You onely conceive it began when Abraham was called out of Ur. Your conâ—â—t hath not a word to support it in the Text. The right to such a blessing was then new to Abrahams seed when Abâ—aham first believed But when it began to belong to infants of believers in general no Text except this before cited doth mention Nor doth that promise to Abraham intimate any inception then as to the Churchmembership of infants but onely an application of a priviledge to him that in the general was no new thing Answ. Mr. B. mistakes in conceiving visible Churchmembership to belong to infants of believers in general and therefore it must be derived from Gen. 3.15 I retort his argument If there be certain proof in Scripture of infants Churchmembership but none except in the nation of the Hebrews and that had its beginning at the call of Abraham out of Ur and ended at the rejection of the Jews then infants visible Churchmembership began with Abrahams call and now ceaseth But the antecedent is true Ergo also the consequent The consequence is in effect Mr. Bs. In the minor the first and third propositions are proved by the dispute before For the second that the nation of the Hebrews began with Abraham besides the allegation before of Nehem 9.6 Acts 7.2 where he is called their Father and the story of the Hebrews begun from Abrahams call the words of the Prophet Isa. 51.1 2. are express to this purpose calling
Rom. 11.11 12. that through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles the fall of them is the riches of the world the diminishing decay or loss of them the riches of the Gentiles Which happened not through the wickedness of infants above other men but partly through the wickedness of the Jewish people of which the infants were a part and onely Churchmembers there and while that nation were Gods Church partly through Gods contrivance which was that the Gentiles should have their course of mercy while the Jews were broken off and at last both have mercy in their season Mr. B. goes on in his cavilling vein If this doctrine be true why may we not expect to be taught that infants must also be cast out of heaven in mercy to the whole catholick Church Answ. Becaâ—se we find no such taught by the Apostle as the other doctrine of mine concerning the mercy to the catholick Church is by breaking off â—he Jewish Church If iâ— be saith he no carnal Churchstate to have infants in heaven why is it a carnal Churchstate which containeth infants in it on earth Answ. That any are infants in heaven it s not likely 2. If there should be yet being fully sanctified they should not be carnal but spiritual and the Church there onely consist of spiritual persons by spiritual regeneration whereas if the Church Christian should consist of infant visible Churchmembers by carnal generation the state of it would be carnal as the Jewish was and not spiritual by faith as the Scripture makes it Joh. 1.12 13. 3.5 6. Gal. 3.26 27. Again saith Mr. B. And if it be no benefit to the Catholike Church to have infants kept out of heaven nor no hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept on earth or any hurt to the Church to see them here members Answ. It were no hurt if God had so ordered it their non-visible Christian Churchmembership is a benefit to the Catholike Church in the manner before said because God hath so ordered it But yet saith Mr. B. let us come a little nearer what ever it may be to enemies or to man-haters of which sort the Church hath none yet me thinks to those that are love as God is love and that are merciful as their heavenly faâ—her is merciful and who are bound to receive little children in Christs name and who are become as children themselves to such it should seem no such mercy to have all infants unchurched But such are all true members of the Church and therefore to the Church it can be no such mercy Answ. I wish it were true that the visible Church of which we are speaking hath no enemies or man-haters It is not true that wee are bound to receive little children in Christs name nor do I say that it is a mercy to have all infants unchurched or that they are all unchurched nor do I think it true thâ—t all true members of the Church visible are such as Mr. B. describes But this I say the non-visible Church-membership Christian of infants is such a mercy as I describe however it seem to the Church But yet nearer saith Mr. B. Whatsoever it may be to strangers yet me thinks to the parents it should seem no such mercy to have their children put out of the Church Hath God naturally planted such tender affections in parents to their children and doth grace increase it and the Scripture encourage it and yet must they take it for a mercy that their children are put out when Mr. T. will not say it is a mercy to the children Answ. To the parents notwithstanding their natural affection it is a mercy and ought to seem a mercy that God hath dissolved the Jewish National visible Churchmembership and by consequent their infant visible Churchmembership and hath freed them and their infants from the legal bondage and hath out of all nations gathered his Church by preaching the Gospel without admission of infants into the visible Church Christian. And surely if this reason were good parents might complain that their children are not admitted to the Lords supper as the Jews children were to the Passeover Yet further saith he why then hath God made such promises to the parents for their seed as if much of the parents comfort lay in the welfare of the children if it be a mercy to them that they are kept out of the Church may not this doctrine teach parents to give their children such a blessing as the Jews did His bloud be on us and our children For their curse is to be broken off from the Church and if that be a mercy the Jews are then happier then I take them to be And how can we then pray that they may be graffed in again Answ. I find no promises in all the New Testament much less Evangelical promises made to believing parents for their seed nor any whit of the comforts of parents in the New Testament in the welfare of their children but in Christ and in the fellowship of the spirit Phil. 2.1 Yea whereas in the Old Testament most of the promises were of increase of children their prosperâ—â—y rest and peace in their dwellings c. in the New Testament an unmarried estate if without sin is rather preferred as more happy 1 Cor 7.14 and the poor and persecuted rather adjâ—dged blessed then the rich and those that live in pâ—ace Matth 5.4 10. However parents have as much comfort by my doctrine rightly understood as they can have by Mr. Bs. Nor doth it teach parents to curse their children as the Jews did The curse of the Jews was not in being broken off from the Jewish Church national but in being not in the Olive that is the Church of true believers but in the national Church Jewish and that they were not broken off from it was their unhappiness and we are to pray not that they may be graffed in again into the national Church Jewish but into the invisible Church of true believers and elect persons 6. Saith Mr. B. But what if all this were true Suppose it were a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out yet it doth not follow that God would do it He is the God of infants as well as of the aged and is mercifull to them as well as others all souls are his He can shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way then by casting out all their infants And his mercy is over all his works Answ. God is the God of the spirits of all flesh yet he hath not mercy on all flesh all souls are his yet he did not take any one nation for his people besides the Jewish his mercy is over all his works yet he hath broken off the Jews from being his people he is naturally mercifull yet sheweth mercy freely as he will I say not he casteth out all infants of the Church
without fear of forfeiting my Christianity And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer Christ did come to make Jew believers children in some respect that is of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable or under persecution and so in a worse condition and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness but a Saviour of them this worse condition working for their eternal good Nor is it any absurdity to say he that would not accuse the adulterous woman would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraignty as a Rector not of punitive justice as a Judge But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also and to his proof I give the same answer which he thus exagitates Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say before many thousand witnesses I think and that is this He saith plainly That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now then in it then Which â— thought a Christian could scarse have believed 1. Are all those glorious things spoken of the City of God and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth which if there had been many more witnesses I should stiâ—l avouch as part of my faith and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chriâ—â—ian and not a Jew hee should believe it too For were not the Jews infanâ—s by their visible Churchmembership bound to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law was not thiâ— an heavie and intollerable yoke Iâ— it not a mercy to be freed from it What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infanâ—s of believing Jews now lose by not being Christian visible Churchmembers I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing which doth not aâ— well come to an infant of a believer unbaptizâ—d or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized or admitted or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine which is not by his own Dare he say that the promises of saviâ—g grace or protection or other blessings are not belonging to them because unbaptized not admitted visible Churchmembers If he dare not let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian and tragically to represent it as cruel and uncomfortable to parents and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth but like an Oratour raise passion without judgement and endâ—avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious which course will at last redound to his shame if it do not pierce his conscieâ—ce I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates that it is now better to be out of any Church then it but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now then to be in it then meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then And for that passage that glorious things are spoken of the City of God to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged For that speech is meant of Jerusalem or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob Psal. 87.1 2 3. not of all the Jewish Church and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25 Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children which proves my position Mr. B. adds 2. Then the Gentiles Pagans infants now are happier then the Jews were then for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church Answ. It follows not from my position which was of Christian believers infants with those promises and probabilities they have and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have are happier then the Jews were then But saith he I were best to argue it a little further 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himself to be their God and taketh them to be his peculiar people then to be out of that Covenant then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then then to be out of that and this too But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God then out of it Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither The antecedent is undeniable The consequence is clear in these two conclusions 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God This I proved Deut. 29.11 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text you may see in the end 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance or mercy answerable If there be let some body shew it which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership Answ. If the Covenant be meant as I have proved before sect 64. it is of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Canaan if they kept the law of Moses then the antecedent is not undeniable but it is most true that the condition of believers and their children now with the exhibition of Christ the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him is betâ—er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it But the consequence was also denied because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace neither of his conclusions are true nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11 12. For if it were true that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God which they might do and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God siâ—h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant but to them that keep it yea if it were that they were in that covenant yet that covenant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws it being made conditionally and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church or to none but those who are believers who were not all the inchurched Jews Nor is the second conclusion true there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who
spirit now the new Covenant promises righteousness forgiveness of all sins through faith in Christ with a promise of the spirit But these promises belong not to the Church as it is visible but as it contains the elect of which sort infants may be though they be not visible Churchmembers there 's not a word of promise that the visible Church shall consist of a whole nation of all sorts of people in a nation infants and elder much less shall consist of more sorts of people then were in the Jewish Church but of more ample mercies spiritual to the elect who were all of the invisible Church though not of the visible and among them infants abortives stil born chiâ—dren which could not be of the visible and therefore to speak truth parents have more comfort by this Covenant both for themselves and children in that it assures more ample grace and that to more then visible members under the New Testament The same answer is to be given to Heb. 7.22 though â—he word be not as Mr. B. here reads it author but surety The next text speaks of the abounding of grace by Christ beyond the evil of sin by Adams transgression nothing at all of the enlargement of the visible Church since Christs comming in respect of the sorts of members over that which the visible Church Jewish had Yea such a position as it hath not the least footing in the text so would it not stand with Mr. Bs. and other Paedobapâ—ists doctrine that the visible churchmembership is a priviledge of believers children but in respect of extent of persons it was better with the visible Church then sith it comprehended servaâ—ts and the bought children of strangers And for the last text to imagine that the love of Christ is every whit the less if infants be not visible churchmembers is such a conceit as I judge a meer dotage But there is more of it in that which follows Further saith Mr. B. I might prove it out of Ephes. 2.12 They that are out of the Church are said to be strangers to the Covenant and without hope and without God in the world in comparison with those within the Church O how little then do they apprehend that height and depth c. or know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge who think that Christ will unchurch all the infants of believers now that took them in so tenderly in the time of Moses How insensible do they appear to be of the glorious riches of the Gospel and the free abundant grace of Christ who have such unworthy thoughts of him as if he would put all our children out of his Church How little know they the difference between Christ and Moses that think they might then be churchmembers and not now And yet oh the blindness these men do this under pretence of magnifying the sperituality of the Gospel priviledges As if to he a member of Christs Church were a carnal thingâ— or as if the visible Church were not the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies Answ. The Apostle doth not say they that are out of the Church any more then they that are uncircumcised are without hope without God nor doth he speak comparatively but absolutely Nor doth he speak universally of all without the Church but particularly of the Ephesians nor of them as out of the Church universal but Jewish nor this as they were merely negatively or privatively out for want of not taking on them the yoke of Moses Law but as they walked after the course of the world v. 2 3. So that these things are not said of them barely as non-visible churchmembers then in the Jewish Church as infants are now in the Christian for then these things might have bin said of Cornelius and his house as well as of them who were uncircumcised not in the Commonwealth of Israel but as they were idolaters alienated from the life of God and so were neither members of the Church visible nor invisible of true believers at that time Therefore to charge us with making the estate of infants of believers by our doctrine as the estate of those mentioned Ephes. 2.12 is a meer calumny tending to nothing else but indirectly to create prejudice in men against the truth And of the same kinde is that which followes which insinuates as if by denying infants visible churchmembership we lessened Christs love were insensible of it and the glorious riches of the Gospel made Christ less tender now of infants of believers then in Moses time and had such unworthy thoughts of Christ as if he would put all our children out of his Church and knew not the difference between Christ and Moses all which are meer flams and frivolous false accusations fit to take with shallow Paedobaptists who are caught with flourishes of Rhetorick rather then solid reason And for that which hee censures as my blindness I may rather admire his in not discerning it For however to be a member of Christs Church may be more then a carnal thing yet to bee a visible Churchmember by natural discent without faith is but a carnal thing and in this respect the Church Jewish was more carnal then the Christian Church as the Scriptures intimate though they were the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies The rest that follows is in the same calumniating vein for wee say as the Apostle Gal. 4.27 that is that the new Covenant or Gentile Church hath more children then the Jewish in that there were more believers in the world on the preaching of the Gospel as is said Revel 5.9 thâ—n in the national Church Jewish nor do wee as Mr. B. belies us make all or any of the children of the new Covenant or Gentile Church cast out for tâ—ey onely are those who are by promise born after the spirit that is true believers v. 28 29. and not as ignorantly and fondly Mr. B. imagines all the infant children of Gentile believers Nor do wee by our doctrine contradict the Apostles words Heb. 12.40 which are ridiculously applied to infants visible Churchmembership For the better thing provided for us in that which the believers afore Christ received not which is by some conceived to bee heaven but generally Protestant Divines understand it of the exhibition of Christ in the flesh and the clear knowledge of him which if true proves what I avâ—r that Christs exhibition in the flesh the gift of the spirit and the revelation of the Gospel and the taking in of the Gentiles are in stead of that visible Churchmembership the Jewes had and all the priviledges annexed However it cannot bee infants visible Church-membership as Mr. B. makes it for that they had as Mr. B. asserts and therefore the denying of it by me makes not us in so much worse a condition then they Nor do wee by denying infants visible Churchmembership aver the partition wall taken down Ephes. 2.14 by Christ to be in
faith but by a prosopopeia the righteousness of faith is brought in as directing the believer To the second it is true Paul addeth the very exposition to every sentence buâ— not an exposition of the Text in Deut. 30.12 13 14. but an exposition of the words of the righteousness of faith as they are applied thence by the Apostle to his purpose And yet plain Texts which are not so accomodated I cannot â—o put off as I will Your last answer saith Mr. B. is the worst of all You say if the Covenant did contain promises purely Evangelical yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot bee meant of all and every of the Israelites that God would bee a God to them that is sanctifie justifie adopt them to bee heirs of eternal life Answ. 1. God saith you stand all here c. to enter into the Covenant and oath c. And you say it cannot be all whom shall we believe God or you Answ. Both for we say in this point the same that some in the name of all did enter into Covenant and his oath to be a God in them and yet he not be a God to them all that entred into the Covenant but to to them onely that kept the Covenant 2. Saith hee You foully mis-interpret the promise to bee to them a God as if it were such as could bee verified to none but the elect God hath pâ—omised to others to bee their God who are not elect as is undeniable in the text Therefore in a larger sense as I have before in due place fully explained it Answ. It is sure foul language to tell me I foully mis interpret the promisâ— to be to them a God when I interpret not at all tâ—e promise Deut. 29.13 but onely infer from Mr. â—s interpretation of it as purely Evangelical which I count false that then it in respect of promises purely Evangelical should be meant onely of the elect which I agree with him to be absurd Nor is the matter salved by telling me that God hath promsed to others to be their God who are not elect For however hee hath not promised to be a God in respect of promises purely Evangelical to be a God by sanctifying justifying adopting to eternal life to any but the elect Yet Mr. B. asks me And why may not God promise justification adoption and sanctification in the sense as Divines and Scripture most use it for the work following faith and eternal life and all on the condition of faith and this to more then the elect and hath he not done so But of this and of infants condition before Answ. 1. By sanctifying I meant the sanctifying by which faith is produced which is the same with regeneration writing the lawes in the heart Heb. 10.16 and is used so 1 Cor. 1.30 6.11 c. and thus he sanctifieth onely the elect Ephes. 1 4. 2 Thes. 2.13 and I supposed Mr. B. had meant the same by circumcision of the heart to love the Lord Deut. 30.6 and that hee included it in the promise of being a God to them Deut. 29.13 and this sure is proper to the elect if Mr. B. say true Friendly accommod p. 362 Cor novum is given to the elect onely And sure if Mr. B. did not mean this he did not mean the Covenant of grace or the Gospel covenant in which this is the first promise Heb. 10.16 2. But let after-sanctification be onely meant and justification condition of faith yet I think the promise is made of these to none but the elect â—ith none are believers but they An offer may bee made to others by men but no promise by which God is bound and will performe it to any other 3 If the Covenant bee on condition of faith then it is not made to infants for they believe not Nor is the promise made to infants on condition of parents faith for though Mr. B. dream so yet the Scripture saith not so nor is it true For 1. the promise should then be made to Esau as well as to Jacob in infancy which the Apostle refutes Rom. 9 11 12 13 2. If the promise were made to infants upon their parents faith then God is engaged to sanctifie them in infancy and if so he doth it and if he do either holiness by sanctification of the spirit may bee lost or else they must all go to heaven for all holy ones go thither 3. The promise to the father is upon condition of his own faith therefore so is the promise to the child for there is not a different promise to the father and the child upon different conditions But I hasten He adds You would sain say somewhat too to that Deut. 30.6 but like the rest 1. You confess it is a promise of spiritual grace but to the Jewes after their captivitie 2. â—nd upon condition of obedience 3. And not performed to all their seed but onely to the elect Answ. 1. But did God promise spiritual grace to the Jews after the captivity and not before Repl. The promise Deut. 30.6 is to the Israelites to do it for them onely after their captivity I said not after the captivity as Mr. B. speaks Was not the promise saith he made to them that then were Repl. It was Were not they saith he captivated oft in the time of the Judges and so it might at least be made good then Repl. I grant it If God saith he would do as much for them before they forsook him and brake the Covenant by rebellion as he would do afterward when they repented then he would circumcise their hearts before as well as after But the former is true therefore the later Repl. I grant it yet this proves not the promise as it is there Deut. 30.6 to be made to them of what God would do for them afore their captivity 2. Saith hee And if it bee on condition of obedience then you confess there are conditional promises and then it was made to more then the elect Answ. I deny the consequence 3. Saith hee If it were not performed to any but the elect no wonder when it was a conditional promise and the rest performed not the condition which God will cause the elect to perform Answ. Sure it was not promised to any but to whom God performs it For though it were on a condition of theirs yet it was such a condition as was to be wrought and was promised by him which hee did onely to the elect And thus Mr. B. may see my vindication or my descant on this text and the Reader perhaps will wonder at the vanity and wilfulness of Mr. Bs. exceptions against it SECT LXVIII Neither from Rom. 4.11 nor by other reason hath Mr. B. proved ch 18 19. part 1. of Baptism That Infant Churchmembership was partly natural partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith CH. 18. Mr. B. writes thus My 13th arg is from Rom. 4. almost all the Chapter wherein the
as well as visible churchmembership of all infants of believers and the visible churchmembership of the seed unborn as well as born and of the most open profane children of believers as well aâ— the youngest children born into the world 2. The love of God was never to the faithfull and their seed universally I mean the special distinguishing love of God nor to any of them but according to his election of grace 3. God might and did love the faithfull and their seed and yet the infant seed were not visible churchmembers afore Abrahams time 4. The reason of that regard God had to Abrahams inheriting posterity to take their infants for visible churchmembers was from his peculiar dâ—sign he had on that people to make them the people from whom his sons comming should be expected which he vouchsafed not to believers of other people whom yet he loved and their seed in respect of Gospel mercies 5. The beginning of infants visible churchmembership is sufficiently shewed bâ—fore in that it is not shewed to have been any where but in the Hebrew nation 6. If Adams infants he standing in integrity had been visible churchmembers yet they had been such onely in the Church by nature which is nothing to the present point of visible churchmembership in the Church instituted by electing some to be of the Church and some not From hence I answer to the argument 1. by denying the antecedent that there is no mention in the Scripture when the churchmembership visible of infants did begin 2. The consequence of the major if it did not it proves not the visible churchmembership of infants afore Abrahams time much less from Adams creaâ—ion sith then there was no such Church to be as now we enquire â—f and Gods love might be to believers seed and yet they no visible church-members The last argument whereby Mr. B. would evince infants visible churchmembership before Abrahams time which he saith here he had not leisure to improve largely he hath in his Letter to me before recited I think to the utmost he could urged it and the answer thereto is fully made here sect 54 55 56 57 58 59. and thereby it may appear not onely to a man of common sense but of acute sense that there is likelihood that infants should be visible churchmembers in Abrahamâ— family and yet not in the foregoing Patriarchs and that from the Scripture and yet Gods love as great to Noah Sem and their seed as to others Nor is it true that all these Churchmercies are bestowed upon the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entred wiâ—â— our first parents presently upon the fall but visible Churchmembership of infants was upon the special transeunt fact of God in taking the Hebrew nation to bee his people And though the promise Gen. 3.15 comprehend infants yet not all infants and I wonder how Mr. B. beeing a man of common sense should not discern that if hee will have the whole seed of the woman comprized in the promise Gen. 3.15 and that they are thereby Churchmembers hee must baptise all the posterity of Eve which hee makes a thing to bee avoided p. 120. and gives cautions against it And it is to me a sign of his palpable inconsiderateness in this his hasty scribling that he cites Revel 12.17 to prove Satans enmity against the whole seed of the woman against our infants no doubt when the woman Revel 12.17 is not Eve as Gen. 3.15 but the woman cloathed with the Sunne commonly conceived to represent the Chrâ—stian Church and the seed are said to keep the Commandments of God and to have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST which cannot bee said of infants But I leave him to the Lord to give him either repentance for his abuse of Scripture and perverting the truth or to let him fill up the measure of his iniquity and proceed to the next Ch. 24. arg 19th If God bee not more prone to severity then to mercy then hee will admit of infants to bee members of the visible Church But God is not more prone to severity then to mercy Therefore he will admit of infants to be visible Churchmembers All that needs proof here is the consequence of the major proposition which is made evident thus God hath cut off multitudes of infants of wicked men both from the Church and from life for the sins of their progenitors therefore if he should not admit some infants of faithful men so much as into the visible Church then hee should bee more prone to severity then to mercy except it bee proved that God giveth some greater mercy out of the Church which is not yet proved All the children of Dathan and Abiram and their accomplices were swallowed up with them for their rebellion and so cut off both from the Church and life Achans sons and daughters were all stoned and burned for his sin and so cut off both from the Church and life Jos. 7.25 â—â— Yea it was the stablished law of God concerning any City that shouâ—d serve other Gods by the sedâ—cement of whomsoever that is if they should break the Covenant for the Covenant is that they take God onely for â—heir God then that City should wholly be destroyed and not so much as the infants spared Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. And God concludeth it in his moral Law that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him All the infants of Amalek are slain with the parents by Gods command Num. 31.17 they that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 The children of Daniels accusers are cast unto the Lions Dan. 6.24 Yea God commanded Israel to save the life of no one infant of all the nations that were given them for inheritance the Hittites Amorites Canaanites Perezites the Hivites and Jebusites Deut. 20.16 17. How all this is reconciled with that of Eze. the son shal not bear the iniquity of the father is shewed by our Divines that write on the 2d Com. And if God will not admit the infants of believers so much as to bee members of his visible Church or Kingdom then hee should not onely shew more severity to the seed of the wicked then mercy to the seed of the faithful but should even cast out all infants in the world from being in any visible state of Church mercies And how that will stand with the tenderness of his compassions to the godly and their seed and the many promises to them and the enlargement of grace in Gospel times I know not Answ. 1. The speech of Gods proneness to mercy more then severity is according to my apprehension of Gods attributes not right nor however it may pass among the vulgar is it true in exact speech such as should be used in Disputes For though I acknowledge justice vindicative to be natural in God and goodness yet the term of proneness to
bring to that purpose 7. Saith Mr. B. And why should children be joyned in standing Church ordinances as prayer fasting c. if there were not strong hope of the blessing of these ordinances to them 2 Chron. 20.13 The children that suck the breast were to bee gathered to the solemn fast Joel 2 16. this will prove them also standing Churchmembers seeing they must joyn in standing ordinances so why received they circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith if there were not strong probability that they had the thing sealed and signified God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not Answ. There 's nothing here endeavoured to bee proved but what I have also granted that there is a strong probability that infants of believers so dying are justified and saved and yet I see no strength in these allegations to prove it For though the little ones and sucking children were to bee present to shew an universal humiliation as did the beasts also Jonah 3.8 yet the infants did not joyn in prayer nor was the end of their presence any special blessing of the Ordinance to them but the moving GOD to spare the whole people invaded or in danger of perishing by famiâ—e nor were the prayer and fasting standing Church-ordinances any more then the Covenanting Deut. â—9 Nehem. 9. but occasional nor doth this presenting of infants prove them standing Church-members any more then the like Jonah 3.8 proves those infants or the Ninivites beasts standing Churchmembers As for Cirâ—umcision that infants received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith is no where in Scripture affirmed and how much Paedobaptists are mistaken in their inference of the nature of Sacraments in general or Circumcâ—siâ—n in special from Rom 4.11 hath beene often shewed before Sect. 31 c. The ends of Circumcising of infants was to distinguish the Hebrews from other people and to fore-signifie from what people CHRIST was to come and to engage them to observe the Law of Moses which they were to receive by reason of Gods command whether they hoped for their childrens salvation or not Abraham was to circumcise Ishmael though hee knew hee was not a childe of the promise and Isaac Esau though hee were rejected by God The speech God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not is like the Popish Schoolmens conceit that Sacraments confer grace where no bar is put and intimates that Circumcision was Gods oâ—dinance to assure at least rigteousness of faith to each infant circumcised which is a false conceit 8. Saith Mr. B. Why else doth God so oft compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe 1 Thes. 2.7 Num. 11 12. Isa. 49.15 Psâ—l 103.13 Answ. Though I grant a strong probality of the salvation of believers infants so dying yet to shew the vanity of Mr. Bs. scriblings as if hee brought more for it then I do I cannot but observe the slighty dealing of Mr. B. in this point For first whereas hee alledgeth these texts as if GOD did therein compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe in the first Paul not God compares himself to a nurse in the second Moses speaks of himself as if God had put an impossible burthen on him as if he could as a nursing father bears his sucking childe carry all that people to the promised land In the third God saith he would not forget Sion who had said hee had forgotten them though a mother should forget her sucking childe and Psal. 103.13 the love of God as a father is spoken of them that fear him So that the two first texts were through heedlesness mis-alledged grosly by him the other two express Gods love onely to his obedient and seeking people mention nothing of his love to their infants 2. God doth compare his love to a Fathers or Mothers not because he is engaged to believers infants to save them nor because he hath natural affection as they have but to shew his gracious care and dealing towards his elect children 3. Gods love is no more compâ—red to a believing parents love then to an unbelievers and therefore if this prove a strong probability of the salvation of a believers infant so dying it doth prove the salvation of an unbelievers as probâ—ble 4. Gods love and care is compared to an Eagles in carrying her young ones Deut. 32.11 12. Christs to an Heâ— Matth. 23.37 According to Mr. Bs. reasoning thiâ— should prove then the strong probability of tâ—e salvation of Chickens But I am ashamed that the world should see the nakedness of these magnified reasonings though I be necessitated to uncover it The 9th from Matth. 19.14 is no more then I have alledged often for those infants and what Mr. B. here alledgeth to prove this a right of other infants is answered at large in the second part of this Review sect 17. 10. Saith he We read of some that have been sanctified from the womb and therefore were in a state of salvation and Jacob was loved before he was born and therefore before he had done good or evil was in the like state of salvation Answ. Have not I also granted this thing and that upon the same reasons Why then doth Mr. B. suggest to draw parâ— is hearts from me to him as if he said more in this then my self Yet I cannot be very confident of the reason from Jerem 1.15 to which Gal. 1. â—5 is parallel sith the sanctification was to the office of a Prophet which is appliable to infants so dying 11. We find promises of salvation to whole housholds where it is probable there were infants Act. 16.34 Answ. 1. Acts 16.31 is no probability that infants should bee meant sith in the next v. it is said he spake the word to all that were in his house which is not to be said of infants and v. 34. he rejoyced with all his house believing God 2. If they should yet this can be no more then a particular promise to him unless this were true that God will save every believer and his house And Mr. B. over lâ—sheth in saying we find promises of salvation made to whole housholds when there is no more but this one The 12th is from 1 Cor. 7.14 and it is built on Mr. Bs. interpretation of holy as if it noted a separation to God as a peculiar people But I have fully answered Mr Bs. 29th ch and have shewed his mistake in the first part of this Review sect 22 c. and need to answer no more in this place Mr. B. goes on thus It cannot be said that these promises are verified according to their sense if any mercy be given to any infant Here the persons are determined that is all the seed of the faithfull and we have large ground given probably to conclude that it is eternal mercy that is intended to all that living to age do not again reject it but that either at
I grant but deny what he adds and still stands by vertue of the Covenant to believers and their children For neither is there such a Covenant and if there were yet Abraham could be a root onely to his natural seed not to Gentiles by vertue of that Covenant And what he adds that though old Testament ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church-state yet the root is not taken away but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off letting pass the vanity of the speeches that our ingraffing gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges which they had not by our ingraffing but their own propagation from the root and that the Jews had the priviledges till they were broken off whereas the persons broken off never had the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 all this answer avoids not the objection but plaiâ—ly grants the argument For if the Old Testament ordinances and the Jewish Churchstate were taken away which all that are against a national Church-frame must aver then if by fatness be meant outward ordinances and Churchstate the Gentiles cannot be said to partake of them nor they be meant by the fatness Rom. 11.17 Let 's examine what Mr. Bl. saith to this argument 1. He denies that he ever said every believing parent is the root a root he makes them not the root But by his leave I charge him with nothing but what doth plainly follow from his words For that is the root according to him which communicates Covenant holiness and Church-state and of whom it is verified if the root be holy so are the branches But this is said by him in his Vindic. Faed p. 277. and elsewhere of every believing parent therefore if Mr. Bl. avouch his own arguings he makes every believing parent the root Rom. 11.16 17. What Mr. Bl. speaks that other parents are roots to their posterity is granted and needed not to be proved by Mr. Blâ—ut â—ut that they being holy persons are holy roots communicating Covenant holiness to their children is not prâ—ved by Mr. Bl. That the Covenant or promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 15.5 17 4 7. did assure and â—o constitute Abraham to be the root of the Church of true believers is not denied nor that Circumcision did seal to him the righteousness of faith as a believer and the father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. But the form denominating him Father of believers or root of the Olive is propagating them by his exemplary faith Nor was David by his Covenant or Jesse or any other believing parent a root or father in the sense Rom. 4.11 11.16 17. Though they were natural roots to their posterity and builders of the house of Israel and the Fathers 1 Cor. 10.1 by natural generation yet none are said to build as Abraham from whom the fatness Rom. 11.17 is derived and not from any other intermediate father For Abraham had been father though he had had no child by natural generation Mat. 3.9 descending from him Nor can it be tâ—ue that he is termed the root by reason of natural generation For then the Gentiles had not been branâ—hes and children and â—ll the branches had been natural contrary to v. 21 24. To this saith Mr. Bl. He makes them wild onely at their first ingraffing and so was all Terahs race wild likewise till that change of faith wrought in Abrahams call and the Covenant God entred with him we now are natural as they were and cannot be called wild but in our first original Answ. They that were ingraffed were still branches of the wild Olive and so are we that are believers of the Gentiles for that title is by nature and natural descent Rom. 11.24 which is not changed by grace though the fruit and sap be changed that is the qualities and actions by ingraffing We that are believers of the Gentiles are not the branches according to nature for that is plainly meant of the Jews onely Rom. 11.24 when it is said they that are according to nature shall be graffed in their own Olive Which shews that the term they that are according to nature iâ— proper to the Jews But if every believing parent should be the root Rom. 11.16 17. then every Gentile believers child should be a natural branch contrary to v. 24. for they are all besides nature and no believing Gentile nor his child is now or hath been a natural branch in the sense the Apostle means Rom. 11.24 But Mr. Bls. chief objection is this If the ingraffing be by a saving faith onely to derive saving graces personalâ—y inherent as a fruit of election from Abraham then it must needs be that we are elect in Abraham Abraham may say without me ye can do nothing and he that believeth in me out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water And we may say the life that we live in the flesh we live by faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham be the root noâ— onely respective to a conditional Covenant but to the graces under condition covenanted Answ. 1. This objection may be thus retorted If the ingraffing be by a faith of profession onely to derive onely outward ordinances outward priviledges Covenant holiness visible Churchmembership as a fruit of the Covenant from Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root then we are iâ— Covenant in Abraham Isaac and Jacob They may say without us ye cannot be visible Churchmembers c. he that professeth faith in us shall have outward Church priviledges the priviledges we have in the visible Church we have by profession of faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be the root respective to the Covenant and Covenant holiness as Mr. Bl. asserts when Mr. Bl. hath freed himself from these absurdities I shall have somewhat more to answer him 2. In the mean time my answer in my Apology is that the absurdities follow not on my opinion who make not Abraham a rooâ— as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing in which sense he is stiled the father of believers Rom. 4 11 12. To this Mr. Bl. in his flirting fashion replies thus A root not by communication but example an ingraffing not to have any thing communicated from the root but to imitate it is such a Catachresis as may well make all Rhetorick â—shamed of it and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of non sense I am to seek what sense is A root is too low in the earth to have its examples followed and a syens sucks in juyce but knowes not how to imitate Answ. 1. Mr. Bl. grosly abuseth me by insinuating as if I mentioned a root not by communication but example
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ— but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâ—ration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâ—eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â— Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an â—dea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâ—iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâ—sh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way â—hen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâ—ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â—2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâ—chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâ—lk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâ—fies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed â—o them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâ—lieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the â—ather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
be sinners by nature as those which are born of the heathen Answ What I said before I say still without any jeer or disregard to Mr. Cartwright that the conceit that 1 Cor. 7.14 and Gal. 2.15 are two full parallel Scriptures is but a dream there being neither agreement in scope matter words or sense between them Not in scope For 1 Cor. 7 12 13 14. the Apostles scope is â—o resolve a doubt about continuance of married persons in disparity of religion Gal. 2.15 his scope is to determine by what we are justified not in matter for the one speaks of the sanctifying of husband and wife to each other and the holiness or uncleanness of the children the other of Jews and Gentils acding to their different national state nor is there one word used Gal. 2.15 which is used 1 Cor 7.14 nor can the sense be agreeing For Jew by nature cannot be as much as holy 1 Cor. 7.14 because then the children of the Corinthians should bee Jews by nature which was impossible they being born of Gentile parents for such were the Corinthians 1 Cor. 12.2 Nor is Mr. Bls. sense Jew by nature that is holy by birth from believing parents any where else found in Scripture Nor doth Jew by nature intimate their Churchstate as if hee meant it thus we who are members of the visible Church or have this priviledge to bee in the Covenont of grace by nature in that wee are born of believing parents For they are said to bee Jews by nature by reason of their natural descent without any respect to the faith or unbelief of their parents even those whose parents were idolaters as Aâ—az Manasseh or any other of that line were Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles and the children of the most holy Proselites yet were not Jews by nature nor were they Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace they were Jews by nature without respect to the Covenant of grace for that was alwais to them who were believers whether Jewes or Gentils and the covenant whereby the Jews had priviledge was not the Covenant of Evangelical grace but the Covenant of peculiar national blessinigs but here the opposition to the Gentiles and the occasion shews Jews to bee taken as a term appropriate to natural Jews by natural descent from Jacob in contradiinstction to Gentiles from other roots If any ask who are meant by we and why here is mentioned Jews by nature and why they are opposed to the Gentiles and they termed sinners I answer the words seem plainly to be a part of Pauls speech to Peter and that by we are meant himself with Peter termed a Jew v. 14. and other believers of the Circumcision mentioned v. 12 13. and the sense is We though we are Jews by nature or even we who are Jews by natural birth and this mentioned because they had the Law peculiarly given them as Piscator in his Analysis Nos quantumvis Judaei sumus quibus nimirum lex peculiariter a Deo data est Or as the opposite term sinners of the Gentiles intimates knowers and keepers of the Law of Moses and therefore if any certainly much more then sinners of the Gentiles we should seek and expect to be justified by the Law yet if we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ and even we have believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law it is not equal that wee should as Peter did at Antioch dissemble our liberty in Christ compel the Gentiles to Judaize or keep the law for righteousness and so not walke uprightly or rightfoote it according to the truth of the Gospel Now the Gentiles are termed sinners in the sense in which in the ordinary acception among the Jewes it was taken for men that observed not the law opposed to the righteous Matth. 9.13 Luke 15.1 2 7 10. 18.9 13. and many more places And in this sense it is taken v. 17. we our selves also are sound sinners that is we our selves also are deprehended convinced or proved to be prophane breakers or despiseâ—s of the law which the Gentiles did and which I think is meant Ephes. 2.1 2 3. and that Paul doth not any more reckon himself with them Ephes. 2.3 then he doth with them that are alive at Christs comming opposite to them who are dead in Christ 1 Thes. 4.17 though he use the first person plural in both for I see not how that could stand with his speeches of himself Acts 23 1. Philip. 3.4 5 6. and therefore do conceive a conception or an enallage of person Ephes. 2.3 used often in speeches whereby a speaker takes that to himself which is proper to others whether to avoid distaste as if he upbraided them or to insinuate into their affections or for such like reason Out of all which I infer 1. That Jews by nature is not put Gal. 2.15 to intimate a birth-priviledge of the children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles concerning their Ecclesiastical state even in infancy as visible Churchmembers but it is put to note either the advantage peculiar to the Jewish nation in that the law of Moses was given to them or rather the greater likelihood and meetness or congruity to seek or claim righteousness by the law then the Gentiles 2. That he meant not they were Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace For that were clean opposite to his intention which was to shew that their estate of being Jews by nature did not confer to their justification which doubtless it would have done if it had been by the Covenant of grace but to intimate that the law was given to them or rather they studious of it and Zelots for it and therefore if any they should be justified by it as Paul in a like place Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 7 8 9. So that whatever advantage or precedency is intimated by it it is ascribed to the law and their observing of it not to the new Covenant of grace 3. The deteriority or worse condition of the Gentiles is ascribed to them not barely in respect of their birth from unbelievers and so agreeing to their infants much less as agreeing to infants of unbelieving Jews as well as Gentiles but in respect of their manners either onely or chiefly and so not competent to infants And therefore notwithstanding Mr. Bl. thought Gal. 2.15 a fit Text for his Sermon in which he asserted infants birth-priviledge of believing Gentiles though Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines crack in their Epistle before Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter that he hath truly stated the the question set it upon the right basis and well fortified it and Mr. Bl. hath produced somewhat from Mr. Cantwright to colour his parallelling 1 Cor. 7.14 with Gal. 2.15 yet I say still and have such a gift of impudence as to aver that both Mr.
proposition All the children of an unbeliever are unclean unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer For whether by uncleanness we understand non-admissibleness into the Church it is false for the children of unbelievers bought with money by Abraham though infants yet were in Mr. Bls. sense federally holy and me thinks Mr. Bl. who asserts against Mr. Firmin the baptizability of the infants of the generality of Enâ—lish though the parents be openly profane and hate godliness should not deny it however the case is clear in the Circumcision of professed infidels children bought with money Gen. 17.27 And for federal real holiness I suppose Mr. Bl. will not deny but that many of them as Rahab c. were in the Covenant of saving grace To the first of these Mr. Bl. 1. saith thus pag. 338. I pray leave generation out and see whether there can be any sense in it unless it be understood their sanctification will confer no legitimation without generation if I say not believer I must say husband or wiâ—e that is a believer Asw. If generation be left out and believer it may be good sense according to my interpretation An unbelieving husband may be sanctified to his wife that is may lawfully use her though she were an unbeliever as his wife and may continue to live with her and she with him though they never had or should have children else your children which you might beget should be unclean but this being put they are legitimate But according to Mr. Bls. interpretation it is not good sense in the case of the barren for she or he are not instrumentally sanctified for generation there being no generation there is no being an instrument for generation nor sanctification thereto And an instrument is an efficient and where there is no effect there is no efficient nor instrument And to be sanctified instrumentally must be as an instrument to a principal agent which in this thing cannot be any other then God now no instrument of God fails to produce its effect therefore without actual generation no wife can bee said to bee instrumentally sanctified for generation And for the leaving out the term believer it is good sense as I expound it without it and if the Apostle had not conceived it good sense without it hee would not as hee did have left it out But I confess it is not good sense according to Mr. Bls. interpretation who saith though falsely p. 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party as to the holiness of the issue twice over I confess their sanctification would confer no legitimation actual without actual generation yet their might bee legitimation of issue which is enough to shew the consequence to bee good and for the Apostles purpose without actual generation the legitimatiâ—n being onely upon supposition as it is usual in such arguments and so the generatiâ—n onely supposed Doubtless the Apostle resolved the Corinthians of the lawful living together of the barren as well as they that had or should beget which wilâ— not agree with Mr. Bls. exposition of instrumental sanctification for that is not true but of actual generation past or future as I have proved But Mr. Bl. adds the Apostles major is of an unbelieving huusband and a believing wife and I make the propoâ—â—tion universal according to the capacity of the subject of all believing wives joyned to unbelieving husbands not with Mr. T. of all husbands and wives And this is the Apostles included proposition which must bee the basis of so many inferences and refutations when yet all mens Logick except what Mr. T. hath learnt will utterly disclaim it Answ. That the Apostles major is not of an unbelieving husband and a believing wife is manifest by the words in which the term believing is in both speeches left out And sure if the Apostle would have ascribed any thing to the believer as such hee could as easily have put it in as the term unbeliever or the terms brother or sister used v. 12 15. And though I deny not that the wife or huusband opposite to the infidel yoke-fellow were believers yet I have lâ—arned so much Logick and Divinity that what attributes do agree materially do not alwayes agree formally in each speech as though Ishmael was the son of Abraham yet what is said of him Gal. 4 13 24 25 29 30 3â— is said of him nâ—t as Abrahams sonne but as Hagars And so it is here though the husband or wife were a believer yet they are not there considâ—red as believers nor the things there spoken of them ascribed to them under that consideration but under the consideration of husband and wife and if any disclaim this Logick he will disclaim such Logick as the holy Scripture useth in these and other places I alledged in my Examen part 3. sect 8. p. 78. the words of Chamier tom 4. paustr. cath l. 5. c. 10. § 67. against Augustines interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 oâ— a ceremonial holiness as apposite to refute his own of federal For saith hee that interpretation is ridiculous if these propositions bee not true that all born of those â—arents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are begotten in the time of the womans monethly courses Infidel husbands never use their wives but at such time for so the Apostle is made to speak by Augustines interpretation Now the self same I shewed to follow on his own interpretation the words being changed which should bee changed in such a retorsion For then according to it the Apostle should say All the children born of those parents of whom one is not sanâ—tified in the other are out of the Covenant of grace infidel parents never beget of their wives children within the Covenant of grace Both which are false and consequently the interpretation of Chamier whence it is apparent that Chamier made these prâ—positions in the Apostles arguing to be included Those children whereof one parent is not sancâ—ified in the other are unclean none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are holy I said also in my Antidote pag. 16. that Mr. Bl. confessed these propositions included in the Apostles consequence Against this Mr. Bl. thus riseth up What can I iâ—agine but that Mr. T. knowingly fastens this gross untruth upon mee Seeing he so we I knowes that I both deny it and have argued against it having made such defence â—s he could in his Apology of it yâ—t now in his Antidote says I confess it I am overmuch honoured to be named if I may say so the day that Chamier is mentioned but as much wronged to have such a Monster of absurdities as is contained in that proposition obtruded upon mee my thoughts are over-high of Chamier to believe any such weakness in him when Mr. T. shewes it in him having yet given his Reader no account where it may bee found I shall subscribe to that Proverb Nullum
belongeth to God onely as ignorant people did use to do to the Pharisees If aâ—l natural parents be instruments of God to people the world yet Mr. Bl. will not say they are instruments to produce a holy seed to peoâ—le the Church for theâ— all children and not believers onely should bâ—e fedeâ—ally holy so tâ—at all this is meerly impertinent That all believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed is said without proof there being no such promise to them and their seed produced nor if there were did it follow they were all federally holy in Mr. â—ls sense But were this gâ—anted yet it is noâ—hing to prove the unbelieving parent to bee Gods instrument to produce a holy seed who is said and not the believer to bee sanctified and that signanter considered as an unbeliever much less every unbelieving wife though bâ—rren who hath a believing husband much less to bee specially designed for that end and therefore the sanctification instrumental which Master Bl. conceives meant 1 Corinth 7.14 is quite besides the Apostles meaning Mr. Bl. goes on thus of me The 2d argument he hath in his Apol. p. 123. where he says that the Apostles proposition understood of federal holiness were most certainly false giving in his reason for many children of both unbelieving parents are federally holy he saith that I answer they are not so at their birth My answer is if afterwards by grace they are changed this is no fruit of their birth of which the question is in this place but the work of the Gospel through grace Mr. T. says This is nothing to the purpose sith the proposition hath not those words in it nor the Apostle the Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time It seems then that the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children so born cannot bee clean at any time or else Mr. T. his exception is less to purpose who does not see that the Apostle speaks of uncleanness or holiness as as a product of their birth without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen as a mean woman given in marriage to a Senator or Peer she is enobled by her husband otherwise her issue were Plebeians yet so as they are capable of honour by the Princes munificence or their own merit It seems that proposition of Christs That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh. 3.6 will not hold unless it must for ever continue flesh and no omnipotence of God shall be able to make it otherwise Answ. It is true that it seems to me the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children born unclean cannot be clean at any time and I grant that the Apostle speaks of uncleâ—nness or holiness as a product of their birth or generation without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen and therefore of illegitimation and legitimation by birth and not of federal holiness which is no product of birth and yet that proposition That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh 3.6 will hold though after the person born after the flesh be made spirit or spiritual there being no contradiction in this that the person born after the flesh should become spiritual in his qualities but it is impossible that that which hath been illegitimate in birth should not be illegitimate in birth iâ— beâ—ng a thing past and therefore cannot by God be made not a thing past or not done for then it should be true that a thing hath been at birth and hath not been been and not been which is a contradiction Mr. Bl saith I farther add And yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth whether it bee understood of election inherent holiness or outward holiness if God please to work and declare it I would Mr T would speak whether there were ever any such a thing aâ— the child of two unbelievers at the instant of their birth declared of God to bee of those whom hee took â—o bee federally holy and of the number of his Covenant people let that proposition stand till God by such a miracle confute or contradict it Answ. 1. Though I could not speak there was such a thing yet it is enough for me to shew that and how it might be 2. I doubt not but many a captive woman gotten wâ—th child by an infidel and she her self an infidel hath been delivered in Abrahams house and those children were in Mr. â—ls sense federally holy at the instant of their birth for for they were if males capable of Circumcision on the eighth day according to the law Gen. 17.12 13. and this is to be federally holy according to Mr. Bls. doctrine who makes all to be in the Covenant at their birth who are capable by reason of their birth of the sign of the Covenant He yet saith Mr. T. adds But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoyned as husband and wife cannot be made legitimate by God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife This must conclude for his interpretation and against ours because God by his omnipotence can make our unclean ones holy and to make his unclean ones holy is without the verge of omnipotence If we should put case in Mr. T. his manner that God should appear in approbation of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society then there were a legitimation of the issue as he did the marriage of the brothers wife Deut. 25.5 otherwise against the moral law Levit. 18.16 Answ. It concludes for me if it be true which Mr. Bl. disproves not that the holiness is meant 1 Cor. 7.14 which cannot be without the sanctification there spoken of and Mr. Bls. holiness may be without his sanctification and the proposition is true of no other holiness but that which I assign If the definition of legitimation be a state of birth from parents generating in lawfull marriage though God should approve of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society there were no legitimation of the issue and yet the marriage Deut. 25.5 were lawfull and the issue legitimate I am sorry Mr. Bl. hath tyred himself and me with so many impertinent words which have shaken nothing of my Fabrick I am glad I am so near an end with him and pass from him to Mr. Sydenham who in the 7th ch of his Exercit. thus speaks The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel priviledge annexed to the state and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a natural moral or positive rule but a majori from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel For 1. the unbelieving husband is
is said to be blessed and he a blessing to them is expressed to be in that God casts elect children upon elect paients which I know not well how to understand It seems to bear a sense if not the same yet very near that in which we are said to be chosen in Christ Ephes. 1.3 4. which Mr. C. alledgeth to this purpose and 1 Cor. 1.30 We are of God in him who is made to us of God wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption which were near blasphemy Which to avoid it concerned Mr. C. to have more clearly and distinctly expressed himself What he saith that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12.2 3. respecteth families and posteritie else he had said all the believers or all the people of the earth not all the families of the earth shall bee blessed shews his oversight in not observing that it is Gal. 3.8 all the nations of the earth which is equivalent to all the people of the earth and yet v. 9. by all the nations of the earth are meant no more then they that are of faith And when he saith that the Apostle Acts 3.25 could not have said to the Jewes ye are the children of the Covenant had it not respected the children of the people of God hee heeded not that they are said as well to bee children of the Prophets and therefore the sense is not that they were descended from the Covenant or Prophets by natural generation but ye are they to whose Ancestours the Covenant was at first given and the Prophets sent which are not common things to all the children of the people of God or true believers the Gentile believers children are not children of the Covenant and Prophets in the sense there meant but proper to the Jews Nor is the proposition true which Mr. C. would gather from the Covenant to Abraham For 1. God hath plainly discovered his mind Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 24 25. that he chuseth at his pleasure children of unbelievers as well as believers and of the posterity of believers either none or which he will arbitrarily and by no ordinary or certain rule but as a potter doth with his clay acâ—ording to his soveraignty not out of special grace to the children of his elect for the parents sake and accordingly the saints praise him for their redemption out of every kinred and tongue and people and nation Rev. 5.9 without respect to their Ancestours 2. Our Lord Christ foretold Matt 10.34 35. that he came to divide a man against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law and a mans enemies should be they of his own house And in the families of the most godly how few were found elect may appear by the posterity of David Josiah Jehoshaphat â—li Samuel Abraham himself with many more As for our own experience in our own times it is so uncertain that no good estimate can be made thereupon concerning Gods ordinary way Perhaps in some families it falls out that the posterity and neighbours and servants are godly but many complaints of degenerating of back-sliding shew it as often to be otherwise I wish it were true which Mr. C. writes though I find no proof of it That in all ages God hath cast it so in his providence that his people are not to be found in all places alike but we finde them together in some families and nations Now this is not faln out by chance but because God hath so made his choise hath been a God to believers and their seed in their generation and hath made them blessings for the conversion and edification of their children neighbours and acquaintance and that not onely by a common providence as he blesseth the corn and grass of the field but it is by vertue of a special word of blessing a creating word of promise which giveth a being to the things promised even this promise made to Abraham and in him to all believers Gen. 12 2 3. without which good examples and other means of education and conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God But I do not believe it sith neither hath the Covenant such a sense as Mr. C. gives it nor is there such eâ—perience proved and it is found that what good is done among children of believing parents is done as often by servants minister good company remarkable providences and other wayes as by parents endeavours and if without such a promise as Mr. C. imagines such means had not such efficacy I think not onely parents who believe no such promise but also ministers and others who expect a blessing upon their endeavours without Mr. Cs. promise would be discouraged in their work That which is said Psal. 105.8 though it prove the perpetuity of Gods Covenant with Abraham yet proves not the sense Mr. C. gives of the Covenant Nor doth that Luk. 19.9 yeeld any clearness to iâ— For salvation came to Zacheus his house in respect of his person and if it did to others in his house yet it is not said by vertue of the Covenant to Abraham as Mr. C. imagines and what Mr. C. saith about Acts 16.31 that it was spoken because of this promise to Abraham is his own gloss without any hint from the text and would infer this proposition that by vertue of Gods promise to Abraham upon the faith of an house-keeper his house should be saved which is contrary to constant experience of believing masters husbands parents having unbelieving servants wives children I grant Abraham to be the holy root Rom. 11.16 and that v. 28. the Jewes as touching the election are beloved for the Fathers sake and that they shall be graffed in again because the guâ—â—t once given to them God will not repent of and though I say not the Church bringeth forth children to Abraham yet I yeeld Jerusalem which is above the Evangelical Covenant doth and that the children of promise or of the free-woman are Abrahams seed all believers even of the Gentiles but this is so far from proving the blessing upon families and kinreds and Gods ordering in such manner his election as Mr. C. devised and would have perpetual from Psal. 105.8 that it rather proves the contrary For the breaking off the Jews and the ingraffing the Gentiles not of the families or kinred of the root Abraham but a wild Olive by nature proves the blessing not to be to families nor election so ordered as that to a thousand generations to all generations even to the worlds â—nd God ordinarily casts elect children upon elect parents Nor doth the citing of Isa. 59.20 which is Rom. 11.26 27. with the inference thereupon prove that God entails his blessing upon families from generation to generation but that God hath such a special love to the family of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that after a long breaking off that nation shall be restored again
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
If this were Mr. Ms. meaning Ishmael and Esau did not discovenant themselves for they did uncircumcise themselves but shewed that they regarded not the blessing of Isaac But saith Mr. M. I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in instead of the Jews who were broken off they were under the outward administration visible professours had an external calling which is Gods act though a common one To which I reply 1. If they were taken into the Covenant of grace as the ingraffed Gentiles they were elect and true believers if Esau and Ishmael fell from that state of the Covenant of grace Arminian Apostasie is asserted 2. Neither the outward administration of Circumcision to Ishmael and Esau nor their visible profession whatever it were was Gods act which Mr. M. denies not taking into the Covenant of grace to be therefore by neither of these can they with good sense be said to be taken really into the Covenant of grace 3. What external call which should be Gods act distinct from the outward administration and visible profession mentioned from which Ishmael and Esau fell I understand not 4. What ever external calling it be which he means and terms Gods act though a common one sure I am Mr. M. hath not shewed nor can shew that it is a real taking into the Covenant of grace which I said truly nor hath Mr. M. disproved or gain-said it is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these and the objection still stands good persons were to bee circumcised who were in the Covenant of grace Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods Covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of Circumcising persons was not the Covenant of grace but onely the will and command of God to have it so SECT LXXXIV The enlargement of our priviledges proves not Infant Baptism as Mr. M. in his 5th conclusion would have it MR. Ms. 5th Conclusion was The priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration For examining of which I set down something about priviledges which Mr. M. grants and saith what 's all this to the purpose I reply I told him it was to uncover the ambiguity of his speeches in which all the strength of his conclusion lay To what I said that if he meant his conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the Covenant of grace it is to be denied Mr. M. confessed they were the sameboth to Jews and Gentiles but in respect of the administration I granted it hee answers 1. if this were granted it hurts not him it 's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to Believers and their children To which I reply that this grant enervates the argument to which this conclusion tends For if the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it be not enlarged but the same in substance to Jews and Gentiles then no priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged for all the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belong to the substance of it and to true believers or elect onely the visible membership and initial seal contended for were no priviledges of the Covenant of grace nor such as all believers could claim for their children they were personal priviledges to the Church of the Jews and belonging to that administration as Mr. Ms. phrase is or as I would speak to that peculiar national Church state which God vouchsafed that people out of special ends and respect to that people of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came and consequently by denying those priviledges we deny no priviledges of the Covenant of grace to believers for their children nor ascribe less grace to them then the Jews had And if the administration be now more comfortable to believers and their children it being in that Circumcision and the yoke of the Law are taken away it follows it is more comfortable to us that no such thing as Circumcision was is put on our children Mr. M. and Paedobaptists do grosly mistake as if Circumcision did belong to Jewes and their Children because of their interest in the Covenant of grace which neither is nor ever will be proved 2ly Saith Mr. M. If there be no more honourableness in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant how comes it to pass that in your answers to those several texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it Answ. In those answers I do not so interpret those texts of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it as more honourable then the priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace or spiritual part of it now then to believers afore Christ but say that the promises of the new Covenant which is the Covenant of grace are better then the promises of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which was the Covenant of works Thirdly saith Mr M. Seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearness but in greater abundance I wonder you should say they are no more honourable and comfortable now then they were then is not abundance of grace more honourable and comfortable then a little grace Answ. It is but yet not priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace For this clearness and abundance comes not from the substance of the Covenant of grace but to use his phrase from the administration in respect of which I granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honourable But then saith Mr. M. This will serve our turn well enough for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration that their infants were under it as well as themselves yeild that for ours and the controversie is ended Answ. The yeilding that the priviledges of believers under the N. T. are enlarged more honourable and more comfortable in respect of the administration will not serve Mr. Ms. turn except it be yeilded of this particular that the infants of Christian believers are visible Christian Churchmembers and to be entred by Baptism as well as the Hebrew infants of and into the Church of Israel by Circumcision which would indeed end the controversie if yeilded but was not so by me who granted priviledges of believers now more enlarged in respect of the administration because the preaching of the Gospel which is that whereby the Covenant of grace is administred is enlarged to Gentiles as well as Jewes and more honourable
because preached by Christ himself and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows Mr. M. adds To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right But to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirm Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance which is Christ nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 10 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures signs types and sacraments of spiritual things so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows but Christ we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us nor did they make us compleat in Christ nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptism doth now to ours but did it not also belong to the substance Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith of Circumcision of heart c. Answ. Abrahams was not every ones Circumcision Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but do they not belong to it Answ. They do but not as of the substance of the thing sealed or the inheritance purchased or the Covenant whereby it is promised but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed Now surely he should use non sense who should â—erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised being neither essential nor integral parts of them but onely adjuncts without which they may be or not be entirely To my saying That 't is so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision that it is a benefit to want it God not appointing it I answer saith Mr. M. then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater be to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech he hath left out that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant but to the administration which then was a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens but a burthen in comparison of us which was in that it signified Christ to come the obligation of the law for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the place and uâ—e of it but Christ manifested in the flesh because if we had any thing in the use of it Christ must be expected to come in the flesh and Jesus denied to be the Christ and we debtors to keep the whole law And then I determined absolutely that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children not a loss in respect of duty God having not appointed it nor of priviledge God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted and my speech misrepresented but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace but effectual calling justification adoption sanctification glorification and if there be any other termed saving graces or which accompany salvation and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism especially when administred to infants is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge God not appointing it nor promising any thing upon the use of it nor declaring his acceptance of it which is the case of infant Baptism Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized or be covered with water though but for a moment were it not God commanded it and accepted of it as a service to him And the like is true of Circumcision the want of which being so painfull was a benefit but for the command and promise of God signified by it Such actions as are no way priviledges but sins without Gods precept and promise it is better to want them then have them or act them such is infant Baptism and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision it is a heavy burthen no benefit now but a yoke of bondage I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace and he answers That Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance not as a part of it but as a means of applying it Which speech how frivolous it is is shewed before sect 25. p. 165 166. and in this section Or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children To this he saith And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace is shewed before sect 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured but if as good assurance and estate be by a
in the giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in paradise then it was a Covenant of works this he must grant unless he will have a mixt Covenant partly of grace and partly of works which he opposeth in his answer to me about Abrahams Covenant But in the giving that Law according to Mr. M there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise Ergo. 6. That which God finds fault with is not the Covenant of grace but accâ—rding to Mr. M. God finds fault with it Ergo. 7. That which is termed the first Covenant in opposition to this Covenant is not the Covenant of grace But such according to Mr. M. is that at Mount Sinai Ergo. 8. The Covenant of grace is the better Covenant But such was not that at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. And truely I finde so many Protestant Divines terming the Covenant at Mount Sinai the Covenant of works Perkins on Gal. 4.24 Pemble of Justification sect 4. c. â— Cotton in his way of Congregational Churches cleered p. 46 47. however in some respect hee will have it to have been a Covenant of grace yet to the carnal seed â—aith it was a Covenant of workes and proves it out of Paul And adds And so have the chiefest German Divines as well as Piscator and Polanus tâ—ken the Covenant on mount Sinai to bee a Covenant of works See Piscator Ezek. 16. observat ult in v. 60. and 62. and Polanus ibidem and Synt. Th. l. 6 c. 33. Pisc. observ e v. 6. Heb. 8. Dicson paraph. Gal 4.21 22 23 24. Hebr 8.6 9. Becman Th Exercit. 5. p. 67 De saedere operum aut legis legimus Exod 19.5 Deut. 5.2 1 Reg. 8.21 Jer. 31.32 Heb 8.8 9 10. To whom I add my Antagonists Mr. Geree vindic vindic p. 9. Mr. Baillâ—e in his Anabaptism pag. 141. and might do many more if it were necessary This is enough to shew my doctrine to have been unjustly termed most erroneous by Mr. M. beeing Pauls Mr. Ms. and others named and therefore rightly owned by me To my words Exam. p. 10 The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter v. 6 The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away v. 7. The ministration of condemnation v 9. which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Mr. M answers thus Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discern that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Answ. I wonder that a man of such note should wonder at that of which the reason is given and should take upon him to defend his own Sermon and yet pass by my reason against his allegation without rehearsal or answer to it In form it stands thus That which was the letter which killeth written in Tables of stone opposite to the New Testament and the spirit which giveth life the ministration of death of condemnation by Moses was the Law or Covenant of works for it is onely the Covenant of works not that of grace how darkly soever delivered of which these things can be said But such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai Ergo. 'T is true it was the Apostles scope to hold forth the preheminence of the Ministry of the Gospel but not barely above the Ministry of Moses vailed Ceremonies for the Apostle prefers it before the Ministry of the Letter written and ingraven in stone v. 3 7. which was the moral Law but above the Ministry of the whole Law which comprehending all the commands Mosaical promulged Covenant-wise and not singly Moses ceremonies are by me termed the Covenant of works and of this I am still confident Mr. M. skips over his impertinent allegation of Gal. 4.1 c. and grants 1 Pet. 2.9 the spiritual part to belong onely to the invisible Church of which he denies not the whole v. to be meant but onely tels me the whole nation of the Jews who had the honour to be termed holy the children of God Deut. 14.1 to have the adoption Rom. 9.4 were not inwardly holy or effectually called which I readily grant nor need I prove that Rom. 9.4 Deut. 14.1 were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed having not denied it but do expresly grant of Rom. 9.4 that it speaks of peculiar priviledges of the Jews and prove thence the Jewes had some priviledges above us and that the want of some priviledges they had may bee recompensed by some priviledges wee have and thence gathered that is a feeble reason from the Jewish priviledge of infant Circumcision to prove infant Baptism yet nothing that Mr. M brings shews 1 Pet. 2.9 to bee meant of any other then the elect nor that believers priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged What he saith that the comfortable manner of administration and baptism are enlarged beyond Circumcision to females and all nations is granted but this groves not priviledges of the Covenant of grace to be enlarged to each believer now although there are more believers now And for Gal 3.28 the words there is neither male nor female are not added to shew Baptism to be administred to whom Circumcision was not for then neither bond nor free should be added for the same reason which had not been right for bondmen were circumcised formerly as well as then baptized But to shew a general equality of all believers in Christ and therefore that passage is meant onely of true believers Having shewed the impertinency of Mr. Ms. allegations for his 5th conclusion I answered the argument drawn thence for infant Baptism thus 1. It is no good argument God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too without Gods institution but arrogant presumption to claim it 2. That God gave many peculiar priviledges to the Jewes which we have not as that Abraham was the father of the Faithfull Mary the Mother of CHRIST no family out of which CHRIST came but Abrahams no nation that God hath promised after many hundred years rejection to re-ingraff besides the Jewes This Mr. M. endeavoured to prevent in his Sermon by saying These were personal priviledges belonging to some particular persons not the whole Church of the Jewes nor from the Covenant but that to have infants belong to his Church and to have the initial seal are and if that we have it not for ours the
grace of God is straitned as to our posterity which he counts absurd Hereto many things are replied by me 1. That this was never a priviledge to believers that their children should be in the Covenant of grace God never made such a promise to every true believer that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed nor commanded that wee should repute the infants of believers to bee in the Covenant of grace This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion 2. That the pretended priviledge of a Believers infant childrens visible Churchmembership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews out of peculiar reasons concerning that Churchstate which that people were to have untill Christ came which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument Section 50 c. of this part of the Review 3. That even then when it was a priviledge to the Hebrew people yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children not to those under eight dayes old nor to females nor to Proselites of the gate as v. g. to Cornelius and his children 4. That a priviledge there is to the Jewes even to the Nation and that arising from Gods Covenant of Gospel grace that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection bee re-ingraffed and yet this not to any Gentile Believer Prince Preacher or Martyr concerning their posterity and therefore it is no absurdity to say that in some respect the priviledges of the Covenant of grace even of the substance of it were more large to some of the Hebrew believers then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity 5. That the personal priviledges of Abraham Mary c. were more truely pertinent to the Covenant of grace though not common to all Jews then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal 6. That priviledges are meer arbitrary things and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others is needfull to be assigned besides the donors will 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now because infants are not visible Churchmembers and baptized then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them they are not Fathers of the faithfull 8 That there were many priviledges which the Jews had which we have not as those Rom. 3.1 9.4 to have a Temple High-Priest on earth c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without any particular thing of the same kinde in the stead of them and therefore the want of Churchmembership and initial seal may in like manner bee said to bee recompensed by his comming 10. That the priviledge the children of Levi had that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood be maintained by the offerings of the people be exempt from many burthens is not now to Ministers children nor any thing instead of it and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this priviledge or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham that our children should have Baptism in stead of Circumcision 11. That young children were to eat the Passeover and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lords Supper and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning the grace of God is straitned to us in respect of our posterity 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants for that would infer that it did give grace 13. That by denying infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism wee do not put them out of the Covenant of grace or Church of God 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it that is to testifie the repentance and faith of the baptized then for God to us as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace 17. That through the want of infants visible Churchmembership such as the Jews children had wee have no loss of priviledge but rather benefit it being a state of imperfection 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jewes had is a benefit it having a burthen annexed to it 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jewes infants had 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore we must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jewes that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initial seal Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initial seal then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitned as to their posterity This argument appears so clear to me that I must confess my self one of those dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument which he rejects by leaving out the chief words without an institution Yet his new frame mends not the matter but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For the Jewes and the whole Church of the Jewes are the same and had it and must have it expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words Nor doth he put in any thing of Gods will or institution to have it so and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian then the former Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent God did not give the priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their infants should have the initial seal meaning it of all 2. I deny the consequence if by grace he mean Gospel grace though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church nor are baptized yet the grace of the Gospel that is remission of sin sanctification adoption glorification which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace is not straitned to Christians as to their posterity And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me that I see no clearness in it but should take my self dull if I should not discern its weakness For the infant visible churchmembership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was
proper to the Hebrew people or policy into which proselytes were admitted not from the Covenant of grace common to all believers in all ages it is easie to perceive that notwithstanding the altering of these which God hath done the grace of God is as much now to our children as to theirs And here I think meet to answer Mr. Geree's argument as he frames it vindic Paedobapt pag. 38. I do grant the sequel of the major If children of Christian parents be excluded the Covenant then are the priviledges of the N. T. more restrained But that we exclude them from the Covenant of grace is false we onely deny the fictitious Covenant of Paedobaptists that God hath promised to be the God of believers and their seed nor is it any harsh divinity or derogatory from the incarnation of Christ to say the Jews converted whose infants had the birth priviledge of membership in the Jewish Church by natural generation have not the priviledge of membership in the Christian which is by spiritual regeneration Nor doth the term natural branches Rom. 11.21 24. ever agree to Gentiles ingrafted but that they are still branches of the wild Olive by nature nor any of them in the true Olive without faith or election Nor doth Mr. Geree shew how he that denies baptism to infants denies the grace and mercy of God to us if the grace of God be not tied to the Sacraments Nor doth he shew that the priviledges of believers young children of 4.5 or 6 years old are not as much straitned if they who were admitted to the Passeover are not admitted to the Lords Supper For though the reception into the Covenant and Church were sufficiently done in Baptism yet they should not have the priviledge of growth and nutrition which the Jews young children had by the Passeover if Paedobaptists doctrine of the Passeover and Lords Supper be right But I return to â—r M. Mr. M. tels me That though I say my instances of Abrahams the Virgin Mary's and Jews priviledges not being now to us do press his conclusion yet that I speak no word to vindicate them from his answer and therefore he gathers that by this time â— see that now some personal priviledges which a few of the Jews had may be denied us yet it makes nothing against his argument but if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denied us our priviledges were straitned Answ. Mr. M. doth not rightly say I spake not a word to vindicate my instances from his answer For besides all or most of those twenty things either in my Exercit. sect 3. or in my Examen par 3. sect 3 4 10 11 12. and elsewhere which do enervate his answer I did directly reply that neither was his priviledge of the initial seal to infants any other then personal not a branch of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might rely upon God and for this I alledged the faithfull before Abraham Melchizedek and Lot in his time Job and Cornelius after his time and therefore if the want of priviledges personal as he terms them doth not shew a straitning of Gods grace to us now neither doth the want of infant visible Churchmembership and Baptism now shew it That of Melchizedek Lot and Job Mr. M. saith hath been often answered but he hath no where shewed that they were not in the Covenant of grace or that by vertue of the Covenant they and their infants had right to the initial seal And as for Cornelius I never intended to prove that he was a member of the Church of the Jews nor that the priviledges and churchmembership of these proselytes of the gate were as honourable as those of the proselytes of the covenant but that though he were in the Covenant of grace yet he had not the priviledge of churchmembership in the Church of the Jews nor circumcision and therefore these priviledges whatever they were were not branches of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might rely on God as Mr. M. asserted To what I said to be Father of the faithfull Mother of Christ the priviledges Rom. 9.4 3.2 do as much belong to the Covenant of grace as Circumcision Mr. M. answers nothing Upon the words by me used that the phrases Rom. 11 2â— 24. do seem to me to import that the Jews had this priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the Olive by their birth which the Gentiles have not which speech I have altered in the first part of this Review p. 64 93. Mr. M. asks But if we Gentiles have it not then are not we I pray you straightned in that particular Answ. Yea. And I demand further when we are graffed in and so naturalized with them do we not partake of all the fatness or priviledges of the Olive with them what Scripture ever denied it Answ. That we by ingraffing are made natural branches is denied it is granted we are partakers of all the fatness and priviledges of the Olive to wit spiritual graces but not of the priviledges which the natural branches had by birth Mr. M. adds I demand yet further did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptized in the Apostles days by their comming under this best administration of the Covenant and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage did they thereby deprive their children of that which you say was their natural priviledge if you think so produce your evidence to prove it if they were not then it seems the Jews who believed in Christ and kept their station had a greater priviledge for their children then the Gentiles who grow to together with them have for their children Answ. The natural priviledge which I say the Jews had was that their children were in the visible Church Jewish and their males to be circumcised this by their Baptism they were deprived of it being then no priviledge after Christ exhibited in the flesh and preached to be in the visible Church Jewish opposite to the Christian and to be circumcised Nor is it true that the converted baptized Jews were in the Olive afore they believed in Christ or kept their station in the visible Church Jewish but were cast out or that they should have had greater priviledges of the Covenant for their children if they had continued in the visible Church Jewish and been to be circumcised then the Gentiles whose children were not visible Christian visible churchmembers nor to be baptized as is abundantly proved by me from Scripture and otherwise in the foreparts of this Review To Mr. Ms. speech as if we expunged infants out of the Covenant it was answered that it was a calumny whereto he replies But do not you avouch that the infants of the Jews had this peculiar priviledge and birth-right to be under the administration
is also an objection against the principle fore-mentioned All that are in covenant are to have the initial seal or as Mr. C. speaks the initiatory seal followes the Covenant that if the connexion bee between seal and Covenant it is as well besween the after seal as the initial and so they may as well plead for infants comming to the Lords Supper as in Cyprians time and as the young ones of the Jews did partake of the Passeover To this Mr. C. saith Male infants were not to appear at the Passeover if so then they must appear at the Feast of Tabernacles must carry boughes from Deut. 16. â—â— 17. compared with Levit. 23.34 35 38 39 40. that though persons have a covenant right in general yet their jus in re is to be suspended and not elicited in case of incapacity or of extream coldness of the countrey or sickness c. Answ. 1. If infants were not to appear at the Passeover yet young children not to be admitted to the Lords Supper were nor doth the text tie them all to carry boughs who were to appear 2. The objection holds as much concerning the yong ones at Jerusalem who were to eat the Passeover and by Mr. Cs. reasons such yong ones should be at the Lords Supper as having Covenant interest and therefore jus ad rem nor is there any such incapacity or danger to them in eating the Lords Supper to suspend their jus in re as is to be baptized in Greenland or in extreme weakness and sickness and therefore â—y Mr. Cs. reasons they ought not to be denied the Lords Supper 3. If infants Covenant-right to the Lords Supper be suâ—pended because of their defect of understanding to examine themselves their Covenant-right to Baptism is as justly suspâ—nded til they repent and believe which are as much and more required to Baptism as self examination to the Lords Supper And if it be true then Mr. Cs. position is not right that infants ought not to be denied the use and benefit of Baptism 4. If it were in Cyprians time a corruption to give infants the Lords supper so it was to baptize them being on the same reason of no greater anâ—iquity But let 's view what hee saith for the clearer handling of his Thesis Sect. 2. He saith that mixt commands of God having some part circumstantial and vanishing some part substantial and abiding the later is binding to us since Christs time albeit the former be not and he instanceth in a 7th day Sabbath But neither he nor any other have yet proved any such substantial part abiding in the command of Circumcision and how little the instance given iâ— to his purpose is shewed before § 77 80 81. That which Mr. C. saith sect 3. is granted that consequential commandements grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandements but that any command oâ— a positive rite in the old Testament is a command to us about a positive right of the new or that in mere positive worship that should not be excluded which is not expressed is not granted to the contrary somewhat is said in the 2d part of this Review § 2 3 5. and elsewhere I have often said prove infant Baptism by good consequence and I shall yeild That federal ordinances such as are the seals are as well priviledges as precepts which Mr. C. sect 4. asserts when they are rightly admininistred is granted but it is denied that the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper are federal ordinances or seals of the Covenant of grace in Mr. Cs. sense who p. â—31 makes Circumcision in the nature of it to bee a seal of the righteousness of faith and in like manner those otâ—er which he cals federal ordinances seals of the promise of the Covenant of grace of the righteousness of faith in their nature There â—s not a word Acts 7.2 8. by which it may appear that circumcision of the child was reckoned as the Fathers priviledge nor their own circumcision as their priviledge but only of Abrâ—ham that God gâ—ve him the Covenant of Circumcision whereby he was assured of a son by Sarah so he bâ—gate Isaac and circumcised him the 8th day which priviledg was peculiar to Abraham and to none other I know excepâ— Zachary John Baptists father be said â—o have the same priviledge nor is Rom 3.1 2 3 4. any whit to M Cs purpose to prove that circumcision is reckoned as the Fathers priviledge For 1. it is manifest that Rom. 3.1 Circumcision is to be understood metonymically as v. 30. for the circumcised sith it is not sold there was much profit by Circumcision but of Circumcision as before what advantage of the Jew nor was the priviledge vâ— the committing the oracles of God to them the priviledge of Circumcision in the abstract or by circumcision as the means by which it was but the priviledge of that people who were circumcised 2. If it were granted that the priviledge were by Circumcision yet that it was the Fathers priâ—iledge by reason of the childs Circumcision rather then his own is a vain fancy Nor doth Acts 2.38 39. yeild any more to his purpose but is most gâ—osly abused by Mr. C. as is shewed before § 21 23 Nor are the passages which he alledgeth p. 132. out of my Examen dissonant to any passages before or any after except those words of my Examen p. 10â— which I alter in the first part of this Review p. 64 93. And to his many questions from my words I answer that â—e hath not proved the Covenant of grace wherein God promiseth to be a God to them and theirs to bâ—long to every Jew but onely to Abraham and his seed that is so far as it is Evangeliacl onâ—ly to his spiritual seed whether of Jewes or Gentile and therefore I deny it was a priviledge which every Jew had to be a God to them and theirs and yet grant that Deut. 29.14 with â—0 6. was a priviledge and so I yeeld to have been what God promised Ezek 36. from the 17 to the end and Deut. 14.2 and that sundry infants of the Jews bâ—se born wâ—re in the Covenant of saving grace and Church-priviledges and that it was a priviledge to them and that the promises of the Covenant of grace are priviledges and the same now to believers and as large and honourable as then and that the promises to their children mentioned Deut. 30.6 were of the substance of the Covenant of grace in respect of the thing promised but not in respect of the persons to whom for God doth not promise to all his elect or tâ—ue believers that which he promised then in that case to the Israelites for their seed and I yeild that even base born children may bee in the Covenant of saving grace and yet these promises are not made to Church children as Mr. C. speaks â—s such but onely to the elect Nevertheless I grant the same promises now to bee made to believers which were then
to wit rigtheousness and life eternal by faith yea that they are larger now no intensively in respect of the thing promised as if a greater degree of righteousness and eternal life were promised now then was then but extensively in respect of the people to whom the Gentiles now being calâ—ed and tâ—at moâ—e amply thâ—n the Jews nor do I or any thing I say excluâ—e believers children out of the Covenant But I still say the Covenant of grace was no made then universally to a Believer and his natural seed nor now but onely to the elect of them Yet this is not an exâ—lusion of any in particular from the Covenant of grace nor an inclusion but onely a suspension of any determination of either who are elect and who not being onely known to God And therefore to Mr. Cs. question why are belieâ—ers children then excluded the Covenant which injuriously insinuates and I did exclude them I say let him answer it that doth so And thâ—ugh I grant that our priviledges now are inlarged in respect of the administration of the Covenant in that the Gospel is preached to more nations and more clearly and confirmed by the bloud of Christ c then before â—hrists comming which â—s my meaniâ—g in that speech yet it neithâ—r follows thaâ— I count that administration of the Covenant initiatory seal which is Mr Csâ—erms â—erms not mine as sâ—ch to their children was no priviledge to there must be such a like priviledge and not straâ—â—ned at least not wholly excluded as that of a like though Mr. Câ— say not the same but a like administration of the initiatory Covenant-seal to in-churched believers children now as Mr. C. in his gibberish speaks And though I say we have nothing in lieu of Circumcision but Christ come in the flesh yet I do not say nor need I that Baptism is no priviledge to believers now but I deny it to be a priviledge in lieu of Circumcision and say that as Mr. C. grants it a priviledge to believers that now they have not that manner of initiation by circumcision so it is a priviledge to them that they have no manner of initiation in lieu of it What he saith he hath shew'd before from Ez. 37.25 26 27. is examin'd before Sect. 5. Mr. C. saith Baptism is a seal of the Covenant no bare badge of Christianity as some have said albeit the more judicious of our opposites yeild this that the Covenant of grace is said properly to be sealed in Baptism and that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into covenant with him Answ. It is true that I said Exam p. 149. the Covenant of grace is sealed properly in Baptism but Mr. C. might have taken notice that 1. I used not this phrase as mine but as Mr. Ms. 2. That I did yeild this but three lines before with this caution Baptism seals the love of God in some sense properly 3. That not long after I say that in exactness of speech it seals no grace properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring 4. I say as properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien it seals as much the second as the first grace And indeed this is my meaning that though in propriety of speech Baptism may not be said to be the seal of the Covenant of grace properly sith it is but a metaphor or term translated from another thing and so shews not what the thing is but what in some respect it is like to yet it may bee thus termed the seal of the Covenant of grace properly that is as the seal of a deed assutes the thing conveyed in it to him that hath propriety in it so Baptism in that thereby we put on Christ doth signifie to the true Believer that he hath union and communion with him and that he hath thereby a propriety of right to righteousness and life by Christ according to the Covenant of grace But this doth no whit contradict what I have disputed before sect 31. against Mr. Ms. and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace Nor did I use the words that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into Covenant with him Exam. p. 83. as mine own expression but as Mr. Ms. though I granted the thing meant by it Yet had I so said of my self it had not been for Mr. Cs. turn who will have it a seal of Gods Covenant to us whereas those words as I yeild them rather import it to be our seal whereby we enter into Covenant with God and engage to him which is the most genuine use of Baptism and in that respect rightly termed a badge of Christianity But Mr. C. would prove it a seal of the Covenant in another sense thus And it appears so saith he 1. in that it agrees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal Col. 2 11 12. which speech is ambiguous and yet in no sense I conceive true It is doubtfull whether he mean that to be the initiatory seal is the essentials of Circumcision and of Baptism but this sense is false For to be a seal is not essential either to the one or the other the circumcision of the Sichemites was circumcision though it were no seal to them of the Covenant of Abraham and Simon Magus his baptism was baptism though it were no seal to him of the Covenant of grace much less is it of the essence of either to bee initiatory for if there were or might be another initiatory seal as doubtless there might be if God had so appointed it yet circumcision and baptism had not been circumcision and baptism now what may be or not be without the ceasing of the thing to be is but an accident to it not of the essence of it Besides to be the initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace doth more truly agree to the spirit of God then to either of them Or whether he mean that they agree in those things which are the essentials of each but that is more palpably false for it is essential to Circumcision that the fore-skin be cut off but that is not essential to Baptism there may bee Baptism without it Nor is there a word Col. 2.12 that either expresseth this thing or yeilds any ground for proof of it as is shewed before by me here § 81. As vain is that which follows whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision Phil. 3. and Jews said to be baptized 1 Cor. 12. For neither are Gentiles Philip. 3.3 termed the circumcision because they were baptized nor the Jews said to be baptized 1 Cor. 12.13 because they were circumcised or because of the agreement of these in the essentials But the converted Gentiles not all that were baptized but onely those who were
personal profession but deny 1. That thâ—â— promise Gen. 17.7 I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed is a tacit and implicit profession or makes of it self parties in Covenant externally 2. That infants born of covenanted parents are in covenant with God because they are born of such parents as are in covenant with God Gen. 17.7 What is said Deut. 4.37 Deut. 10.15 is meant onely of the people of Israel as the very words brought out of Egypt as it is this day shew nor is there a word in those verses of their being in covenant with God because born of such parents but of Gods special choise of that people It is false which he saith that the Apostle Acts 2.39 speaks in the very terms and words of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 It is true rather that hee speaks in never a term or word there used It is as false that the Apostle commanded any other to be baptized Acts 2.38 then whom he commanded to repent Did he not presume that Anabaptists as hee terms us were very Blockheads hee would not not presume that wee should believe his vain dictates when the very copulative term shews the same are spoken to in one and the other command and the words being an answer to the question v. 37. shew they are directed to those who spake v. 37. And the word you used in the precept of Baptizing contains the same with those who were to receive remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost and are distinct from their children v. 39. and therefore cannot be meant of their children much less of their infant children whom it had been ridiculous for Peter to have commanded to be baptized How pertinent the answer had been as I expounded it is often shewed before though their children crucified not the Lord Jesus nor were concerned either in the evil of their parents who crucified the Lord of glory nor in the good of their repentance more then stones yet I know no Anabaptists whose grounds infer that the Jews children who crucified Christ were not visibly in Covenant with their parents not capable of actual hearing the word mourning for and repenting of their sins as Zach. 12.10 Matth. 3.8 9 10. nor concerned either in the evil of their parents nor in the good of their repentance more then stones nor do I conceive it true that the opposites of infant Baptism say that Covenant promises are no more made to children then to stones but that these are vile calumnies of Mr. Rutherford unfit for such a man as he is taken to be How Isa. 2.2 3. 19.24 25. Psal. 22.27 Revel 11.15 Isa. 60.1 2 3 4. Mal. 1.11 Psal. 2.8 9. 72.7 8 9 10. are to be understood of persons adult onely and yet infants not cut off from the Covenant is shewed Review part 2. sect 9. and elsewhere It is not contrary to Acts 2.39 to say that Covenant promises are not to the children of Believers and yet it hath been fulfilled that the Gentiles and Heathen are become the Lords people What he saith out of Exod. 20.6 Psal. 37 26. 112.2 Deut. 28 is answered here sect 64.70 71. It is not true that Paul Rom. 11.16 saith the same of the Jews root and branches Fathers and children which he saith 1 Cor. 7.14 of the unbelieving yoke fellowes sanctification in the yoke fellow and their childrens holiness Nor is it true that the same Covenant which was made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was made with the Corinthians 2 Cor. 6.16 or any of the texts he cites there being none of them that promise that God would bee a God to them and their seed His allegations from Heb. 7.22 Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. are shewed to bee frivolous here sect 66. and elsewhere What he talks of a Father having no warrant to offer the Covenant of grace to one Pagan more then another if children be not in covenant is vain the offer of the Covenant of grace being nothing else but the preaching of the Gospel which is to be to all Mark 16.15 whether in Covenant or no. The allegation that the promise Gen. 17.7 is made onely to the elect Rom. 9.8 is a plain proof of this position that the natural children of Abraham and consequently Believers children now except elected have not that promise made to them and therefore are not in covenant by Gods act of promise to them which doctrine Mr. Rutherford himself taught in his Apologetical exercit 2. c. 2. p. 306. when he said The elect alone are said in Scriptures federate sons and heirs of promise Rom. 9.8 And to Christ alone the Prince and leading heir are the promises made Gal. 3.16 Psal. 89.26 27. in him to his seed and children given to him of the Father Heb. 2.13 Nor can he here deny that the sons of the promise are the chosen of God in whom the word takes effect Which if true then it is most false that a Believers seed not chosen is in covenant with God by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 and his allegation of it and Acts 2. â—9 and other places for baptism of believers infants whether elect or not as having that promise made by God to them is manifestly impertinent Nevertheless we need not say that there are none covenanted with God but the chosen under the New Testament or that there is no such thing as an external visible covenanting with God under the New Testament but say that no infant doth visibly externally covenant with God so as thereby to be entitled to Baptism sith no persons are to bee baptized by Christs appointment but such as in their own persons do profess the saith The priviledges mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 Mr. Rutherford himself appropriates to the Jews Due right of Presbyteries ch 4. sect 5. pag. 192. What he saith pag. 77 78 79 80. is all answered before chiefly in answer to Mr. Blake Review par 2. sect 9 or here sect 46 47 48. or in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal And if it were not yet the Reader may discern its impertinency sith the thing hee endeavours to prove is an external visible covenanting in the New Testament which can be onely on mans part and being in covenant thereupon and right to Baptism and is not denied whereas his position he should prove is that the Covenant choise on Gods part is extended to the seed of Believers as such in the New Testament p. 73. His words pag. 80. They cannot be baptized but as in covenant with God are true if meant of being in covenant by their profession externally but so infants are excluded if of Gods covenanting or promise are false and so are those other words We are the same way in covenant as the Jews were and our visible Church now and the visible Church then are of the same constitution I call not the Covenant Gen. 17. civil but mixt containing some promises civil some spiritual or rather
exhorted to be baptised who are under the same Covenant yet not without repentance and faith foregoing their Baptism witâ—out which the promise warrants not Baptism There is no such command Gen. 17.7 8. that all these in Covenant should be marked with the initiatory seal nor is Baptism instituted in place of Circumciâ—â—on and if it were yet mâ—re is needful to warrant infant baptism There is as plain precept Acts 2.38 8.36 37. Mark 16.16 Matth. 28.19 against inâ—ant Baptism as is against infant Communion 1 Cor. 11.28 Wee have good consequences out of the word against infant Baptism without arguing from the Covenant of grace which Mr. Rutherfurd may see in the 2d part of this Review sect 5 and none against the Holy Ghost but from him That the promises of the Covenant of grace are expresly to infants of the New Testament is more then I find Acts 2.39 or elsewhere Dipping in rivers need not be onerous and may be without danger to women with child Virgins some sorts of diseased persons in winter in cold countries and it will require more strength in dispute then either Mr. Baillee or Mr. Baxter have shewed or I finde yet in Mr. Rutherfurd to prove dipping in rivers though Baptism be not necessary to be done in rivers to be against the word the second third and fourth Commandements And against sprinkling or perfusion instead of Baptism there is so much said in my Addition to the Apology against Mr. Baillee Mr. Rutherfurds Colleague and delivered to Mr. Rutherfurd himself and since printed with a Letter to him as is for ought I know yet unanswered All Mr. Rutherfurds talk pag. 98 99. that now infants of believers are casten out for no fault of the Covenant of grace and his aggravations thereof are to be taken for meer calumnies and since the printing of my Exâ—men there is reason to judge them to be thus wilfully vented by Mr. Rutherfurd and till he name the Anabaptists and cite the place I can take it for no other then a false accusation which he saith of the Anabaptists that they teach infants to be born without sin Mr. Rutherfurd dictates without proof pag. 100. that they were covenanting parents and believers that brought the little children Mark 10.13 14 that they were not diseased or possessed that he would have the whole spece of infants at all time â—o come to him and those infants might bee blessed as elect ones though no marks were given to parents or others whereby to discern elect children these being no direction for them to bring children to Christ under that notion It is false that Anabaptists rebuke persons that bring children to Christ as the disciples did Mar. 10.13 Or that Christ instates infants of believing parents as members of the visible Church What Mr. â—obbet hath said of that act of Christ is refelled Review part 2. sect 19. and that the Kingdome of God is that of glory is made good against Mr. Blake there sect 18 and not refused by me I know no absurdity in it to say Christ might bless infants of Pagans What designe Christ might have or had besides Mr. Rutherfurds conceived purpose to hold forth the common interest of the whole spece of infants within the visible Church is shewed there sect 17. against Mr. Baxter I do granâ— the blessing Mark 10.16 to be personal and the chiefest blessing beyond visible Churchmembership and though we finde not proof that Christ blessed the whole race of infants of covenanting parents yet it is false that we make them blessed onely as symboles of humility or that the blessing was some complemental salutation or that as Mr R. saith of Anabâ—ptists after hiâ— calumniating manner wee will have them without Christ and the Covenant and under the curse of God but grant that they were blessed with the blessing of the Covenant of grace and that many other infants are so Whether they were parents or believers in Christ as the Messiah who brought the children Matth. 19.13 is uncertain nor do I say or need I they had a saith grounded upon a possibility of election separated from the Covenant nor do I deny that infants have their share of salvation by the Covenant or that a covenanted seed is prophesied to be added to the Jews under the New Testament nor doth any thing I say infer that the children of believers under the New Testament must be a cursed seed yet there is none of the Texts Mr. Rutherfurd brings which proves a prediction that the natural seed of believers as such shall be blessed and in the Covenant of grace nor that their infant seed shall be visible Churchmembers in the Christian Church But they are all impertinently alledged some being meant of the Jews iâ—crease in Judâ—â— after their return from Babylon some of the effectual calling of the Gentiles and most of them so far cleared before that I count it needless to make answer to each of the Texts by themselves And Mr. Rutherfurds discourse is so loose and full of impertinencies and incoherencies that I shall onely animadvert on some passages till the whole bee brought to some distinct Scholastique form He tels us pag 168. That external covenanting goes before internal covenanting as the means before the end and the cause before the effect for faith comes by hearing of a sent preâ—cher Rom. â—0 14 and the preaching of the Gospel is a saving means of begetting a new heart and of a new spirit Hence 1. All must be first externally in covenant before they can be internally and really in covenant In which speech he seemâ— to conceive external covenanting to bee either preaching or hearing a preacher else his reason had been vain But what non-sense scribling is this to term preaching or hearing covenanting A person may and we may conceive some do preach and hear who never externally covenant Sure covenanting is promising but so is not either preaching or hearing And if Mr. Rutherfurds words be true no infant can be internally and really in Covenant who doth not preach or hear His talk is as vain Of the Lord being a God simply to some and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church-priviledges but to others more then a God in truth and righteousness not to all as if God might be a God to some not in truth and righteousness or the being a God to his people contained not the greatest blessings contrary to Lu. 20.37 38. Heb. 11.16 His further talk pag. 109. from Matth. 19.14 is without proof and all shewed to be vain in the places before cited Though the houshold sometimes comprehend infants yet not so still nor Acts 16. as is shewed Review part 2. sect 20. Anabaptists neither do nor must grant if infants be in Covenant they ought to receive the seal of the Covenant If Rom. 11.16 be meant of holiness onely intentionally and not giving actual right to Baptism then the holiness there proves not infants to
Gregory Nazianzen and thaâ— I make this a plea for my self that my allegations may gain a favourable construction that my proofs taken out of antiquity do as strongly prove the point in hand as proofs are usually taken in such matters no whit excuseth him sith my proofs are from writings not suspected his are from treatises judged by many of each tide to he supposititious mine from passages not excepted against as his are and therefore my wondering ceaseth not and the silence of these together with Epiphanius his not urging infant Baptism against Hieracites yeeld a strong presumpâ—ion of the rarity of infant Baptism then though from thence the non usage bee not syllogistically concluded And for the words hee brings out of Epiphanius hee might call Baptism the great Circumcision yet reject infanâ— Baptism though I said not he did but that it's likeâ—â— it was not so manifest as Mr. M. said as he might call Preâ—byters Priests and Deacons Levites and yet not tye Presbytery or Deaconship to a tribe and the age in which each sort ministred in the Temple of the Jews I add that the words cited out of the supposed Athanasius prove dipping under water then the usual way of Baptism What Dr. Homes brings Animadv on my Exercit. pag. 143. out of Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. l. 3. pag 461. serves not his turn but is rather against him for it mentions onely one Baptism of Believers And the same may be sâ—id of what he brings out of Epiphanius his 2d Book â—om 2. contra haeres 30. pag. 52. In which hee makes the perfect Circumcision not to be onely of men in the time of their imbecility but of men and women all the people of Christians indeed which omits if not excludes infants 2ly saith Mr. M or his friend def pag. 21. you reason from the continuance of the questions put to persons when they were to be baptized and answered by them which I think because we must conceive children were not able to return an answer to them thereby you would infer they were not baptized· But I answer when the Gospel was fiâ—st declared into the world such as being of age were first taught were then baptized Acts 2.41 Acts 8.13 37. After that time such as were taught are said to be catechized for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Catechism leads men to faith saith Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. When such were prepared and made fit to bee baptized certain questions were propounded to them concerning their faith in Christ their resolution to forsake the Devil c. which are related by many of the Ancients when those of age afterwards brought their children to baptism these questions were likewise out to them though of themselves they were not able to make answer to them but how warrantably I will not go about to prove yet that they were used at infants Bapâ—ism as well as at the Baptism of such as were at age it appears by Balsamon in Can. 6. Conc. Neocaesar Aug. Ep. ad Januarium c. To all which questions at childrens bapâ—ism such as unâ—ertook their education made answer on their bâ—half Therefore you cannot by these questions infer that children were not baptized seeing these Authors certifie that questions were put to them and also tell us who answered for them Answ. 'T is true I cannot nor did I ever intend to prove that children were not baptized in the third age but the putting the questions to infants to answer shews that at first none were baptized but such as could answer to them and sith this was but a ridiculous thing which this Author will not go about to prove to have been done warrantably to put questions to infants to answer doubtless it came not from the Apostles or Apostolical men who would never have appointed so frivolous a thing but as this Author doth very honestly confess they baptized such as were taught and catechized and as he well notes out of Clemens Alexandrinus Catechism leads men to faith and that to Baptism And this undeniably proves as Ludovicus Vives truly gathered tom in August de civit Dei c. 27. l 1. tom 5. that at first none was baptized till he could ask for it and answer to the questions which custome he saith he hath heard continued in some Cities of â—taly It is likely those of the Greeks about Calâ—briaâ— and so far as I can yet by search discern this continued the first and second Age to baptize onely persons of age In the third Age infant Baptism with many other corruptions began and then to keep a mimical shew of the old manner of aâ—swering the quâ—stions some made answer in the infants name which being after objected to Augustin he answers Epist. 23. that the answerer did not speak falsly when he said the infant did believe because he had the Sacrament of faith which was indeed no answer sith the answer was made afore the Sacrament and the Sacrament could not make him a believer who was not Now this answer was not to engage them to undertake their education as this Authoâ— seems to imply but to assert they did believe afore they were baptized it being originally the right use of that rite to baptize none but those who were first believers till the superstiâ—ious conceit of an infants perishiâ—g without Baptism first brought it in as necessary in case of apparent danger of imminent death and no otherwise as those many reliques of Antiquity in the speeches of Tertullian Nazianzen and others shew besiâ—es the narrations of baptizing he catechized at solemn times and the not baptizing of children of believers till they came to age the intenâ— of bâ—ptizing Austin when in youâ—h he was sick but putting it off when recovered But after his time the necessity of it being so vehemently pressed by him and urged against Pelagians infant Baptism in process of time quite swallowed up true baptism and that which this Author here ingenuoâ—sly confesseth was the primitive use is now cried down as iâ— it were an innovation and an heresie So monstrously hath the ignorance and intemperate speeches of Fathers School-men and others and the violence and mistakes of Luther Calvin and others perverted the doctrine of Baptism and oppressed those that have sought to reform it though if there were no more to be said for them then what here this Author whether Mr. Marshal or Dr. Young confesseth it were enough to satiâ—fiâ— men that were willing to be satisfied that infant Baptism was not at fiâ—st when the Gospel went first abroad into the world and yet thâ—n doubtless Believers had infants but that afterwards men brought their children to Baptism when â—orrupt opinions of its necessity and the giving grace by iâ— were â—eceived and to alâ—ay the extream bitâ—er and unreasonable heat of spirit which is in the clamarous Paedobaptists of our days But I go on Mr. M. or his friend tels mee Thirdly you conceive because many children born of Christian Parents were not baptised
powers were to preach and baptize those that received their doctrine SECT XCVIII The testimonies of Cyprian Augustin and other Latin Fathers for Infant Baptism are shewed to have come from their mistakes and the evidences why the antiquity of Infant Baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended are vindicated I Now return to the examination of the Testimonies brought out of the rest of the Latin Fathers besides Tertullian for infant Baptism whereof Cyprian was the chief and his testimony is thus urged by Dr. Hammond Defence of infant Baptism chap. 4. sect 2. p. 99. In the midst of this third Age An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bp. of Carthage and ten years after he suffered martyrdome i. e. 158 years after the Age of the Apostles In the year 257 he sate in Councel with 66 Bishops see Justellus in his preface to the African Canons p. 21. and their Decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem which is now among his works â—amel edit p. 80. The Councel was in answer to some questions about Baptism and accordingly he there sets down his own opinion together with the Decrees of that Councel of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him And so this as it is an ancient so it is more then a single testimony that of a whole Councel added to it and yet farther to encrease the authority of it 〈◊〉 cites this Epistle more then once and sets it down almost entire 〈◊〉 a testimony of great weight against hereticks and so 't is â—â—ed by S. Hierom also l. 3. dial cont Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus whether infants might be baptized the second or third day or whether as in Circumcision the eighth day were not to be expected he answers in the name of the Councel universi judicavimus 't was the resolution or sentence of all nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denigandam that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denied to any human birth to any child though never so young by that phrase mercy and grace of God evidently meaning Baptism the right of conveying them to the baptized adding that 't is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized is given to them in a greater or less degree in respect of the age of the receivers and that God as he accepts not the person so nor the age of any confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean and that if any were to be kepâ— from Baptism it should rather be those of full age who have committed the greater sins and that seeing men when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptism how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden who being new born hath no sin upon him but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born who therefore should more easily bee admitted to pardon because they are not his own but others sins which are then remitted to him concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptism so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new-born children Thus much and more was the sentence of that ancient Father and that Councel and as the occasion of that determination was not any Antipaedobaptist doctrine there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church that we can hear of but a conceit of one that it should be deferr'd to the eigth day which was as much infancy as the first and so both parties were eâ—ually contrary to the Antiâ—aedobaptists interests the condemned as well as the Judges so that it is no new doctrine that was then decreed or peculiar to S. Cyprian who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptism appears also by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him and by the express words of St. August Ep. 28. ad Hieronym Blessed Cyprian not making any new decree but keeping the faith of the Church most firm decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops that a child new born might fitly be baptized Which shews it the resolution of that Father also that baptizing of infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time not onely the opinion but the â—aith which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles Answ. I have been willing to set down these words at large sith none urgeth this authority more fully though Mr. M. Dr. H. Mr. B c. do all alledge it and it is the chiefest of all the testimonies Augustin produced for infant Baptism and therefore was translated by me into English and printed at the end of my praecursor Concerning which act Mr. B. praefest mor. p. 401. saith thus It seems to me God ordered Mr. T. to translate Cyprians Epistle to the disgrace of his cause with the vulgar themselves For none can be so blinde as not to see in it the antiquity of infant Baptism which is all that we urge it for But if the cause I maintain be disgraced by translating that Epistle I shall take it as a sign that a spirit of dotage is faln on men so as to be enamouted on the blemishes of the ancient Sure me thinks none of the vulgar much less the learned should be so blinde as not to discern that infant Baptism was an errour which was maintained by the prime assertors upon such vain reasons as are in that Epistle which are not excused by what Mr. B. saith That the arguments are onely for confutation of the objection concerning infants uncleanness before the eighth day and not to give the grounds that warranted infant Baptism For the truth is both are done together and the best grounds they had for it are set down by them which will appear to be so frivolous by examination of them that notwithstanding all the credit Dr. Hammond endeavours to gain to it yet men of mean understandings I doubt not will by reading of it discern how ill that Councel did in that determination Nor doth it any whit beâ—ter the matter to say that it was not Cyprian alone but also a whole Councel of 66 Bishops which did thus agree with him For in like manner did the same Cyprian with a more famous Councel See Epist. to Jubaia ponep Quir. Janu. Steph. at the same place determine the rebaptizing of the baptized by Hereticks with better shew of Scripture and reason then in his Epistle to Fidus and alledged Apostolical authority as much as in this and yet he is deserted therein not onely by the Bishops of Rome that were then but also by Augustin and the African and other Churches Besides his maintaining the perfusion of the Clinici in his Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Epist. 7. his maintaining the necessity of water with the wine in the Lords Supper as
his testimony about infant Baptism as to be rested on but we may say as Vorstius adv Bellarm. tom 3. contr 2. thes 2. rat 3. The doting of Augustine and some other is ill brought for the consent of the whole Church and we may make that use of this instance of Augustines Innocentius and others errour about infant Communion which Cameron doth c. â—7 of his Examin of Rom. prejudices to take away the unjust fore-judging of the refusal of infant Baptism aâ— unreasonable by shewing how little the Fathers particularly Augustine are to be trusted and what just reason there is to forsake him in the one as they have done in the other My 4th Exception was That Augustine 1. ascribes a certainty of regeneration to children baptizâ—d though they were not brought for spiritual grace but temporal health 2. That he justifies this fact Epist. 23. ad Bonif. Mr. M confesseth He ascribed too much sometimes to Baptism yet sometimes he saith of some that they have the thing of Baptism without the sacrament and so Ambrose of Valentinian yet Ambrose as well aâ— Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptism To which I reply It is true and so did generally the Fathers as may be seen abundantly in Mr. Gatakers strictures against Bishop Davenants Epist p 52 c. And this caused great abuses 1. the allowing of infant Baptism yea and much advancing it 2. the allowing of the Baptism of men that kept their beds by reason of sickness on their beds 3. the Baptism by womâ—n 4. the Baptism by Athanasius on his playâ—fellows which he did in plâ—y with them when but a boy as sufficicently done for Baptism 5. the bringing of infants to be baptized for cure of their bodies But saith Dr. Homes By all the words Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. I should think Augustine doth no way justifie or excuse their bad intention To which I reply yet he justifies their bad action saying by them the necessary service or ministery is celebrated My 5th Exception was â—hat Augustin Ep. 23. ad Bonif. was so tenacious of customes then in use that he doth defend or excuse from lying the answer of sureties as if the child to be baptized did believe In this Mr. M. saith I scorn Augustines judgement And I reply I do not so much as Chamier paustr. cath tom 4. l 5. c. 15. § 22. where he terâ—s it mimical as if it were a play on a stage rather then the celebrating a Sacrament in the Church which Augustine defended But saith Dâ— Homes This is impertinent to the question I reply it is very pertinent 1. to shew how vain Augustines judgement was in these things about Baptism and the Lords Supper 2. To shew what was the primiâ—ive use of propounding the question of his faith to every baptized person which Vives com in August de Civit. Dei l. 1. câ—7 â—7 thought a good evidence that of old none were baptized but persons grown up and able to answer the questions â—o this saith Dr. Homes 1. â—e wonder Mr. T. will assert confession of faith in all Ages before all Baptism from witnesses or sureties when as we know that the first intimation of touching them was not till about 95 years after Christ. And how novel the invention of their confessions is who can justly tell I reply 1. I wonder Dr. Homes will so untruly say I do so assert 2. If sureties were so late an invention surely infant Baptism was at new it being never without such sureties 2. Saith he I propound it to grave consideration whether sureties did not confess in relation to themselveâ— that they might be reputed fit to stand as a kind of parents to a child of an unbelieving parent to be baptized even as Abrahams profession of his belief in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him stand as a parent to all his houshold I reply Upon my consideration it was not so because Tertull. de 〈◊〉 c. 18. mentions them as undertakers for the child and Bonifacius and Augustine that they professed in the childs stead My last Exception against Augustines judgement was That they baptized any infants even of unbelievers who ever brought them and what ever were their intention they counted it a work of charity and the defect of the faith of the baptized they counted supplied by the faith of the whole Church To this saith Mr. M. Neither I in that justifie him You may take notice that here again you confess the question that infants were baptized I reply this was not the question But saith Dr. Homes 1. â—oo much doth not overthrow enough I reply it overthrows the imitableness of their practise 2. This argues against me that infant Baptism hath been anciently more universally practised then adulâ— Bapâ—ism I reply if so more infidels children should be baptized then Christian converts which is a monstrous fiction refuted by all the remaining monuments of antiquity Mr. M. They baptized upon Covenant holiness believers children infidels children upon the engagement of undertakers to train them up I reply the former appears not the later was of others as well as believers children as is shewed before This is enough to shew the invalidity of Augustine and the Latine Fathers testimonies â—or infant Baptism as Protestants assert it To the recollection of the passages about the Ancients testimonies Mr. M. answers 1. To what I said that that they practised infant Baptism on erroneous grounds the necessity of it to salvation the certainty of the remission of original sin by it denying Gods grace to none and therefore more likely to be an errour Mr. M. saith p. 54. Do not Tertullian Cyprian c. argue from Circumcision unto Baptism 〈◊〉 we now do and others of them from Covenant holiness I answer No not one that I know of 2. To what I said that it is not proved to have been practised but in case of supposed necessity he saith It is otherwise and an Arminian book termed Censura censuâ—ae of which I have made great use in this controversy which is not true saith Augustine first grounded infant Baptism upon necessity But I answer this is not true that which is said before out of Tertullian Nazianzen Cyprian proves it otherwiâ—e Yea long after Augustine Concilium Geâ—undense in the 6th Century appointed in the 4th and 5th Canon That ordinarily persons catechized not infirm should be baptized at Easter and Whitsontide the infirm at other times and infants if infirm and desire not the mothers milk if they be offered the day of their birth which expresseth it to be a permission in that case and shews it to be an exception from the ordinary course Yea Magdeb. cent 1â— c. 6. of the rites of Baptism shew infants then to have been baptised onely out of fear of death 3. To what I said that there was a constant course of baptizing believers children at age he saith I have been been mistaken and this practise was disavowed
14. art 2. The principall acts of saving faith are accepting receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification sanctification and eternall life by vertue of the covenant of Grace ch 17. art 2. The perseverance of the Saints depends upon the nature of the covenant of grace The other speech he would clear is thus by me expressed Baptism seals onely the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. So in the Directory of Baptism That it is the seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternall and after And that the seed and posterity of the faithfull born within the Church have by their birth interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it In the Rules of direction in the Ordinance Octob. 20. 1645. That the Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ. And therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak To this saith Mr. M. I utterly deny your consequence that unlesse there be absolute promises of saving grace to infants the seal is set to a blank For give me leave but to put the same case First for the â—nfants of the Jewes was the seal put to a blank with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let me put the same case in grown men who make an external visible profession and thereupon are admitâ—ed to baptism can any man say that all the saving graces of the covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors Is it not abundantly known that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had he made a promise he would have performed it Answer To the words in my Examen the seal is put to a blank was added as some speak which I did to intimate that it was Paedobaptists phraseology not mine and that they counted this an absurdity not that I did so So that my consequence was it being counted frequently in their writings an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank that is that baptism should be administred to them that had not the promise and it seals onely the promise of saving grace if the promise of saving grace belong not to the infants baptized then in vain are they baptized according to Paedobaptists Hypothesis for the seal of the promise is put to them to whom it is confessed the promise is not made Mr. M himselfe in his Sermon pag. 43. Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme The covenant then sealed is the covenant of these saving graces which if it belong not to infants baptized but another outward covenant in vain are they baptized for they have not the covenant which baptisme seals And that this is the sense of other Writers appeares by the words of Ampsing Diolog eontra Anabapt p. 195. Dico ergo Omnibus fidelibus baptismum competere cum ipsorum semine tam mulieribus quam viris tam infantibus quam adultiâ— horum omnium enim se Deum fore declarat Deus his remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine his mentis renovatioâ—eÌ„ per spiritum sanctum his vitaÌ„ aeternam promittit ac regnum coelorum quare quoque ipsis obsignabitur hac Dei gratia Ames Bellarm. enervat tom 3. l. 1. c. 4. ch 9. Protest Circuâ—cisio à primâ suâ— institutione habuit promissionem illam annexam quâ nulla est major Ero Deus tuus seminis tui post te Gen. 17. quam Christus ita interpretatur Matth. 22. ut vitam aeternam illa doceat contineri Paulus Ephes. 2.12 Ostendit spem vivam ex illâ pendere I wil add the words of Calvin Epist. 229. which are in stead of many otheâ—s both because of the great eminency of the man being accounted almost an Oracle by many of my Antagonists and because they are full to the present purpose they are thus in English This principle is still to be held That baptism is not conferred on infants that they may be made sons and heirs of God but because they are already with God reckoned in that place and degree he grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh Otherwise the Anabaptists should rightly keep them from baptism For unlesse there should agree to them the truth of the outward sign it would be a meer profanation to call them to the participation of the sign it selfe Moreover if any deny baptism to them our answer is ready that they are already of the flock of Christ and of the family of God because the covenant of salvation which God maketh with believers is common also to the sons as also the words sound I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Gen 17.7 unlesse this promse went before by which God adopteth the children of believers not yet born it is certain baptism is ill bestowed on them Which words do plainly express the covenant of salvation which is made by God with believers is common to the sons that so it is meant Gen. 17.7 that with God they are afore baptism reckoned in the place and degree of sons and heirs of God who adopteth them not yet born that unlesse the truth of the outward sign that is according to Mr. Ms. adoption regeneration remission of sins c. did agree to them it were profanation to call infants of believers to the participation of the sign and Anabaptists should rightly keep them from Baptism Therefore Calvin thought the covenant of saving grace Gen. 17.7 made by God to believers infanâ—s which Mr. M. disclaism and otherwise infant-baptism is profanation and it is rightly opposed Yea the shifts that are used to free their doctrine of infants interest in the covenant and the sealing of it from the difficulty of verefying it against the exceptions before alledged do all seem to suppose the covenant in which infants have interest is the covenant of saving grace As when Mr. Baxters plain Scripture c. pag. 223. will have Baptisme seal onely the conditionall promise Mr. Philips vind pag. 37. expresseth the sealing by offering Mr. Davenport's Confess of Faith p 39. maketh the benefits of the covenant not to be offered in the Sacraments but to be exhibited onely to true believers Mr. Cotton's grounds of Bapt. pag. 70 The covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all but onely offereth it and seals what it offereth Dr Homes that the administration of the covenant of grace belongs to believers children though not the efficacie Dr. Twisse that Infants are in the covenant
of grace in the judgement of charity and that baptism seals regeneration c. not conferred but to be conferred Dr. Th Goodwin that they are to be judged in the covenant of grace by parcels though not all in the lump yet all make the promise I will be the God of thy seed applied to infants of believersâ— contain the promise of saving grace and therefore I had great reason to conceive Mr. M. so meant his second conclusion As for the two cases he puts I neither grant all the Infants of the Jewes nor visible Christian professors adult had all saving graces who were circumcised or rightly baptized by the Apostles nor do I say they were sealed with the seal of the covenant it 's the Pedobaptists expression not mine except where I use the term to express their mind nor do I count it an absurdity to say the seal was and is to be put to a blank that is that those should be baptized to whom the promise of saving grace is not made when I speak after mine own mind But in the place of my Examen pag. 46. in which I alleged that as an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank it was not because I took it so to be but because the Paedobaptists so count it as Mr. Calvins words before recited shew SECT XXXI Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant and the severall sealings of them BUt Mr. M. desires me a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and he teâ—s me that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Iesus Christ became a Minister of the Circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers and so to every one who is admitted to partake of baptism according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer the Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Bapiism Answer Mr M. would have me to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and I am very willing so to do as knowing that as Mr. M. imagines that I am mislead for want of considering thereof so I am sure Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists are both mistaken and do abuse others in this point by reason of their inconsideratenass or superficial consideration of this thing The word Sacrament is a Latin word in profane Authors signifying an oath made by a Souldier to his Generall in Ecclesiastick Writers it is applied to all the mysteries of religion and it is used most by the African Writers Tertullian Augustine c. as the word Mystery is by the Greeks Chrysostome Cyril c. Chamier Paustrat Cath tom 4. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 14. Saepe jam dictum latissimam fuisse olim Saramenti significationem serò tandem contractam in angustos istos terminos quos hodie vix migrat quod diligenter attendendum Certè sacramenti definitionem nullam est invenire ante Augustinum qui suo exemplo posteris praiit deinde Augustini definitione c. Whence I inferre that as the term Sacrament so the definition of a Sacrament is but a novelty and possibly the great contentions about the number of the Sacraments some making seven some three most Protestants two onely would be lessened if moderate learned men had the handling of it I confesse that sundry Texts of Scripture do plainly shew the two rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper to be the chief rites of the Church as 1 Cor. 10 1 2 3 4. 12 13. Eph. 4 5. Mark 16.16 1 Cor. 10.16 17. 11.23 c. Yet that the Scripture either calls these Sacraments or sets down one generall nature of them in a certain definition of them cannot be demonstrated They are certain rites appointed for certain vses according to certain rules but such a nature or essence genericall as distinguisheth them from all other rites as laying on of hands c. denied to be Sacraments I find not in Scripture Divines elder and later have framed their definitions according to their own conceits After Augustines time that definition was commonly received in Schools That a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace yet the Ancients did rent such speeches as occasioned the opinion commonly received in Schools afore the reformation by Luther and Zuinglius that they did conferre gratiam ex opere operato give grace by the â—aâ—e outward use of them Zuinglius denying them to be any more than signs the Lutherans denying that they give grace by the bare use of them without the concurrence of faith to which the Lutherans ascribe all the efficacie the Papists object the baptizing of infants who did not believe used by them all whereupon the opposers of infant-baptisme falsly termed Anabaptists proved infant-baptism inconsistent with their own doctrine I wil set down Mr. Bedfords words in his Epistle to Mr. Baxter printed in the Friendly Accommodation between them pag. 352. The Anabaptists took occasion from that position of Luther No Faith no Baptism Coetaneous with him was Zuinglius and others who to overthrow the reall presence insisted upon it â—hat Sacraments were but signs for representation and when that doctrin was once broached the Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it To answer whom the Lutherans maintain that by baptism or before they are made believers as the words of the Lutherans in the Conference at Montâ—elgard cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect 15 p. 143. shew Osiander epist. Histor. Eccl. Cent. 26. l. 2. c. 68. pag· 449. Cum autem baptismus â—it lavacrum regenerationis teste Paulo sentimus nos Deum dare fidem infantibus vel ante baptismum ad preces parentum Ecclesiae vel in ipso actu baptismi regenerationis quae siâ—e fide esse non potest And to this opinion did many in England warp when the face of the Church of England became ceremonious and tended to symbolizing with the Lutheran Protestants or with the more moderate not Jesuited Papists in the time of the late Prelates potency as may be seen by the passages cited by me in Examen part 3â— Sect. 15. pag. 143. and by the printed writings of Dr. Davenant Dr. Ward Mr Thomas Bedford which have been refuted by Mr. Gataker and Mr. Baxter nor is it likely but still the same mind is in Mr. Bedford notwithstanding the late Synectism or rather clawing of one another which hath been between him and Mr. Baxter in their painted Frindly Accommodation In which Mr. Cranfords Epistle hath these words to Mr. Bedford Brother you know my mind that I conceive the ground of Anabaptisme to have been the erroneus Doctrine