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
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
all the promises of it are Yea and Amen 3. Yet were it so this sealing is not to Infants who have no intelligence thereof and so no confirmation thereof by baptism 4. Nor doth this sealing any more pertain to the children of believers than unbelievers it is but of the truth of the covenant in it self not of any persons interest in it 5. This is as well sealed by the baptism of others yea by the baptism of any one deceased most of all by Christs baptism as by each persons own baptism 6. This sealing may be not onely to them that are baptized but to them that deny baptism yea to Infidels yea to Devils who may and do believe the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it to be Yea and Amen and have it sealed as well to them by the baptism of a person as to the baptized and better than to an infant But perhaps Mr M. helps the matter in the second or third But as to the second saith he which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but Signa conditionalia conditionall seals sealing the spirituall part of the covenant to the receivers upon condition that they perform the spirituall part of the covenant Thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Dr. Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are Seals alledges then they are falsly applied oftentimes he answers to Bellarmin Sacraments are conditionall Seals and therefore not Seals to us but upon condition Answer The spirituall condition is faith so Ames Bell. enerv tom 3. l. 1. â— 1. q. 4. th 11. Sacramenta non sunt testimonia completa absoluta nisi credentibus Sacraments are not compleat and absolute testimonies but to the believing Now if the Sacraments seal onely conditionally they seal onely this proposition that he that believeth shall be justified saved c. But this is all one with sealing the truth of the covenant in it self nor doth this seal the baptized persons interest in the covenant any more than the unbaptizeds no more to the infants of believers than of unbelievers not at all to any till they believe and so to no infants ordinarily and if then the baptizing of them must be derived from this interest and sealing of the covenant either none are to be baptized till they do believe or all alike are to be baptized Besides if Sacraments be but conditionall signes or testimonies incompleat and conditionall till persons believe then they are but conditionall incompleat Sacraments till a person believes sith to be a sign seal is of the nature of a Sacrament and if so then infants have not a compleat Sacrament or absolute but an incompleat and conditionall baptism and consequently though the baptizer begin to baptize the infants yet he cannot say he doth baptize them but must wait till they be believers and then he may say he baptizeth them and gives them a compleat Sacrament and is bound to baptize them when they come to years whom he did wash in infancy or else he mocks them which is the mind of Christ indeed that he that believeth should be baptized and no other Mark 16.16 Besides whether there be any conditionall sealing may be a uqestion Mr. Baxter Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 77. pag. 140. speaks of it as a strange thing useless and vain But this I shall leave till I examine Mr. Baxters exceptions against me about the condirional covenant and sealing onely I take notice of his words Sect. 79. pag. 141 A conditional seal is not a seal till the condition be performed and infers that if baptism be a conditionall seal it is no seal and consequently no sacrament to an infant untill he doth perform the condition Mr M. adds Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or tie for him to perform who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute All circumcised and baptized persons did or do stand absolutely ingaged to perform the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law that is the legall and typicall administration of the covenant which was then in force and infants among the rest are bound to this though they had no understanding of the covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this seal was administred to them Answer It is true God required that his covenant should be kept which is expressed to be That every man child among the Hebrewes should be circumcised Gen 17.9 10. but this was the duty of the parents not of the infants who were to be circumcised not to circumcise And it is true That all circumcised persons were by the eircumcision obliged to keep the Law And if circumcision sealed this its sealing of this was the sealing of a command not a promise of God for they are not obliged to keep Gods promise that is the work of God alone but his precept so that this sealing is not of the covenant of grace at all yea by this sealing obliging to keep the whole Law the covenant of works is sealed rather than the covenant of grace as the Apostles speech shews Gal. 5 2 3 4 And this sealing belongs to all infants and elder persons for all are tied to perform the condition of the covenant that is to repent and believe And if hence be derived a title to baptism either all are to be baptized because all are obliged to the condition of repentance and faith or none are to be baptized but penitent believing persons To speak the plain truth the right use of baptism is first to seal to God testifying our repentance and faith by it afore God seals to us by it any benefit of the covenant of grace To conclude Mr. M. hath not yet acquitted himself from putting a seal to a blank which Mr Calvin counts a profanation of the Sacrament when he baptizeth an infant who hath neither a promise of spiritual grace from God nor doth perform the condition of the covenant nor understand by baptism any thing of the covenant nor professe any accptance of the covenant nor is or can be known to have any part in the covenant of grace nor is there indeed any thing but vanity in this discourse of Mr. M. or the Paedobaptists doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant of grace and the interest of believers infants therein SECT XXXII The exceptions in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. against Mr Ms speeches about the covenant and conditionall sealing are made good against Mr. M. and Mr. Blake BUt that we may the better discern the vanity of Paedobaptists conceits about the seal and covenant I shall enquire a little more into this point in which I find much jangling
and uncertainty among them To which I conceive my self the more ingaged because some words of mine in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. gave some overture to Mr M. and after to Mr Bl. and Mr B. to except much against me about this point Two things which I said in that passage it seems are not relished one that I said that God seals not to every one that is baptized but onely to true believers the other that making Gods promise in the covenant of grace conditional in this sense that persons after agnize the covenant and that to speak of it so as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnâ—ze or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him â—s symbolizing with Arminians To this Mr M. replied but little yet what he saith in his Defence pag. 236 I shall briefly answer First saith he Was not Circumcision Gods sign and seal which by his own appointment was applied to all the Jewes and proselytes and their children Ans. Circumcision was appointed by God to be applied to all the Jews proselytes and their children being males of eight dayes old and was by his institution a sign of the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Abrahams own circumcision in his own person was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumâ—ised but that God did by Circumcision seal â—o every one the righteousness of faith who was rightly circumcised I find not nor if I did should I think it were any thing to prove that God seals the righteousness of faith to every one that is baptized rightly sith I doe not take circumcision and baptism to be all one or to have the same use or that baptism seals in the same manner as circumcision Mr. M. adds Did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their hearts c. Answer No. And are not the Sacraments Signa conditionalia conditionall signes and Seals Answer I conceive baptism according to Christs institution to be a sign of the faith of the baptized and so it is a sign absolute and not conditionall and because the object of that faith is Christ dead and risen again whereby we are justified and baptisme as fitted to mind the baptized of Christs death but all and resurrection Rom. 6.2 3 4. Col. 2.12 it is in its nature that is in its right use apt to seal that is to assure justification and salvation 1 Pet. 3.21 and so may be termed in its nature a seal aptitudinall but yet it seals actually to none but those who truly believe which it doth absolutely in respect of justification and coditionally in respect of glorification which is not yet attained nor to be attained but upon conditition of perseverance yet it doth not seal that as an uncertain thing because conditionall for even the condition also is assured by vertue of the death of Christ confirming the covenant of grace or the New Testament in his blood But when I say these things are actually assured by baptism I do not conceive they are actually sealed by God not to the true believer without the inward testimony or seal of the spirit without which God never sealed actually by his word or Sacraments these promises of the covenant of grace or the persons interest in them although both the word of God the oath of God the death of Christ the ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper are in themselves or in their nature aptitudinall seals that is apt signs to assure them The like I say of the Lords Supper both which are alike signes and seals neither to an infant without extraordinary operation Mr M. adds And did any orthodox Divines before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianism to say any thing is conditionall to God this I never assertedâ— but that the Gospel is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and gone Answer I never charged this to be Arminianism That the Gospel runs upon conditions that it is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith according to the explication given What I count symbolizing with the Arminians I have before declared to wit Gods conditionall sealing and covenant common to elect and reprobates as Mr M. in his Sermon seemed to conceive To what I said that I did not well understand that God required of the Jewes infants to seal in their infancy I reply saith Mr M. But I hope you understand that the infants were sealed in their infancy and by this they received not only a priviledge to be accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the covenant as they grew up to be capable of performing them Answer I understand the Iewes were circumcised in their infancy but that God did seal to every circumcised infant either the truth of the promises or his interest in them or that they did in infancy seal to God I do not yet understand For though they had the priviledge mentioned yet not by vertue of Gods sealing to them and though they were obliged to the duties mentioned yet not by vertue of their sealing to God But Mr. Bl. and Mr B. are more earnest in this point and in opposition to what I said in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. in his Answer to my Letter Mr. Bl. ch 15. asserts Sect. 1. The seals of the Sacrament are conditionall not absolute Sect. 2. The entrance into covenant and acceptation of the terms of it is common to the elect and reprobate a heart stedfast in the covenant and the mercies of the conenant are proper onely to the elect and regenerate Sect. 3. To say that the seals of the Sacraments are conditionall and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant as tendered in the Gospel and accepted is not to symbolize with Arminians To which I replied in my Postscript Sect. 21. concerning which Mr. Bl. in his plain Scripture proof c. pag. 224. of the first Edition saith But to these Mr. Bl. hath fully answered Mr T. though in his Apology he passeth over much and is not able to discern his meaning For my part I speak impartially according to my judgement I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening the nature of the covenant than in all Mr T s book that ever he wrote about baptism And pag. 222. he chargeth me with two errors in Apologie and saith of them I conceive these dangerous errors of Mr T. about the nature of
the Covenant and Seals in generall are the root of his error about baptism or at least much strengthen it and there he takes upon him to refute them Since that time Mr. Bl hath renewed his exceptions Vindic grat ch 7. to which as touching upon Mr B. about the thing sealed and manner of sealing Mr B. hath replied in his Apologie against Mr. Blakes Exceptions Sect. 60 c. pag. 115. Because of Mr Bs censure I have received the passages in Mr Blakes answer to my Letter ch 15. in my Postscript Sect. 21. and leaving Mr. B. who is no competent judge of my Writings by reason of his prejudice against me and the cause I maintain and others to conceive of my books as they please I am not ashamed to profess 1. That I discern no such true worth in Mr Blakes mentioned passages which open the nature of the covenant but rather sundry that darken it the shewing of which now would be but a digression 2. That there is not one of the three positions set down by Mr Blake which doth contradict anything I said in my Examen part 4. Sect 5. For I said not the Sacraments are Seals absolute not conditionall but that God seals not upon condition persons agnize the covenant as Mr M. said in his Sermon pag. 49 nor did I deny that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of iâ— is common to elect and reprobate but that Gods covenant of grace or as I said before his promise in the covenant of grace is common to the elect and reprobates and this was it which I termed symbolizing with Arminians not that which Mr. Blake sets down 3. That I do not find that I have need to make any further reply to Mr. Blake therein nor to the six arguments he brings Vindic. Foed ch 7. to prove Sacraments sealing conditionally And for the flings Mr Blake hath at some speâ—ches of mine I shall briefly return answer Those words of mine I like not to call the Sacrament a conditionall Seal for that which seals doth assure and supposeth the condition In my apprehension that which is called conditionall sealing is not sealing but offering or propounding or representing but about this I will not contend Mr. Bl. leaving out the later words thus opposeâ—h Then our Lawyers have a long time decived us who have given us presidents as they call them for obligations under seal to run in these words The condition of this obligation is such and after an indication of the condition to conclude and close up all then this present obligation to be void and of none effect or else to stand in full force and vertue Seals we see leave the condition to me doubtfull Whereto I reply Neither I nor the Lawyers do deceive Mr Blake but he deceives himself the words of the president do intimate that the validity of the obligation is conditionall and is left doubtfull not that the seal is conditionall which doth absolutely assure or testifie the obligation or as the Lawyers speak the act and deed of him that seals which is not future but present and so not conditionall Mr Baxter Apol. against Mr Blake Sect. 77. I never heard of nor knew a conditionall sealing in the world though I have oft heard of the effects of obligation and collation of right to be conditionall which are not onely separate from the terminus proximus of sealing but also are directly the effects of the covenant promise testament c. onely and but remotely of the seals inasmuch as that seal is a full owning of the testament of conveyance yet such a thing as a conditionall sealing may be imagined In a word a conditionall engagement or obligation is one thing and frequent a conditionall seal or sealing is another thing but unknown There are other things at me as calumniating Mr. M. concerning his words as symbolizing with the Arminians which I shall acquiâ— my self from in answering Mr B. and that Mr Bs questionist and my self are both of one pitch both for knowledge and ignorance and stand equally affected to Mr. Bl. both in respect of his person and opinions which intimate as if he were perswaded I were that questionist whom I profess to be unknown to me and were disaffected to Mr. Blakes person though I knew not wherein I have shewed any disaffection to him and for my knowledge or ignorance be it more or lesse I hope it will appear in the conclusion that God hath given me so much knowledge as to shew the vanity of Mr Blakes and Mr Bs pleas for Infant-baptism And for his flirt or scoff at the wide standing open of the door in my night Sacraments I think my actions justifiable in celebrating the Lords Supper at night as Christ did with such notes as the Apostle made thereon in calling it the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.20 and relating it so distinctly v. 23 25. My admitting none but bapâ—â—zed persons after profession of faith is justified by Mr Blakes own words though somewhat misrepresenting my tenent Vindic. Foed ch 23. nor do I admit any one other profession to baptism than was done in the first times by men who had the Spirit of God to guide them and if any be baptized in the night it 's justifiable by Pauls action Acts 16.33 His flings also which he hath Vindic. Foed ch 17. p. 126. shew the same Satyricall vein when he saith I establish a new conditionall covenant against the New Testament light which I shall shew I establish in that sense I do it according to plain New Testament light and censures these words the not teaching one another spoken of Heb. 8 11. is meant of that obscure teaching which was under the Law Apol. pag. 154. said somewhat Magisterially after my manner whereas neither could I well dilate then being straitned in time and the exposition of that place there was but on the by and enough was said by me in those words answerably to the occasion and I conceived understanding men would gather the reason of my interpretation from those few words which is that the new covenant being there declared coÌ„tradistinct to that in Horeb as the writing the laws in the heart is mentioned to distinguish it from the writing in stone so the teaching is mentioned to distinguish it fâ—oÌ„ that obscure teaching which was under the Law which I said not magisterially nor any thing else as Mr. Bl. mis-censures me This is enough if not too much to answer these flirts of Mr. Bl. Fourthly I add That I find sundry passages in Mr. Bl. which seem to me to speak to the same purpose with my words as Answer to my Letter pag. 99. that Baptism assures actually when men doe believe pag. 102. out of Mr. Ball They that be truly in covenant obtained the highest blessings p. 106. This covenant of Jeremies is no more than that promise Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed that thou
are only to the elect for to the Heirs of promise Gods counsell is shewed to be immutable for their salvation Heb. 6.17 But so it is onely to the elect Ergo. 9. Those promises by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature are made onely to the elect But such are the promises of saving benefits 2 Pet. 1.4 Ergo. 10. The promise of that Covenant is made onely to the elect of which Christ is surety for Christs suretiâ—hip engageth him to perform it and he performs it onely to the elect therefore he is surety of the covenant onely for the elect But the promise of saving benefits is of that covenant of which Christ is surety Heb. 7.22 Ergo. 11. That covenant which is confirmed by Christs blood is made onely with the elect for it was shed for them onely But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Matth 26 28. Ergo. 12. That covenant which is different from the first covenant in that it is not an occasion of complaint in that it was broken and they continued not in it is made onely to the elect But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.7 8 9. Ergo. 13. The covenant which ingageth God to write his lawes in the hearts of those to whom it is made â—s made onely to the elect for God doth this onely to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 10.16 Ergo. 14. The covenant of which Christ is Mediator is made onely to the elect for he is mediator for them onely sith he prayes for them onely John 17.9 And he is Mediator of the new covenant that by means of death they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance Heb. 9.15 But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 12.24 Ergo. 15. That covenant which is an everlasting Covenant is made onely to the elect for the covenant with reprobates is not everlasting But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 13.20 Ergo 16 That in which are given the sure mercies of David is made onely to the elect for no other have them given to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Isa. 55.3 Ergo. 17. That covenant which engageth God to give to them to whom it is made deliverance from all enemies and to serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of their life without fear is made onely to the elect for to them onely God performs it But such is the covenant of grace Luke 1.73 74 75. Ergo That covenant which assures perseverance to them to whom it was made is made onely to the elect for they onely persevere But such is the new covenant of grace Isa. 54 9 10. Jer. 32 40. Ergo. 19. If the covenant of grace be made with other than the elect then it is the absolute or condiâ—ionall covenant as Mr B. distinguisheth but neither Not the first as Mr B. confesseâ—h nor the conditionall for it is made onely with believers and they are onely the elect I grant it is propounded as Dr Twisse speaks Animad in Corinth Defens pag. 235 or as others say offered or tendered to others but made with the elect Ergo. If the covenant of grace be made to any other than to the elect then with all which seems to be Mr. Bs opinion when he saith Plain Scripture Proof c. pag 316 The new Covenant is conditionall and universall But it is not made withall That covenant which was made with all had Adam for the common head but the new covenant was not made with Adam as the common head but with Christ who is given for a covenant of the people Isai. 49.8 and therefore rhe promise was that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 which Mr B most corruptly interprets Of the whole seed of the woman infants as well as others Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. Chap. 24. pag. 69 but it is true primarily or onely of Christ Heb. 2.14 But Christ is not a common head to all but onely to the elect who are chosen in him Eph. 1.3 4. Ergo I omit the Arguments which Doctor Twisse urgeth in his Animadversions on Corinus pag. 346. Answer to M. Hoard pag. 283.286 Doctor Kendall Vindic. part 3. ch 18 pag. 14 15 and hasten to consider what Mr B. saith further against me And he saith in his Examen and Apology that Mr M. speakes like Corinus and the Arminians in his asserting the conditional sealing and when he talks of the Covenant Christs suretiship c. To which I answer A great many hotspurs of this age do make any thing Arminianism which is but contradictory to Antinomianism I will not say Mr T. is an Antinomian for I think he is not but this opinion that the covenant of grace which baptism sealeth is onely to the elect and is not conditionall is one of the two Master-pillars in the Antinomian Fabrick Answer 1. If any Antinomian or Antipaedobaptist hath been in this age a verier hot-spur than Mr B. let him be disciplin'd at Bedlem For my part I know none that hath in his Writings shewed so much heat call it fury or zeal as you please with so much confidence and peremptoriness and so many mistakes against Antinomians Antipaedobaptists and others as he haâ—h don And surely they want not considerate men that fear lest the esteem he â—aâ—h gotten by his practical Writings and for infant-baptism and the Ministery may occasion the swallowing down of some things he vents about universâ—ll redemption universall covenant of grace uncertainty of perseverance and salvation the condition of justification which withâ—ut more than a grain of salt will turn to Aâ—minianiâ—m and Popery if received by such understandings as are not of good concoction Nor do I know any man who under so great a shew of seâ—king truth and peace in the Church hath more hindred both For thaâ— whâ—ch he saith That this opinion that the covenant of grace is onely to elect and is nâ—t conditionall is one of the pillars of Antinomianism I have made some search into my books and made use of my memory and though I find that in the Synod at New Town in New England August 30 1637 this is made the 81 Error of the Antinomians That where faith is held forth by the Ministery as the condition of the â—ovenant of grace on mans part as also evidencing justification by sanctification and the activity of faith in that Church there is not sufficienâ— bread And in other books they are charged wiâ—h error in holding the covenant of grace absolute so as if by it men were exempted from duty they were justified without faith c. Yet I never to my remembrance heard thâ—s charged with Antinomianism that the covenant of grace is made onely to the elect but find it avouched by many of their best Antagonists and the covenant
of grace is held by able Anti-Arminians unconditionall in thâ—se two senses 1. That God requires no condition from us to be performed by our power but what he requires of us to do he promiseth to works in those to whom he makes promise in that covenant 2 That in the covenant of grace God requires no condition which is of an uncertain event but to those to whom he makes his promises of righteousness forgiveness eternall life he also by covenant assures repentance faith and perseverance and therefore though some proposals of the covenant of grace be conditionall yet no promise as it stands in the entire covenant is conditionall and therefore the covenant and all the promises to be termed absolute and conditionall Mr. B. adds 2. But to these Mr B. hath fully answered Mr. T. and fully cleared Mr M. and himself from the charge of symbolizing with the Arminians and hath fully proved that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of the term of it though not sincerely and unreservedly is common to the elect and reprobate and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant as tendered in the Gospel and accepted as beforesaid with a half heart And if any that are run into the other extream shall think that this affirming that Christ hath brought the reprobate also into the covenant of grace conditionall be any part of the Arminian errors as the whole Scripture is against them so Mr. Blake hath said enough to satisfie Answer What Mr Blake asserted and took upon him to prove did neither contradict what I said nor vindicate Mr M. who said in his Sermon pag. 49.1 That God did seal to Infants presently and put their name into the Deed. 2. That in the mean time untill they come to years of discretion Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant Heb. 7.22 and the surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety 3. That God accepts of such a seal on their parts as they are able to give in their infant age expecting a future ratification on their part when they are come to riper years 4. That in the mean time he affords them the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him 5. When they are grown men they may refuse to stand to this covenant and nullifie all These things I count symbolizing with Arminians to say that infants who may and do when they come to age refuse to stand to this covenant are for a while afforded by God the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him even in that covenant of which Jesus Christ is their surety and that for a while Jesus Christ is their surety which contains three points of Arminianism 1. That God affords them the favour of being in covenant with him in that covenant of which Christ is surety who are reprobates 2. That Christ is their sureâ—y 3. That they may be thus in covenant for a time onely To say that any is afforded the favour of being in covenant with God who may be so for a time and that Christ is surety for such covenanters is to hold that God makes this new covenant with other than the elect and that Christ is surety for them is to hold that the new covenant is made with all and that it doth not assure effectuall calling and perseverance but is upon an uncertain condition left to mans will which are condemned as the Arminians errors on the second and fifth Articles by the Deputies of Gelderland Act Synod Dordr Judic Theol. Prov. pag. 131. Of South-Holland pag. 141 142. Of North-Holland pag 154. Of Zealand pag. 159. Of Virecht pag. 162 163 171. Of Friesland pag. 181 c. Profess Belg pag. 30â— Disput. Gâ—ld pag. 324. Transisul pag. 371 and others And whereas Mr. Bl. Vindic Foed pag. 39. chargeth me with misciâ—ing Corvinus I confesse I have not now his book by me having lost it yet such remaining notes as I have by me do give me cause to think there is somewhat to that purpose in or neer the place and however it is carried on Corvinus by the Deputies at the Synod of Dort in his Defence of Arminius against Tilenus and by Dr. Twisse in his Animad pag. 346. and generally charged on the Arminians by other Authors forecited And though I count Mr M. far from Arminianism yet I again say the speeches he used do symbolize with their language Mr. B. adds He that will deny Reprobates to be so far within the covenant of grace must not onely deny Infant-baptism but all Sacraments till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be elect And doubtless this interest in the covenant is â— fruit of Christs death Answer I deny not but Reprobates may be in the covenant of grace in this sense they may have it tendred to them by the preachers of the Gospel they may accept of that tender with half an heart they may think themselves to be in it they may by baptism engage themselves to believe unto the death they may be received into the Church deemed to be really in the covenant of grace But it is not true that God ever made the new covenant to or with them or that Christ as a mediator brought them into the covenant of graceâ— or was surety of them or that God afforded them for a time the favour of being in covenant with him And though I deny not that it is a fruit of Christs death that whosoever believeth on him should live yet that this is not obtained for the reprobate but the elect nor a part by it self but together with this that he should gather into one the Children of God that were scattered abroad John 11 52. And that they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance Heb. 9.15 Nor need I by these assertions of mine deny Baptism or the Lords Supper to any man till I be able to discern him infallibly to be a man elect For I have warrant to baptize him if he shew by his profession that he is a Disciple of Christ and though I knew infallibly he were one of those whom God would save and had promised saving grace to him and in that sense were in the covenant of grace yet for the present not a Dâ—sciple I should justifiably refuse to baptize him And this is a sufficient plea why we baptize not infants of believers because they are not then Disciples no not though it could be proved God had promised to be their God Mr. B. adds Mr T. one day in the pulpit in pleading that the covenant belonged onely to the elect was pleased to bring me in as witnessing thereto in the Append of my Aphor. pag. 43. because I there say that the absolute promise or prophesie there mentioned is made onely to the elect when yet onely the very scope of the place is to prove that it is not the absolute promise that is most fitly called the Covenant of grace Answer
the Lords Supper For even in that very instant of Mr. B. Plain Script proof c. pag. 296. to prove the Sacrament to be a mutuall engaging sign when he saith Receiving the Elements is â—ur engaging sign that we receive Jesus Christ to be our onely Saviour and Lord as giving is Gods siâ—n that he giveth us Christ the sealing on the part of the receiver is to a thing fulfiâ—led that he receives Christ and of the giver that he gives him 6. Saith Mr. T. The covenant sealed by the Sacrament is a plainly propounded unquestionâ—ble Covenant But this absolute promise of the first grace is not such but very dark and doubtfull and the most learned cannot agree whether there be any such thing â—herefore c. I have spoken my judgment of this in the Appendix of my Aphorisms The places alledged to prove an absolute promise of the first grace some learned divines I say do not prove it because he new and soft heart there mentioned may be a further degree of newness and sofâ—ness or though there be no condition there expressed yet it is in other places and therefore to be so understood there To which end they cite Deut. â—0 where God promiseth the very same blessing to circumcise their hearts that they may love the Lord c. on a condition which is here thought to be promised absolutely Mr. T. could not understand Mr. Blake about this Answer If Mr B. mean by unquestionable Covenant that which no learned man hath questioned the Major is false and must be revoked by Mr. B. if he will maintain the conditionall covenant to be sealed to by the Sacrament for that hath been questioned by learned men who have denied the covenant of grace to be conditionall and they think this to be a very good proof that the holy Scripture where it speakes of the new Covenant mentions the promises without condition If he mean unquestionable de jure which ought not to have been questioned and which though it seem dark and doubtfull to some yet is plainly propounded by God and is in it self perspicuous the Minor is false As for what Divines say it little moves when the Scripture opposeth the new spirit and soft heart to a strong heart as being in them before and to which the new spirit new heart of flesh succeed Ezek. 11.19 â—6 26 not to a lesse new or fleshly heart And if elsewhere conditions be put and not there the promises in those places are not proved conditionall though to me the coditions Deut. 30.1 2 seem not to be of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. I do not value Mr. B. his judgement so much as to be drawn by it any farther than his reasons carry me which I take it are the same in his Appendix with these in his mock-titled book which I have answered I give Mr Baxter our new Doctor Subâ—ilis leave to quip me with my dulness in being grown such an old superannuated dotard as that I could not understand Mr Blake time was when I thought I could have understood as profound a Doctor but now I am content not to understand such deep notions I should say non-sense as these Disciple all covenant all c I hope I shall have by Divine assistance so much understanding as to demonstrate the frivolousness of those dictates in Mr Blakes and Mr Baxters writings whereby they have befooled the men of this age and my Strange and wild doctrine as Mr B. calls it will supplant Mr B. his familiar and tame doctrine without speaking like Mr Salâ—marsh and the Antinomians and my speech about Mr M will be justified after the clearing my self from the fourth imagined error to which I now hast SECT XXXV My speeeh about Gods sealing to none but believers is cleared from Mr Baxters Objections Mr B. Plain Scripture c. pag 222. calls it my fourth error that I affirm in my Apolog. pag. 152 153. That every right administration of Baptism is not Gods sealing Actually it sealeth not but when it is administred to a believer It may be called a right act of the Administrator according to Gods appointment but not Gods sealing c. And for confutation saith thus It must be understood that our question is not about the internall seal of the spirit but onely the externall seal of the Sacrament which are two distinct things The nature of this seal and whether it seal conditionally or absolutely I have fully opened in the Appendix of my Aphorisms of Justification whither I must desire the Reader to turn and read it â—o save me the labor of doing it here Answer That these imagined errors of mine about the nature of the Covenant and seals are not the root of my pretended error about baptism is abundantly shewed before and it hath been often affirmed by me that the reason of my opposing infant-baptism is because it agrees not with the institution and eâ—amples of baptism which Mr B his words cited in the next Section before verifie in the holy Scripture and the arguments from the Covenant and seal and the pretended law of visible Church-membership no way extant unrepealed of which the Apostles practice shewes they were ignorant though many godly and learned men have embraced them are meerly an humane invention That there is no error of mine in what I hold about the covenant much lesse dangeeous error is already shew I shall now shew the subtilty of Mr B his arguings against my speech about Gods sealing According to his direction I have read over his sayings in his Appendix in answer to the ninth Question and what Mr Blake excepted against him and his reply to Mr Blake in his Apologie Sect 60 c. And the issue of my thoughts in this 1. That there is nothing but jangling and uncertainty in their debates about the imaginary sealing by the Sacrament it being not agreed what is sealed the outward or inward covenant what is the Syllogism whose parts are to be sealed or what part thereof is to be sealed the Major Minor or Conclusion nor how â—t is sealed conditionally or absolutely actually or aptitudinally nor to whom the sealing is whether to every communicant or onely to penitent believers And in my reading of other Authorsâ— I find much uncertainty in their determinations about this pretended sealing and the thing sealed which I have briefly touched before Mr. Humphrey in his Rejoynder to Dr. Drake part 1. Sect. 4 6. part 2. Sect. 4 5. tells us That in the nature of it the Sacrament is Gods seal onely not metaphorically or tropically but formally not a seal of our faith but of Gods assuring the tenor of it not onely mans particular interest absolutly but conditionally to all and that as well the threatning of condemnation in câ—se of unbelief as the promise of righteousness in case of Faith the receiver of the Sacrament seals not by way of assuring or conveying but engagement â—o the
it is of Divine institution or the form of a particular Church eiâ—her in respâ—ct of its truâ—h or purity much less that it is a condition of interest in the covenant of grace as if the promises thereof were mâ—de under that condition But I conceive this speech of Mr. C. heâ—e together wiâ—h â—hat other excepted against mâ— by me in the first part of this Review pag. 92 are very dangerous I go on Again saith Mr. C. That Covenant of grace is considered either in it self or its administration to which purpose Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17 11 12 13 partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Ier. 13.11 Isai. 24. Zach. â—1 10 hath reference to the covenant of grace both as invested with the Church covenant and in respect of Church administration thereof Answer The administration of the covenant of grace is to me no way intelligible but thus that by it is meant the administring the promise it self which I know not how it should not be done but by making or writing or some other way representing or recording it or the things promised in the covenant of grace to wit justification c. which may be done either by Divine authority power conferring or bestowing and this none can do but the eternal Father Son and Spirit or by way of signification revelation or assurance of them so I confess the preaching of the Gospel and in some sense the Sacraments as they are called may be termed Church-administrations of the covenant of grace But this seems not to be Mr. C. his meaning for he saith Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17.11 12 13. partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Which words are an inâ—pt tautology if to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it be not somewhat beyond being a sign and a seal of it and sith circumcision is said to be both circumcision must not onely sign and seal the covenant of grace but must be the administration of it which how it should do but by conferring the grace of it I know not If it be that way it must do it either ex opere operato or ex opere operantis if this later way then how do infants receive grace by it who believe not nor do any other act pre-required if the former it is the same with the tenent of Popish Doctors And for the text Gen 17.11 12 13. his own words pag. 43. refuâ—e him when he sâ—iâ—h Every one that haâ—h read Catecheticall doctrine will say that when in one verse it 's said of Circumcision in their flesh that it was his covenant in their flesh It is an usuâ—ll Metonymy in speaking of Sacraments to call the outword sacramenntall sign and seal by the name of the thing signified and scaled pag 44. Circumcision is bâ—t a branch of the covenant or condition of the covenant on their part As for the texâ— Jer. 13.11 there 's not a word of ciâ—cumcision in 〈◊〉 onely it is said that God had caused to cleave to him the whole house of Israel as the girdle cleavâ—th to the â—yns of a man but to refer this to circumcision is frivolous God had by his Covenant Providence and actings for them in wonderfull maâ—er made them to cleave to hiâ— That â—hey might be unto him for a people as iâ— follows in the vâ—rse In the other text Isai. 24 5 it is said the Iews had broken the everlasting covenant which if it be undâ—rstood of the covenant of grace then may it be brâ—ken aâ—d persons may faâ—l from grace if of circumcision as Mr. C. seems to undâ—rstand it then it is no more but they had uncircumcised â—hemselves which were both faâ—se for at that time and after even unto this day â—he Iewes keep the ordinance of circumcisioon very strictly â—nd frivolâ—s as if this hâ—d been the great maâ—ter for which the earth mourned did fade away languished was utterly emptied and spoiled But â—the covenant here is meant of the covenant of â—he Law a 〈…〉 which was everlasting that is to continue as long as their pâ—â—iâ—y stood Exod 24.7 8. as Exâ—n 27 21 12.24 28.43 2 Chron. 6.2.2 7.16 the word for ever is used for a long time or the continuance of the Iewish Sâ—ate So Jer 11 3 4 Jer 31 32 they are accused to break the covenant at mâ—unâ— Sinai by disobedience chiefly by idolatry and therefore neither of the Tâ—xâ—s yeild any thing to prove circumcision to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it That Gods breaking of his Covenant Zach 11.10 hath no reference to the Covenant of grace either as invested wiâ—â— Church-covenant or Church-administration thereof is shewed above Sect 25 in the right administration of it The distinction he makes of being in the Covenant intentionally and 〈◊〉 I allow nor do I deny the distinction oâ— being in Covenant internally and savingly and onely externally in respect of men though I find not Ishmael any where said to be in the Covenant and the promises Rom. 9.4 are meant of the peculiar promises to the nation of Israel by the Covenants are meant the tables of the Covenant as Beza in his Annot. on that place however all there said is meant of the Israelites only as is shewed before Sect. 29. and therefore this place makes nothing for Christian Gentile professors being externally in the Covenant of grace as Mr. C. imagines Nor do I know any Text in the Scripture wherein that phrase is used of being in Covenant or having the Covenant belong to them externally only The distinction of being in Covenant externally in their own or their parents right hath no proof in the new Testament however it have in the old The seed of Abraham by proportion is a new invented sort of Abrahams seed no where Proselytes of old not true believers in their Generations and were visible inchurched beleivers in their Generations scil parents children together are terms Abrahams seed in Scriptue That Deut. 29 14. notes the sorts of persons not the individuats cannot be true for him that is here and him that is not here note individual persons distinguished according to their present and future existence That Gen. 17 7. is meant of a Church seed indefinite or by proportion is said not proved by Mr. C. and denied by me I pass on to his Conclusions Sect. 2. I grant the first conclusion according to the explication I give in my Exercit. Pag. 2. in my Examen part 3. Sect. 2. that the Covenant Gen. 17 7 was a Covenant â—f grace and the same in nature with that Covenant of grace nâ—w hâ—ld â—orth to us But Mr. C. hath a further meaning to wit that the Covenant as it is a Covenant of
Moses it follows not that the covenant must be the covenant of Evangelicall grace For in Moses his renewing the covenant in the land of Moab there 's a promise of reduction of them Deut. 30.3 which being upon condition of their returning to God and obeying his voyce according to all that Moses commanded that day must be understood of the Covenant of the Law which had its promises of such temporall favours and not of the covenant of Evangelical grace That which Mr. C. saith That he did not thus properly for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed scil this covenant the Churches covenant abstractively considered v. 61. I know not what sense to make of it There 's not a word of Church-covenant or investure with it The plain meaning is either this Not by that covenant of the Law which thou hast broken but by the new covenant of the Gospel as Junius in his Annot. in locum Diodati the new Annot. or this as Piscat Schol. in locum not because thou art worthy of this aggregation of the nations as if thou hadst kept covenant with me as if he had said but of my grace or free favour or as Grotius It is a Metonymy as if it were said not because on thy part thou hast stood to the covenant I have seen Ezek 36. from v. 17. to the chapters end and I see nothing there to Mr C. his purpose to prove a bare externall being in the covenant of grace There 's not the word Covenant in all the passage But on the contrary there are promises v. 25 26 27. of a new heart giving his Spirit which as Mr. B. saith truly is proper to the elect and notes an internall being in the covenant of grace There 's little but muddiness and impertinency in the rest He speaks of an externall being in Christ John 15.2 which is not denied in respect of profession of those that are so and of an externall partaking of Christ for which it's likely he cites not as it is printed Heb. 13.14 but Heb. 3.14 But sure that partaking is a saving partaking to which is required the holding fast to the end the beginning of our confidence For an external partaking may be without condition The Jewish refusers Ios. 1.11 are called Christs own either by kindred or right to them from the old engagements of them to be his by their Ancestors or by vertue of this redeeming them from Aegypt the land of the North or some other way Surely not because they did externally belong to Christ or were externally in the covenant of grace were to be baptized For they expresly denied Christ and rejected the counsell of God against themselves being not baptized by Iohn Luke 7 30. I grant there is an externall being called Matth 22.14 but this not competent to infants I doubt whether Heb 10 29 be to be interpreted of an externall being sanctified quoad homines in respect of others by the bloâ—d of the Covenant The New Annot say thus In regard of the meritorious sufficient satisfaction purchased by it Piscat Schol. in locum per quem vide batur esse sanctificatus quamdiu scil Christum confitebatur Dictum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it is meant of the same sanctification of which he speaks in the same chapter v. 10.14 ch 13 12 to wit an effectuall sanctification by remission of sins and purging their consciences from dead works chap 9 14 which alone and not an externall sanctificacion I find ascribed to the blood of the Covenant and the person there said to be sanctified with this sanctification not in reality but according to his profession and opinion of himself as Luke 15.7 some are said to be just persons that need no repentance that is according to their own profession and opinion The purging from sin 2 Pet. 1.9 was externall I grant not inward in the heart yet it was not a mere purging by the outward ordinance of baptism but their own profession and partiall reformation of themselves not competent to infants 2 Pet 2. â— It 's doubtâ—ful whether it note an external being purchased by Christ or a purchase by Christ onely sufficient or an effectuall purchase yet said of them onely according to what they professed and conceived of themselves as Luke 15 7 Heb 10 29 or others conceived of them That Deut 33 3 should be meant of an externall Saintship is supposed not proved though it it were applied to the body of Israel yet it might be understood in respect of the better part that the people were called Gods Saints Psa 50 5 The Saints of God and those that had made a covenant with him by Sacrifice were Israel vers 7 it is true there were many hypocrites but as the new Annot God in respect of his elect calleth the whole body Holy Saints and his people not meerly from an externall Saintship To which I add if it be referred to the covenant Exod 24.8 to which Mr Ainsworth in his Note on the place directs it was the covenant of the law not the covenant of grace which is meant Psal 50 5 It is true There are invisible Churches which are as Isaac was Children of the Promise Gal 4 28 Children of the Gospel-church v. 31 26. But that this should be verefied in all the members of the Galatian Churches unto whom Paul wrot that Episte Gal 1 2 is not true nor is it proved by Mr C that the Aposâ—â—e spake what he saith v 28 31 of every member of the Churches of Galatia It is true that Ierusalem above is the mother of us all but that us all should signifie every profession of the faith in the Churches of Galatia is false for then every one of them should be born after the spirit v 29. and inherit v. 3â— The new Annot on Gal 4.24.6 therefore say The Christian Church is the mother of all the faithfull who are heirs of the kingdom of Heaven whether they be Iâ—wes or Gentiles So that to be mother of us all Gal. 4.26 is not to be mother of every professed Christian in Galatia but of so many as held the right faith with Paul and were born after the Spirit Thus in like maner Rom 8 3 21 when it is said who spared not his own Son but gave him up for us all it is not meant of every professor of Faith in Rome but all the elect and true believers as that which follows in the same verse and verse 33 shewes So that we need not assert eiâ—her that every professor of faith in the Galatian Churches was a child of the Jerusalem above effectually and savingly or that there were some particular visible Churches in which were no hypocrites which yet may be true notwithstanding the Parables Matth 13 and 25. or 1 Tim 3 15. compared with 2 Tim 2 20 oâ— that such as are savingly interessed in the Covenant of grace should fall from grace or that all were externally and
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
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-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-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
they take them to be the same or heed not what they cite chap. 19. Art 6. True believers are not under the law as a covenant of works not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of works Greater Catech page 25. The regenerate are delivered from the Morall law as a covenant of works Yea Mr M. his words denying the law to be part of the covenant made to Abraham but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ impossible to be kept which are not to be â—rid of the covenant of grace doth in effect make it the covenant of works Mr Anthony Burgess when he distinguisheth vindic legis lect 24. pag. 223 saith the law considered more largly as that whole Doctrine delivered on mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it was a covenant of grace but more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousness holding forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience abstracted from Moses his administration of it was not of grace but of works In which words he denies not that it held forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience and so it was a Covenant not of grace but of works 2 he shews not that it was given as a Covenant upon any other terms or that it did propound or promise righteousness before God upon condition of faith in Christ but only tels us take the Law for the whole doctrine c. Which is in effect all one as to say The covenant God made was of works yet withal he delivered many things which shewed he would also have them look at Christ which we grant true but no where that he promised righteousness through Christ in that Covenant Mr. Blake Vindic. Faed c 24. pag. 174. the Law is taken sometimes in that strict sense as containing a Covenant of works and holding forth life upon condition of perfect obedience So Rom. 10.5 6. and 3.21 22. Gal 3.18 It were no hard matter to shew many of Protestant Writers who call the Covenant of the Law at mount Sinai the Covenant of works but these suffice What is objected to the contrary is not from the tenor of the covâ—nant but from some adjuncts of it as 1 because there were sacrafices other rites appointed it must be a Covenant of grace Answer the sacrafices as they were commanded so they did belong to the Covenant of works But as God used them as shadows and types of Christ to come so they signifie Gods purpose oâ— Gospel-grace in Christ but by another Covenant not that at mount Sinai 2 Gods end was not to give life by the Law but to direct to Christ. Answer 1 I grant the first and thence it appears he intended it not for a covenant of grace 2. it directed not to Christ as it was propounded Covenant-wise but by accident in that it made known sin and so made Christ appear necessary and this also proves that it was of it self as propounded a Covenant of workes 3 God could not enter into a Covenant of works with man fallen Answer True so as to justifie him by it yet for other ends he may as to discover sin shew mans impotency As Christ said to the young man Matth. â—9 16. if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements though he knew he could not have life that way and v 21. commands him to sel all though it did but shew his covetousness not make him perfect The covenant of grace is to be judged such from the tenor of the promise and condition not from Gods ends For if so then the Gospel it self being sent to some to harden them should be a Covenant of works because the end was to to condemn them by it 4 That God begins the Decalogue with I am the Lord thy God c. Answ 1 He is said to be the God of the spirits of all flesh Numb 16.22 yet thereby is not proved all are in the Covenant of grace 2 It may be understood that he was their God de jure that he had right to command them because he brough them out of Egypt 3 the plain answer is that he was their God according to the Covenant of grace made with Abraham antecedently to the giving of the Law not by the Covenant of the Law And for that which is often objected that in the second commandement God promised mercy to thousands but he promiseth no mercy but in a Covenant of grace I know how that can be proved I concieve that God did and doth shew temporall mercies out of his long patience by the Covenant of the Law though no man be justified by it before God neither Psal. 105.8 nor any other prove that the Covenant at mount Sinai was the same with that to Abraham though the promise of Canaan was to a 1000 generations yet on condition of obedience Dan. 9.4 Ierem. 11.4 6 7 8. when they brake Gods Laws they were expelled and so when they slew the heir of the Lord of the vicâ—ard he took his kingdome from them and gave it to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it Matth. 21.43 I do not say that a naturall covenant ex natura rei is a covenant of works but it is undoubted that the covenant on mount Sinai was a covenant made with the whole nation of the Jewes and it is proved before to have been a covenant of works It is untruly said That the Gospelâ—covenant Gal. 3.9 was of a national nature For that is a national Covenant which is made with a whole nation that is all the people descended from such a stâ—â—k whereas v. 9. the Apostle by saying so then they that are of the faith of Abraham are blessed with faithful Abraham plainly expounds who he means by all nations v. 8. to wit not whole nations but believers of all nations The Covenant of works at mount Sinai though it did not justifie before God yet it held that nation in Canaan till they set up other Gods and revolted from the true God and upon their forsaking Idols they might plead it for the restoring of them to their own land or continuance in it Yea God did condescend so far that if there had been in Ierusalem a man that had executed judgment and sought truth he would have pardoned it and not brought the Chaldeans upon it to burn it Ierem 5.1 It is true the Gospel threatens and executes corporal punishments and promiseth rewards to the disobeying or obeying of it but not an expulsion out of or setling in any one Country of an entire nation but personal evils or rewards upon personal disobedience or obedience The Covenant of grace admits of no carnal hypocrites nor is it so said Gal 4.21 22 23. though it 's not denied but many who are admitted into the visible Church are such To the eight objection That was in the flesh this in the heart Mr. C. speaks thus Answ. was that only in their flesh was
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
15.1 2 3 4 c. Rom. 1.16 17. Gal. 3.8 2 Tim 2.8 Rom. 2.16 and such like places and wish Mr. C others of his mind who upon such uncertain and impertinent allegations impose their Gospel upon mens consciences to ponder with more seriousness the Apostles wordsâ— Gal. 1.9 If any man preach any other Gospel than that ye have received let him be accursed SECT XLV Mr C. his Answers to objections against his seventh Conclusion part 1. c. 3. Sect. 9. of his Just Vindic. are considered and Mr. Bl. his Tenent concerning the generall term of a Covenant that it is a mutuall agreement I Wave the first Objection here and for my speeches about Pharez Zara and others and that of the Jewes being branches of the Olive by their birth that I forget not my self and how far I own them and wherein I correct them or explain them may be seen in the first part of the Review Sect. 6 1â— 21. The second objection is thus If Infants be in the Covenant of grace and born so then such Infants were born in the Covenant and never out And besides Gods Covenant of saving grace biâ—g absolute and undertaking to give saving grace to such as are in covenant with him all such must be saved unless God fail of his truth To this Mr. C. answers 1. That Covenant of grace as I. S. acknowledgeth it to be mentioned Deu. 29. it was made with little ones then unborn intentionally v. 14 15. as well as with those then present actually So that when they were born they were born in the covenant and never out As much may be said of the Infant Elect seed or children of the promise dying infants they were born so and never out of that estate after they were actually existent yea they were all girded in the covenant Jer. 13. Answ. The passage Deut. 29.15 is not meant of Gods covenant or promise to them but their promise or covenant to God as appears in that v. 14. Moses is said to make the covenant with them that is to engage them in their own persons for themselves and little ones to own God and his lawes and v. 15. it is said before the Lord our God which shewes that the person making that covenant v. 14. was distinct from the Lord and this Covenant he made with him that was not there with them that day to wit the unborn posterity as rightly M. C. and others eonceive and this Covenant Moses made with them by engaging them by an oath of their Pâ—inces and progenitors in the same sense as Saul and the Israelites were bound to the Oath made by Joshuah and the Princes of Israelites to the Gibeonites So that those unborn are not said to be in Gods Covenant of grace as made by him and so intentionally onely because not existent but they were in covenant with God virtually because of the Obligaâ—ion which lay on them by their progenitors and Princes engagement for them to take the Lord for their God and upon their obedience God engaged himself to establâ—sh them to be a people unto himself And this I confess did ever oblige them but it is nothing to the objection which speaks of Gods Covenant as made to infants not of infants Covenant as made to God Nevertheless I confess what ever were the Authors meaning in that Objection it is no absurdity to grant that elect infants dying so were born in the Covenant and never out that is they had the promise of God made to them at yea and before their birth and in respect of the actuall possession of the benefits of the covenant they were in the covenant before their death and never out But so are not elect infants dying in respect of outward Church-privileges they are not born visible Church-members nor subject to be baptized 2. Saith Mr C. Gods Covenant did not barely offer or promise to covenant but made a Covenant a Covenant and an Oath with them that day Deut. 29.12 13 14 15. and amongst other promises engaged himself to circumcise their hearts chap. 30.6 yet were not all in heart circumcised and yet the promise of God failed not being in the generall propounded to them conditionally and not as it is said here absolutely at least it had reference to them all in common The word of the promise took not effect in as many of the Jewes to whom the covenant promises externally belonged yet it followed not that therefore it took no effect at all and that God was unfaithfull for it took effect in others Rom. 3.3 and 9.6 7 8. And so here Answ. What this is to the objection which is here answered I do not well understand Gods covenant of saving grace whether expressed Gen. 17.7 to Aâ—raham and his spirituall seed or Heb. 8.10 or elswhere is absolute in respect of the persons to whom God takes into covenant persons of his own good pleasure without any previous disposition moving him to promise to this rather than that though some benefits of that covenant are promised upon condition and all those to whom it is made must be saved unless God fail of his truth But for the Covenant Deut 29.12 13 14 15. it was their covenant to God as well as Gods covenant to them nor was it the covenant of grace according to the Gospell made to Gentile-believers but a nationall engagement of the Israelites to observe the lawes of God which Moses made with them at Gods command in the Land of Moab besides the Covenant which he made with them in Horâ—b and Gods engagement thereupon to take them for a people while they observed his Laws In which covenant first Moses tells them what God hath done for them notwithstanding their dulness to perceive it and then ejoyns them v. 9 to keep the words of the Covenant and do them that they might prosper in all that they did and then tells them that they all stood there in a full Assembly that they might be engaged for themselves their little ones strangers within their Camp and posterity to observe Gods Commands and then tells them that God would establish them for a people unto himself that is that he would continue them to be a distinct people to him from other nations and be a God to them according to his oath to Abraham Isaac and Jacob that is to drive out â—he Canaanites to give them their Land to make them great and prosperous which is manifestly a covenant proper to Israel and it is not denied to be propounded to them conditionally and to have reference to them all in common and was of the same sort with the covenant at mount Sinai not the covenant of regenerating and saving grace made to the Gentiles called the new Covenant confirmed by Christs blood Deut. 30.6 God promised to circumcise their heart and the heart of their seed which promise I do not now conceive to be conditionall For though v. 2. there be a condition expressed yet I
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-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 then â—od promised to be his God in respect of regeneration justification adoption sanctification and raising up to eternal liâ—e and he was in that estaâ—e and if hâ— were shut out again â—hen a man may be in the covenant of Evangelical grace and shut out again which is contrary to the very end of the new Câ—venant as it is expressed Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10. and infers falling away from Gospel grace Mr. Bl. proceeds thus Neither are all these included for as God cast off Ishmael and his seed so also Esau and his posterity therefore the Apostle having brought the former distinction of seeds rests not there but adds v. 10 11 12 13. And therâ—fore the denomination of the seed is in Jacob sirnamed Israel Therefore when the head or if you will root of the Covenant is mentioned usually in Scripture it is not barely Abraham but Abraham and Isaac to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line not barely Abraham and Isaac but Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The natural seed of Jacob then not according to ours but Gods own limits is included in that Covenant in the full latitude and extent of it Answ. 1. The terms head or root of the Covenant are not Scripture expressions I finde Gal. 3.16 that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made and Rom. 11.16 If the root be holy so are the branches v. 18. thou bearest not the root â—ut the root thee but this root is I conceive no other then Abraham who is â—ot termed either head or root of the Covenant singly or jointly but of the olive or branches in respect of their propagation from him partly as a natural father and a spiritual father in respect of Isâ—aelite believers anâ— partly as a spiritual father onely in respect of Gentile believers But if any be to be termed the head and root of the Covenant I think it is most fit to give that title to Christ the surety and mediatour Heb. 7.22 8.6 to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.16 17. 2. When God is stiled the God of Abraham Iâ—saac and Jacob that it is to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line and to say that God cast off Esau and his posterity from the Covenant is more then the Apostle saith or is according to truth For the Apostle doth onely say that therefore the Oracle was delivered concerning Esau and Jacob and the words of the Prophet concerning Jacob and Esau are alledged that he might shew that God confined not his Covenant to Abrahams natural posterity nor included them all not to shew that he cast off or excluded all Abrahams seed of any other line then â—saac and Jacob from the Covenant For then Joâ— Jethro and all other Proselytes of Abrahams seed by Keturah of Esauâ—s posterity had been excluded from the Covenant of grace in Christ which is contrary to Scripture and in like sort all the Gentile from Ishmael Keturah Esau â—ad been excluded from being called Christian believers For none are called by God who are excluded out of the Covenant of grace 3. That the natural seed of Jacob is included in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 in the full latitude and exâ—ent of it as it comprehends a promise of Evangelical grace is so far from being the Apostles determination thaâ— he resolves in the contrary in those words Rom. 9.6 All are not Israel that are of Israel Secondly saith Mr. Bl. We dâ— not say that this Covenant was entred with Abraham as a nâ—tural Father nor his seed comprehended as natural children but aâ— a pâ—ofessour of the Faith â—ccepting the Conant taking God for his God he accepts it for himself and fâ—r his seed his natural pâ—sterity And all that profess the Faith hold in the like tenâ—re are in Covenant and have the Covenant not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity Answ. I do not remember that I did any where say that Paedobaptists said that covenant Gen. 17.7 wâ— entred with Abraham as a natural â—ather but the Authour of the little Treatise intituled Infants Baptism proved lawful by Scripture asserted the Covenant was made with Abraham as a believer to which I replied that as it was Evangelical it was not made with Abraham simply as a believer for then it had been made to every believer as to Abraham but with Abraham as the Father of believers and with his seed as believers as he was But that ever any Paedoâ—aptist did afore Mr. Bl assert that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it was a Covenant of Evangelical grace was entred by God with him as a professour of the faith accepting the Covenant taking God for his God accepting it for himself and for his seed his natural posterity I do not remeâ—ber If they should yet I take it to be false and without likelihood of truth For if the Covenant of Evangelical grace were made with Abraham under that formal consideration then God had promised Evangelical grace justication adoption to him as a professour of faith onely so that if it were supposed he had been an hopocrite yet he should have been justified adopted in that he was a professour of faith or else it is to be conceived justification and adoption were not to Abraham by this Covenant contrary to Gal. 3.16 17 18. nor hath it any likelihood of truth that God would single out so exemplary a believer as Abraham was Rom. 4.18 19. and enter so solemn a Covenant with him barely as a professour of faith which was competent to an hypocrite Nor do I well know in what sense God entred the Covenant with him as â— professour of the faith accepting the Covenant for himself and his sâ—ed For Gods entring the Covenant is no other then his making of it But God did not make it on this condition that Abraham should accept it fâ—r him and his seed but as knowing Abrahams integrity bâ— way of testification of his love and grace to him being so eminent and tried a believer afore this Câ—venant was made with him Nor is it true that all that profess the faith hold in the like tenure are in Covenant and have the Covenâ—nt not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity there being none in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but Abraham and his seed of whom no meer professour of faith much leâ—s his seed except elect or true believer is either Nor was the Covenant ever made to Abrahams or Israels mere natural posterity as it is Evangelical much less enlarged to the posterity natural of every professour of faith Thirdly saith Mr. Bl. We entitle the seed oâ— Abraham as before to spiritual mercies and so the seed of all that hold in the tenure of Abraham to saving grace and justification to life eternal not by an absolute conveyance infallibly to inherit we know though Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant onely shall be saved Rom. 9.27 but upon Gods terms and conditions in
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
of the Covenant of grace entred with our first parents presently upon the fall Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members Disciples and subjects of Christ because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith So that Mr. Bs. opinion is Christ by his law of nature or nations or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith formerly and present disposition beyond the meer bare profession of faith is properly the onely cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian. Against this I argue 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember nor any such law either of nature or nations or positive which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership is false But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it in that which followes 2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional the absolute according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant and it is granted to be onely to the elect in his Appendix answer to the 8th and 9th object and elsewhere and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person not visible churchmembership upon the faith of another The conditional covenant is of justification salvation on condition of faith and this pâ—omiseth not visible Churchmembership but saving graces it promiseth unto all upon condition and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith 3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership because God may be their God and yet they not be visible Churchmembers as he is the God of Abraham of infants dying in the womb of believers at the hour of death yâ—t they not now visible Churchmembers 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership yet being to the seed simply may be true of them though not in infancy and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times it being certain that many are never visible Churchmembers as â—ll still-born infants of believers many that are visible Churchmembers for a time yet fall away and therefore if that promise were granâ—ed and the condition and law put yet infants might not be visible Christian Churchmembers 4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assignes is not sufficient But the antececedent is true For the promise the parents actual believing the law of nature of nations any particular precept of dedicating the childe to God the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born and yet then the childe is no visible Church member Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick That the cause being put the effect is put To this Mr. B. plain Script proof c. pag. 100. Moral causes and so remote causes might have all their being long before the effect so that when the effect was produced there should bee no alteration in the cause though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing I reply this answer deserved a smile 1. For Mr. B. as his words shew before cited makes Christ by his law or covenant-gâ—ant the onely cause efficient therefore it is the next cause according to him and not onely a remote cause 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe is born as after and there is no alteration in the cause though yet it have not produced the effect then it is made by M. B. a cause in act and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect yet not the relative being of causes for so they are together So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law yet they are not the cause adequate and in act which Mr. B. makes them without the being of the effect nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose It is true election Christs death the covenant c. are causes of remission of sins imputation of righteousness salvation before these be but they are not the adequate causes in act For there must be a further act of God forgiving justifying delivering afore these are actually They are causes of the justificabâ—lity the certainty futurity of justification of themselves but not of actual justification without mans faith and Gods sentence which is the next cause A deed before one's born gives him title to an inheritance but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Churchmembership the effect of a moral or legal cause He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue of a grant or legal donation But in this he is mistaken confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it Whereas the Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral to wit the call whereby they are made Churchmembers and that act or signe what ever it be whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law covenant or some donation legal or moral not the state it self of visible Churchmembership Which I further prove thus 5. If visible Churchmembership bee antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it But visible Churchmembership is immediately upon the persons believing professed which is a condition of his being in
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gâ—nerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to â—ll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâ—s or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely â—hildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
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
the Dispute which though imperfect yet both agree that the argument then was â—his They who solemnly entred into Covenant with God were visible churchmembers But the infants of the Jews in the wilderness uncircumcisâ—d did so Ergo. Mr. B. himself in his Corrective sect 5. The Text in Deut. 29. was brought to prove that God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God and consequently made them churchmembers The form here used doth vary the conclusion and the medium and particularly the term who solemnly entred into Covenant with God into this were entred into Covenant with God and in his Correct sect 5. into this God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God between which there is so great a difference that as the argument was framed in the Dispute I should not deny the major but as there it is framed I should deny the consequence it being certain God may enter into Covenant with some to take them for his people and to be their God who neither are nor ever shall be visible churchmembers as elect peâ—sons dying with death-bed repentance not manifested c. But I shall keep to the form as it is here used And 1. I grant that the churchmembership of the infants which did pass into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12. is not repealed For it being an individual accident can neither in congruous sense be said to be repealed nor it being nonâ—ens now is it capable of repeal if the speech were right 2. I grant also that Gods Covenant of grace or his Gospel covenant is not repealed that is changed into another Covenant 3. I grant also that invisible churchmembership is built on the Covenant of grace or the Gospel covenant or is inseparably conjunct with it But this I deny 1. that any law of infants visible churchmembership unrepealed is contained in Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That the mutual Covenant entred into there was the Gospel covenant of grace 3. I say that if it were yet it follows not that infant visible churchmembership is not ceased or in Mr. Bs. dialect repealed But let us view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he Mr. T. denied long together in the face of many thousand people that the infants were entred into any such Covenant against the plain letter of the Text Yet he persisted to deny it without any reason as you may see in the Dispute if out If plain Scripture will not satisfie these men why then do they call for Scripture The words are Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Officers Elders and all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and the stranger that is in thy camp from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be to thee a God c. He that saith infants did not pass into this Covenant I question whether he believe this to be the word of God For how should it be spoken plainer Answ. The thing which I denied was that infants did visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant which Mr. B. affirmed and I gave the reason because they did by no visible sign declare their assent to the Covenant And when Mr. B. replied that the parents did it for them I answered the parents act for them might bind them but yet it is not their act nor that which makes a visible churchmember and sure had I conceived his minor so meant that the infants did by their parents visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant I should have granted it and denied his major They who visibly and solemnly entred into Covenant with God by their parents act for them were visible churchmembers Now this answering of mine he endeavoured then and since to represent with as much disparagement as might bâ— to me though what ever imperfection there were in my answer which I do not deprehend to have been such as Mr. B. hath made it it was in a great part from Mr. Bs. ambiguous use of words and his captious taking advantage from my words and not explaining his own which made me answer somewhat perplexedly But the matter being now in print let 's view the Dispute as iâ— stands in the Books I had said in my Sermon and after in my Antidote sect 5. that thou v. 12. doth not necessaâ—ily comprehend the little ones To this Mr. B. in his Correct pag. 249. replies 1. that he either sets a low value on my conscience or judgement which is not worth answering 2. Do you not know saith he that thou is a collective term usually through the Books of Moses spoken of all the people except any be particularly excepted Answ. I do know it is a collective term yeâ— often used with exception of infants by the matter of the speech though not pâ—rticularly And for this I need go no further then Deut. 29.2 3 4 5. Deut. 30.1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. And in some of these v. 2. thou and thy children v. 6. thine heart and the heart of thy seed v. 19. thou and thy seed Deut. 29.29 us and our children are so expresly distinguished that I am much confirmed that thou Deut. 29.12 doth not compreheâ—d the little ones v. 11. 3. Saith he Are not little ones here named and yet are they excluded Answ. Tâ—ey are named v. 11. yet not meant by thou v. 12. 4. Saith he Why should Moses say here stand your children and wives that not they but you might enter into Covenant Answ. 1. Why should the strangers stand there v. 11. and yet Abraham Isaac and Jacob not their fathers v. 13. 2. I conceive God would have a general appearance for the more solâ—mnity of the thing but that some should act in the name of the whole people and therefore menâ—ion of all v. 11. yet the act of covenanting which was personal v. 12. restrained onely to the representatives 5. Doth not Mr. T. confess that the Jews infants were in Covenant why else were they circumcised which is the seal of the Covenant Answ. 1. Circumcision is no where called in Scripture the Seal of the Covenant and how far I allow it may be seen sect 31. 2. Infants were circumcised not because they were in Covenant those who were not in Covenant were to be circumcised 3. The Jews infants were in the political or domestical Covenant made to Abraham all of them upon condition of their obedience to the law some of them in the Covenant or promise of saving grace made to the elect none of them in the Covenant by their own personal act of covenanting or promising which is that alone which I deny and which
it follows not the children born are not tenants or subjects actually because the unborn are not but it follows the lease and compact of themselves do not make actually tenants or subjects because if they did they would do so the unborn as well as the born so in this point though the arguing be not good the unborn are not actually visible churchmembers therefore the born are not yet this which was my arguing was good By the Covenant which was made with the unborn they were not actually visible churchmembers therefore by the same Covenant of it self without any other cause neither were the born infants actually visible churchmembers and consequently Mr. B. cannot from the making of this Covenant prove the Jewish infants actually visible churchmembers To my saying that an entring into Covenant by parents doth not make a visible member in the Christian Church however not as Mr. B prints it though it did in the Jewish he saith much in the compass of a few lines all which is answered before in several sections chiefly 50 51 52 57. But he saith 3. That this was a Covenant of grace is all the question To which I say though it be a question between us yet it is not all the question For both in the Dispute and in all my writings I denied that the Covenant of grace doth make visible churchmembers and therefore Mr. B. if he would have made good his argument he should have proved that visible churchmembership and the Covenant of grace are inseparably conjunct which Mr. B. failing to do fails in proving the chief point of his argument But let 's view what he saith Correct pag. 251. You add saith he this proves not the Covenant a pure Gospel-covenant not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish nation I answer if by pure you mean that it is not onely a Gospel covenant but that and more it yeeldeth as much as I need for if it be a Gospel covenant no matter though there be more But if you mean that it is not essentially a Covenant of grace I could heap up abundâ—nce of arguments against you you may find many in Mr. Baâ—â— of the Covenant I add That Covenant wherein God taketh them to be his people and engageth himself to be their God is a Covenant of grace for since the fall God entreth himself into no such Covenant with any but in Christ and upon terms of grace But such is this Covenant made with the Israelites and their little ones therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. I mean by pure Gospel Covenant that Gospel Covenant which was without mixture of domestick or political benefits proper to Abrahams seed inheriting which is set down Heb. 8.10 11 12. out of Jâ—r 31.33 and I say that though there is perhaps an Evangelical promise or two intermixed in the enlargement of Moses his discourse yet Deut. 29.13 14 15. the Oath or Covenant there made was noâ— purely Evangelical or essentially a Gospel Covenant but a political legal national Covenant such as God doth not enter into now with all those to whom he vouchsafes Gospel grace And I prove it thus 1. That Covenant which contains promises of the land of Canaan the inheritance of it and prosperity therein is not essentially a Gospel Covenant or a pure Gospel Covenant But so doth that Deut. 29.13 14 15. Ergo. The major is manifest For the Gospel Covenant doth noâ— promise those things The minor is plain from the words as he hath sworn unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But that was a promise of Canaan as appears from Gen. 12.7 13.15 15.8 17.8 22.17 26.3 28.13 14. Deut. 34.5 and many passages in Moses his speech Deut. 29.16 21 23 24 27. Deut. 30.2 5 9 10 16.18 and most evidently the conclusion of it Deut. 30 20. 28.11 2. The Covenant and Oath made then was the same which was said to them before Deut. 29.13 But that was the Covenant of the law in Horeb Deut. 29.1 Now that was not essentially the Covenant of grace as is proved before sect 43. 3. That Oath and Covenant which was of being God to them upon condition of their obedience to his laws given by Moses that is not a pure Gospel covenant but a legal Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 But such is this Deut. 29.8 29. 30.2 8 10 11 14 16. where the judicial and â—eremonial are meant as well as the moral 4. That Oath and Covâ—nant which had the legal threatnings annexed to it was not a pure Gospel covenant or essentiâ—lly the Covenant of grace Gal. 3.10 Buâ— such was this as appears from Deut. 29.20 21 25. 30.18 19. Ergo. What Mr. Ball hath written to prove Mr. Bs. position I omit 1. Because Mr. B. hath not set down the place 2. Because I conceive Mr. B. hath produâ—ed the chief To the first I answer by denying the major and the proof of it and aver that since the fall God did enter into a Covenant with the Jews which was not in Christ upon terms of Gospel grace The minor is true but God covenanted to be their God upon condition of their obedience to the law of Moses as the words Deut. â—9 13 imply that he may establish thee to day for a people to himself by keeping the laws according to the Covenant they entred into He adds 2. That Covenant wherein the Lord promiseth to circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they may live was a Covenant of grace for the Apostle to the Hebrews ch â—0 16 17. so describes it But this was such a Covenant as is written Deut. 30.6 Therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. Besides the exceptions following it should be proved that the promise Deut. 30.6 was the Oath or Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.13 14. and not rather an interlocutory promise on a special occasion to erect their hearts in expectation of mercy upon their return from captivity 3. Saith Mr. B. That which St. Paul makes the words of the righteousness of faith was the Covenant of grace But this is such as is evident by comparing Rom. 10.6 7 8. with Deut. 30.12 13 14. But to this you give two sorry answers being resolved to say somewhat 1. It is sâ—oken of the command Answ. 1. And is it not also of the promise foregoing 2. And is not this from as great a mistake as the other to think that Gods command is no part of his Covenant That he will be their God is his promise but is that all the Covenant That they shall be his people and so take him for their God and resign themselves to him this is both commanded by him and covenanted by them Answ. The answer was right that the speech of Moses Deut. 30.12 13 14. however accommodated by Paul to another purpose is meant of the word of the law the commandments and
statuâ—es which were written in that very book of the law v. 10. which Moses delivered and it was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it Which cannot be meant thus Who shall ascend into heaven to bring Christ from above or who shall descend into the deep that is to bring Christ again from the dead that we may hear Christ thus brought down and up and do it it were not good sense nor any way congruous to the speech of Moses And to Mr. Bs. reply 1. I say it is not spoken of the promise for that is not a thing for us to hear and do but for God 2. Though the command may be a part of the Covenant in a large sense as it includes all that pertains to a Covenant yet in strict and exact sense a Covenanâ— being an aggregate of promises the command is not part of the Covenant 3. However it is no part of the Covenant and Oath which God swâ—re Deut. 29.13 For what God sware was that which he would do not what he appointed them to do and consequently no part of the Covenant of grace for that is of what God will do for us our faith though it be the condition of the thing promised yet iâ— it not the Covenant oâ— grace 4. The word Deut. 30.14 cannot be meant of the Covenant of grace sith the condition is the hearing and doing of all the law of Moses that they might keep Gods commandments and his statutes and his judgements which reach to judicial and câ—remonial precepts as well as moral that thou mayest live and multiply and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it Locus ille indubitanteâ— de obedienâ—ia totius legis loquitur David Pareus castig Bellarm. tom 4. degrat lib. arb l. 5. c. 6. 2. Saith Mr. B. You answer it is frequent with the Apostle to accommodate words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they were taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them as Rom. 10.18 Answ. A man would think here you plainly mean that it is frequent with the Apostle to wrest and pervert the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense and you can mean no better except you mean that he alludeth to the words making use of the meer phrase without the sense and indeed that is usual in common speech and such is that Rom. 10.18 But that he doth not barely allude to this in Deut. 30. is left undeniable â— He bringeth it in v 6. as Gods description of the righteousness of faith c. having before said Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law c. 2. He addeth the very exposition to every sentence who shall ascend into heaven that is saith he to bring Christ down from above And who shall descend into the deep that is to bring Christ again from the dead 3. He fully expresseth it v. 8. But what saith it The word is nigh thee c. that is the word of faith which we preach that if thou confess with thy mouth c. Is not here a full discovery that the Apostle expoundeth and not onely alludeth to these words Name mee one place in the New Testament that more evidently speaks in an expository way of any Text in the Old Answ. As much is said by the most godly and learned Protestant interpreters of this place as by me and therefore if I be chargeable with accusing the Apostle of wresting and perverting the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense they are likewise so chargeable Beza annot ad Rom. 10.8 By this term the word Moses understandeth the law which God by his voyce published all his people bearing so that they might pretend no ignorance when they had the tables of it described and so might every one recite it out of their mouth and might have it within as it were engraven in their knowledge and mind But what Moses spake of the law all that Paul accommodates to the Goppel by allusion that at length by the Gospel he may teach us to enjoy that indeed which the law promiseth and be fâ—eed from that which it threatneth Diodati annoâ— on Rom. 10.6 St. Paul maketh use of this passage though spoken in another sense The new Annot. on Rom. 10.8 â—y the word Deut. 30.14 Moses understood the law which the Lord published with his own voice and Paul applies it to the preaching of the Gospel which was the perfection of the Law On v. 18. This place is taken out of Psal. 19.4 and is properly meant of that knowledge of God which all men may have by contemplation of the heavens and the câ—eatures therein yet it is by the Apostle very fitly applied to the sound of the word preached by the Apostles â—rapp on Rom. 10.8 Moses meant it of the Law but it more fitly agreeth to the Gospel Piscater analys Paulus alludiâ— ad verba Mosis Deut. 30.14 Willet on Rom. 10. qu. 10. Some think that Moses in that place Deut. 30.12 directly speaketh of the law according to the literal sense and St Paul by a certain allusion applieth that unto faith which Moses uttereth of the law So Theodoret Chrysostome Occumenius Likewise Tostatus upon the place Paul by a certain agreeâ—ent hath translated this place and applied it unto faith Vatablus also saith that Paul followeth not Moses sense but some words Yet Pareus inclineth to think St. Paul here useth but an allusion to that place of Moses dub 6. Daniel Heinsius Exercit. sacr in Rom 10.6 7. E Rom. 10.18 patet rerum esse quod non semel alibi â—â—nuimus sed a magnis observatum Theologis in epistolam praesertim ad Hebraos meninimus novi faderis scriptores verba veteris eleganter venust non semel aliò tranâ—ferre Quod tam usitatum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut viâ— ullus fiâ— Homeri versus cuâ—us verba non mutato sensu usurpentur In his autem quod Matthaeus c. 2. v. 18. â— Jerem. 31.15 quod B. Hieronymus vult usurpavit neque pauca sunt in psalmis quae pro instituto suo Paulus maxima cum venustate usurpat Quâ—d nec mirum est cum utrobique idem spiritus qui tanquam propria ac sua ante dicta usurpavit And yet none of these Authors did conceive Paul to have wrested and perverted the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense nor doth my speech infer any such accusation Nor do I mean that Paul alludeth to the words making use of the meer phrase without the sense but that he accommodates words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them which is no wresting of them To the reason of Mr. B. I answer To the first that I do not find that the Apostle v. 6. brings it in as Gods description of the righteousness of
yet so perfect in all actual energy of compleat members and so neither in all actual priviledges of such compleat members I suppose what ever others deny this way yet our opposites do not deny that Church-covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such so that till that bee they are not so incorporated as to bee fit for Church dispensations or acts of peculiar Church power over each other more then over others over whom they can have no power unless they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto as reason will evince Answ. This reason as I conceive goes upon these suppositions which Mr. C. conceives will not be denied 1. That there is a Church-covenant over and besides Gods covenant of Gospel grace and mans believing and professing of faith in him through Jesus Christ whereby the members of a visible political Church do engage themselves to walk together in Christian communion and to submit to their rulers and to each other in the Lord. Now such a Church covenant though I confess it may be according to prudence at some times and in some cases usefull to keep persons who otherwise would bee unsetled in a fixed estate of communion yet I find not any example of such a Church covenant in the old or new Testament and in some cases it may insnare mens consciences more then should be 2. That the Covenant of grace whether Gods promise to us or ours to God invested with Church covenant that is as I conceive Mr. Cs. meaning to be together with it is the form of a visible political Church which gives it the being of such a Church as such so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations or Church power In which I conceive are many mistakes 1. That the Sacraments are seals or church dispensations are committed to the Church which are not committed to the Church which consists of men and women but to the guides and over-seers of it 2. That Church power or as Mr. Cotton in his treatise of the keyes of the Church the power of the keyes is committed or given to the Church in which are mistakes that either censures Ecclesiastical or as the Schoolmen and Canonists term it the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical are meant by the keyes Matth. â—6 19 or that they were given to Peter as representing the Church the Scripture doth no where commit Church dispensations or power to the Church but to the guides and overseers and rulers of the Church for the Church 3. That till a company of believers be a visible poliâ—ical Church they are not fit for church dispensations or censures which I conceive not true there being examples in Scripture of their breaking bread together Acts 2. who were not such a political visible Church of fixed members under fixed officers united by Church covenant as Mr. C. describes Nor were Christ and his Apostles such a Church when first they did break bread Nor did Christ appoint Baptism Matth. 28.19 to be onely in and with such a Church nor do the exampls Acts 2. or 8. or 10 or 16 or 18. intimate any such condition but rather the contrary 4. That the covenant of grace with a church covenant fore mentioned give the being of such a visible Church political But the Covenant of grace of it self doth not give any actual being it is a promise of something future and therefore puts nothing in actual being extra causas but assures it shall bee by some cause in act which in this thiâ—g is the calling of God from which the Church and each member have their being as from the efficient from faith in the heart as the form of the invisible Church and each member from profession of faith as the form of the visible Church and each member as Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 7. that which makes it political is the union under officers and lawes without a Church covenant it is a political visible Church if there bee but at present an union or conjunction in the same profession of Christian faith under officers and lawes of a number of Christians they are a Church visible political though they should be dissolved the next hour and though they enter into no covenant of Church-fellowship or subjection for the future and therefore church covenant is neither of the form of such a true Church nor as Mr. Weld in answer to Mr. Rathbard of a pure Church but it is a good means in prudence to conserve a Church so constituted that they may not divide and scatter from each other but may continue in communion 5. That by this incorporating they have peculiar Church power over each other and without tht Church covenant they can have no power But neither do I conceive this true For the power whiâ—h christians have is to reprove admonish censure shun society chuse officers reject false teachers c. this power they have by the laws of Christ without a church covenant 6. That Church dispensations and acts of peculiar Church power are limited to those particular persons who joyn with us by Church covenant But this I conceive not right nor agreeable to such Scriptures as these 1 Cor. 3.22 10.17 12.13 3. It is supposed by Mr. C. that the Covenant with Church covenant gives the priviledge of a member of such a church body suitable to its memberly estate as is this of the Church initiatory seal But in this sure Mr. C. is quite out and besides their own practise who do not give the initiatory seal after they are members by church covenant but baptize them or suppose them baptized in infancy and then joyn them us members by church covenant now if church covenant did give the priviledge of the initiatory seal then they should first enter into church covenant and then have the initiatory seal or be baptized 4. It is supposed by Mr. C. that there are such little churchmembers by such a covenant as are to have the priviledge of the initiatory seal though they be not compleat members so as to have the actual priviledge of the after seal and other church power But sure the Scripture acknowledgeth in the Christian church no members but what partake of the Lords Supper as well as baptism as is manifest from 1 Cor. 10.17 1 Cor. 12.13 and have church power as others of their sex and rank Now all these suppositions though they were granted except the last would not prove the thing Mr. C. aims at and that which he makes the main reason from whence he would infer the conclusion namely the Covenant with Church covenant gives being and priviledge of the initiatory seal makes against him infants making no such Church covenant nor according to their own discipline doth their parents Church covenant serve instead of the childs sith afore the child can bee admitted to communion of breaking of bread and other power
they being enunciations in the indicative mood if meant so should bee false which to impute to God would asperse him with falshood and injustice which is horrendum dictu And in my apprehension it savours of ignorance which Mr. Rutherford saith pag. 91. Nor is it true that the promise is made to the aged upon condition of believing The promise is made to them absolutely whether they believe or not But the blessing of the promise and Covenant of grace is given and bestowed onely conditionally if they believe The promise is absolutely made it 's called conditional from the thing corditionally given For either I have lost my wits or else a conditional promise is a conditional pâ—oposition expressing something that shall be if some other thing bee put and sure a conditional proposition is so termed from the words not from the event A promise is a promise absolute or conditional as soon as the words are spoken long before the thing promised is given yea though it be never given The giving or not giving upon performing or not performing the condition may make the promise true or false determinately but not conditional or absolute I forbear to uncover any further Mr. Rutherfurds nakedness in this speech and reset him to Mr. Baxter to correct him for that speech nor is it true that the promise is not made to the aged upon condition of believing And as for his speeches of the saving of infants of believing parents dying in infancy and our giving evidence thereof there is so much said before of it especially against Mr. Baxter Sect. 73 74. and elsewhere that I need say no more here As for what he saith of our want of warrant to pray for them without their being in Covenant though it hurt not me who grant of so many as are elect that they are in Covenant yet I think I have a warrant to pray by a general command 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3. and in faith by a general promise Matth. 7.7 8. the knowledge of Gods goodness and the goodness of the thing asked In the rest of the Chapter Mr. Rutherfurd endeavours to find a way according to which infants of believers may be said to bee within Covenant and the words Acts 2.39 meant of them and their title to Baptism thence inferred for which end hee useth many words with distinctions which are vain without good sense or good consistency or any thing to his purpose Four ways he conceives infants of believers may be said to be in Covenant 1. In that God maketh the promise of a new heart to them but this he grants is true onely of the elect and not of all commanded to be baptized Acts 2.38 39. And pag. 86. he granted persons invisibly in Covenant without profession are not warrantably to be baptized 2. In that God promiseth forgiveness of sins and eternal life upon condition of repentance and faith Thus infants may be in the Covenant of grace but no otherwise then or rather not so much as professed unbelievers to whom it is tendred who yet are not to be baptized and if the promise be meant so Acts 2.39 it proves not a right to Baptism thence till the condition be performed which when infants declare they do I shall baptize them 3. That they are in Covenant because they are under the command for thus he speaks pag. 94. The Covenant must be considered in abstracto and formally in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace and so it contains onely the will of precept In which he is mistaken 1. in that he saith the Covenant formerly in the letter is a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such a speech is not the Covenant in any sense much less formally in the letter in abstracto such a speech as this men are saved if they believe or the way of saving men is upon condition of believing is not the Covenant sith it is not a promise but a Covenant is formally a promise or an aggregate of promises 2. In that he saith the Covenant formally contains only the will of precept whereas the Covenant formally contains not at all the will of precept the will of precept containing onely the command of what should be done by another but the Covenant is a promise of what the Covenanter will do the one is exprest in the imperative mood the other in the indicative nor is the will of precept in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such an expression is no command at all but a declaration of event 3. In that he saith so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace which he seems to mean thus they all and they onely But sure either infants are not at all this way in the Covenant of grace who never hear the command propounded to them or if they be they are no more in it then the Americans out of the visible Church who never heard of Christ nor so much as professed unbelievers to whom the Gospel hath been preached and therfore this way infants have not right to baptism So that this speech of Mr. Rutherfurd hath as many of his expressions nothing but ignorance and impertinency 4. A person may be said to be in Covenant in that he is really covenanted and engaged by his consented profession to fulfil the Covenant as Mr. Rutherfurd speaks pag. 92. This way I grant intitles to Baptism but sure infants are not so in Covenant nor is the meaning so Acts 2.39 where the promise is Gods promise to us not our promise to God nor is this the Paedobaptists plea when they argue infants are in Covenant therefore to be baptized for they mean by being in Covenant that God hath promised to be a God to them as the seed of believers Gen. 17.7 And therefore Mr. Rutherfurd hath not yet shewed any way according to which infants of believers are intitled to Baptism by vertue of the Covenant of grace or from Acts 2.38 39. notwithstanding all his blooding of it to use his own term Let 's view what is in Ch. 14. Neither is it true that God saith persons should be circumcised because of Gods promise Gen. 17.7 Nor that women were circumcised in the males nor was Peter sent to baptize all the circumcised nor are infants to bee Baptized by the ground of Circumcision nor is there any thing Acts 2.38 39. that saith because the same promise is made to fathers and to children must infants bee baptised Neither do I know what Mr. Rutherfurd understands by Theological essence or formal effects nor do I conceive any truth or sense in Mr. Rutherfurds talk of Circumcision and Baptism being the same in the substance nature and Theological essence and in the formal effects much less that the Lord hath any such argument Gen. 17.7 And though I should grant all are to bee
of me to say That the promise of saving benefits was made to infants that were not â—lest Answer My answer is the same now that it was then and having upon occasion of this charge reviewed the notes of the dispute which though very imperfect I have yet by me I find not but that in the greatest part of the dispute I answered Mr. B. rightly though he have most shamefully and unbrotherlike misrepresented me to the world and made a noyse in the world as if he had driven me to gross absurdities which having acquitted my self from in my Prâ—cursor Sect. 17. he replies nothing to that Section which I take to be a tacite confession of his unworthy abusing of me And I do think it necessary to tell the world that I find so little of brotherly love to me or common ingenuity in his insolent carriages towards me at the Dispute and his relations of me and of the Dispute in print that I think I should have found better dealing from a Jesuite than from him And though I take him to be a godly man and an excellent Preacher and Writer in practicall points yet I find him to be but a superficiall Disputer and a slight interpreter of Scripture But to the point Four things Mr. B. it seems mislikes in my answer 1. That I said That the promise of saving grace is not conditionall To declare my self more fully it is requisite I should shew what promise of saving grace I make not conditionall There is the saving grace of redemption regeneration justification remission of sins adoption glorification The condition imagined as presupposed to the promise of saving grace that is to the fulfilling of it is either the well using naturall abilities as foregoing the promise of conversion and regeneration or faith and repentance as foregoing justification remission of sins adoption glorification The promise of saving grace may be said to be conditionall in respect of these later saving graces and the conditions mentioned yet in respect of the promisers intention and act in the event certain necessary and infallibly to be performed by the person to whom the promise is made and in this sense I grant the promise of saving graces conditionall that is that God hath promised to none the saving graces of justification remission of sins adoption but on condition of true repentance and faith nor glorification but on condition of perseverance therein yet that these conditions are not uncertain in the event or left to the persons to whom the promise is made to do by themselves but by Gods intention and actings certainly to be accomplished or it may be said to be conditionall that is â—o as that the condition of any of these graces is made the well using naturall abilities or that the conditions of these later saving graces are uncertain in the event notwithstanding the promisers intention and acting and thus I deny the promise of saving grace to be conditionall More briefly I deny the promise of regeneration and conversion to presuppose some well using our naturall abilities or that justification remission of sins adoption glorification are promised upon condition of our repentance faith obedience perseverance left by God to be performed by us and not promised as certain in the event which is the Arminian sense yet deny that the promise of justification remission of sins is absolute so as that God promiseth that an elect person shall be justified or have remission of sins without a fore faith which is charged on the Antinomians The second thing which Mr. B. mislikes in my Answer is That though some parts of the Covenant be conditional yet it is all together that is called the Covenant But this speech if it be liable to exception Mr. B. must except against the holy Ghost who doth expresly call all together the covenant Heb. 8.10 saying This is the Covenant which I will make and having recited all together he adds v. 13. in that he saith a new covenant And the like is Heb. 10.16 The third thing misliked in my answer is And the leading promise being noâ— conditionall therefore the covenant is not conditional But there is no just cause of excepting against this sith â—t is usuall and that according to a Logick Rule to determinate from the more famous part or chief part as a visible Church is called Holy or of Saints even in Scripture 1 Cor. 1.2 from the better part a field of corn where is much tare Do not Paedobaptists usually call the covenant Gen. 17. the eovenant of grace though there be other promises than of saving grace and what promise is made of saving grace there is made under the covert of words expressing other things And to shew that there is reason for what I said I urge 1. That the promise of writing the Lawes of God in the heart Heb. 8.10 is not onely the leading promise but also it is the comprehensive promise including or inferring all the rest for therefore God will be a God to them be mercifull to their unrighteousness because he will write his Lawes in their heart to those and those onely he promiseth the later to whom he promised the former Yea it seemeth to be the principall thing God aimed at in the new Covenant to assure that he would not write his lawes in stone as he did before but write them in their heart 2. That where Lukeâ— 72 73. he puts it to be in this which I take to be absolute that he would give to us that being delivered from the hand of our enemies without fear we should serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life v. 73 74 75. The fourth thing misliked in my answer is that I said That it was a gross palpable error of Mr. B. to say that the promise of saving benefits was made to Infants that were not elect If I understand Mr. M. he counted it a gross error when he disclaimed this asserâ—ion That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seed Defence of his Sermon pag. 116. and Mr. G. when in his Vindic. Pâ—â—dob p. 12. he said of this conclusion that infants are taken into covenant with their parents in respect of saving graces You know the conclusion in that sense is so manifestly against Protestants principles and experience that no Protestant can hold it But Mr. B. it 's like will not be convinced by mens sayings let us try what we can do by Arguments 1. The promise of saving benefits is made onely to those to whom saving benefits are bestowed But to elect infants onely they are bestowed Ergo. The Major is manifest to them that acknowledge God to be true and faithfull it being manifest falshood and unfaithfulness to promise and not to perform But it is certain by experience and Scripture that God saves none but the Elect Therefore it is a gross and palpable error as charging God with lying to say that his
condition on his part yet not in esse but in fieri agreeing to the terms of Christ prâ—posed expecting salvation if ever he have grace to perform his engagements and yeildeth to be damned if not 2. That the digâ—adiations of Paeâ—obaptists one against another are by Gods just judgement usefull to shew their iniquity in â—ressing oâ—hers to subscribe to their Dictates which they oppose one anothâ—r in 3. That they do evidently prove that the argument is not good which thâ—y bâ—ing for infant-baptism to prove their covenant-right to the seal For if infants be onely in the outward covenant and baptism seal another covenant then title to this seal comes not by bare interest in that If it be a mutuall engaging seal then it is no seal of an infant who doth not ingage if it seal the condiâ—ional covenant and it belongs to all then all may be seaâ—ed if covenant interest intitle to the seal if baptism seal absolutely to none till he beliâ—ve then baptism is no compleat seal and so no Sacrament to a man till he believe if it seal the threatning as well as the promise thâ—n those shâ—uld have the Sacrament to whom the threatning belongs as well as those to whom the promise if it seal absolutely onely Gods generall truth then it seals nones particular interest and then none can claim title to it 4. That most of their speeches are meer dictates without shew of proof and that from the metaphor of the seal of the covenant which the Scripture no where useth and Mr B. thinks it the way to lose our selves and not to edifie to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress on it As for what he wisheth me in his Apol. against Mr. Bl. Sect. 80. to take notice of it I reply to what he saith against my distinction of actuall aptitudinal seal I think it not worth while to reply to it siâ—h I used that distinction onely to shew how Bellarmin might be answered without Mr Blâ—kes way of conditionall seal It is little material whether the Sacrament be called a seal actuall or aptitudinall or no seal at all the explication of my meaning before given is enough to justifie my words against any thing Mr B. hath or can object As for that which he saith That the question is not about the internall seal of the Spirit but onely the externall seal of the Sacrament which are two distinct things I answer the question is about my words whether they be true which deny that God sealeth in every right administration of baptism and affirm that he sealeth not but when it is admistred to a believer And though it be true the seal of Baptism and the Spirit be two distinct things yet I say God never sealeth by Baptism without the Spirit nor can baptizing without the sealing of the Spirit be rightly according to Scripture language and truth called Gods sealing Let 's see what Mr. B. opposeth His opinion I prove unsound thus 1. If the Sacrament rightly administred to an hypocrite have all in it that is essentiall to Gods actuall sealing then it is his actuall sealing c. But c. Therefore c. A seal is an engaging or obliging sign or at least a testifying He that actually useth a sign to such an end doth actually seal Now 1. God useth this sign 2. And to this end He useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his Name at his command for immediatly he never useth or applyeth it to any 2. He commandeth it to be used to this end to engage himselfe to make good his promises For 1. To what other end should God command them 2 Else he should command them to be used to one end to one and to another end to another which cannot be shewed that he hath done I speake of the end of the Ordinance not of the event which God hath decreed shall follow Answer The Minor of this Argument is denied And to the proof I say 1. That it is not alwayes true That he that actually useth a sign to such an end doth actually seal For if actuall seaâ—ing be actuall assuring â—as it is conceived to be 〈◊〉 Rom. 4.11 whence this phrase is taken the actuall sealing must be denominated not onely from the end but also from the event as if God use a sign to comfort he doth not actually comfort except the person be comforted 2. That it is not universally true that God useth the sign while his Ministers use it in his name at his command but then when they represent his person As for instance when Aaron offered sacrifice burned Incense c. which were to signifie Christ they did these things in Gods name that is to his honor at his command yet I do not conceive it can be said that God did offer Sacrifice or burn Incense And for baptism though I confesse it is commanded by God to be done by his Ministers and that it is to be done into his name yet it is no where intimated as if they did it in stead of God or Christ as their act 3. But let it be granted that baptism done rightâ—y according to Gods command by his Ministers is his act how is it proved that it is used by God to this end to engage himself to make good his promises For my part I read not any where in Scripture that God used baptism for this end to engage himself to make good his promises nor doth Mr. B. prove that end by any passage of Scripture And to his reasons I answer 1. To the first though neither I nor Mr. B. know any orher end yet doth not this prove that that is the end Besids if I should assign no other end yet it were enough to answer Mr. B. his question to say it is to try obedience as in Abrahams offering his son But Mr. B. might easily know if he would heed the Scripture that there are other ends of God in commanding baptism to wit the owning of Christ as our Lord 1 Cor. 1.13 Gal. 3.27 joyning all Christians into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 Ephes. 4 5· The 19 and 27 Atricle of the Curch of England acknowledge this to be one end of baptism to be a sign of profession and to be a mark of difference of Christians from others To the second though it were granted to be absurd that God should command the Sacraments to be used to one end to one and to another end to another yet this doth no whit prove that this is the end which Mr. B assigns for the fore-going reasons Yet sure if infant-baptism were granted baptism must needs be to one end to wit a sign of profession to the aged which it is not nor can be to an infant Lastly if it yeelded that the end of baptism were to engage God to make good his promisses it is a good argument against Mr. B. tâ—at God seals not actually to an hyppocrite sith he
came to free his whole Church from that visible Church-membership it had then by natural descent and consequently to alter the visible Church membership of infants into a more perfect way by setting up a Church throughout the world not by carnal descent in one nation but in a spiritual way by faith in Christ through the preâ—ching of the Gospel And I must tell Mr. B. of Circumcision and the Law it 's bondage and Tutorage whether it like him or not sith infants had no where else visible Church-membership then in the Jewish Church whereby they were in bondage to Circumcision and the Law Nor can I tell what ordinance of admitting visible Church-members unrepealed he means besides that of Circumcision and therefore he must speak of these if he speak of the visible church-membership in the Jewish Church which had these annexed 3. Yet further saith he when this text tels us that Christ came to redeem us from under the Law and the bondage of minority is it not a clear proof that he hath brought us into a far better state then we were in before and hath advanced us in his family as the Heir at age is advanced And can any man of common sence and conscience expound this of his casting all their infants out of his family Christs Church is his family and doth the Heir use to be freed by being cast out of the family Why may he not as well say that all the body of the Jewish nation are now delivered by being cast out of the Church or Family of Christ Is it not more agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here to affirm that certainly they are so far from being turned out of the family or Church of Christ that by Christ they are now brought into a far higher state and made members of a far better Church then that particular Church of the Jews was Answ. It is true Christ hath advanced his Church into a far better state then it was in before and that is the reason why infants are left out I say not cast out of his visible Church For whereas the particular Church of the Jews in which alone infants were visible Church-members was as well a civil Commonwealth as a Church of God and was by descent of birth and by proselytism made up of all in the Commonwealth it seemed good to God to make his Church more spiritual consisting onely of them who owned Christ as their Lord and therefore till infants do so they are no parts of the visible Church Christian. And thus men of common sence and tender consciences may and must expound the Apostle it being agreeable to his scope if they will speak rightly And the body of the Jewish nation I mean the greatest or most considerable part if embracing the Gospel they had been baptized their children being not baptized till they professed had been rightly said to be delivered from the minority and bondage they were in before in the sense before declared Mr. B. adds 4. And if any yet say that it is not the infants but onely the parents that are thus advanced by Christ to a better state is not this text plain against him For the Apostle extendeth redemption here to those that were under the Law and who knoweth not that infants were under the Law And if it did not belong to each individual under the Law yet it cannot in any tolerable sence be denied to belong to each species or age yet I can prove that conditionally this deliverance was to each individual person in the sense as God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquity Act. 3. last And now judge I pray whether this be not a pittifull ground for men to prove the repeal of Gods mercifull gift and ordinance of infants Church-membership Answ. That which I say is that the particular Church of the Jews being dissolved a Church of a better constitution is by God erected and so the Church of God is advanced by Christ into a better state that is from carnal to spiritual which necessitates the leaving infants out of the visible Church Christian till they be disciples or believers and this is a better estate to infants as well as parents sith that Church-state did engage them to Circumcision and the Law which were their bondage Nevertheless Mr. Bs. proof is not to be allowed For it follows not redemption is extended to those that were under the Law therefore to each individual or to each species or age the term being indefinite and the speech true if any under the Law and those of one species or age be redeemed as in like sort when God is said to choose the poor the weak things of this world this proves not universal election of the poor or weak sith the terms being indefinite they need not be understood universally except in necessary matter I remember once in a Dispute it was urged thus for universal redemption Christ came to redeem them that were under the Law all are under the Law Ergo To which I answered by denying the minor producing Gal. 4.21 Rom. 6.14 c. though I might hâ—ve answered also by denying the indefinite term to contain all But if Mr. Bs. reasoning be good that it cannot in any tolerable sence he denied to belong to each species or age because they were under the Law it will follow that it cannot be denied in any tolerable sence to each Jew for they were under the Law and then it will follow thaâ— the Jews were universally redeemed that they might reâ—eive the adoption of sons And it seems by his words in his Parenthesis Mr. B. holds a conditional deliverance for each individual person meant Gal. 4.5 concerning which besides what I have said before Sect. 33 34 35. I adde this censure of Mr. John Collings Provoc provocatus in answer to Boatman ch 5. pag. 61. Universal redemption conditional Covenant Two Covenants one absolute another conditional are notions in Divinity I do not understand and think them hardly reconcilable to truth if to sense they are the canting language of those that would supply Franciscus de Sancta Clara's plaâ—e as to reconciling us and Arminians and are no better then Arminianism minced for the better digestion But those words of Mr. B. that God sent his son Jesus to turn every one of them from their iniquities Acts 3. last in the sense he can prove as he thinks that conditionally this deliverance was for each individual person do import that he holds that Christ was sent not onely for universal redemption conditionally but also for universal conversion conditionally Which if true then Christ blesseth all by turning every one from his iniquity Acts 3.26 conditionally and then unless he can assign another condition then the act of a mans free-will he must hold universal grace of conversion and conversion by Christs blessing conditional upon the concurrence of mans free-will which is indeed the venome of Arminianism
An unmoved position That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church that is faith Hudson vindic ch 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian and a member of Christs visible Kingdom because â—he form viz. visible believing common to all Christians and all members is found in him And this may be proved out of Scripture which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of faâ—th in respect of which they are termed believers 1 Tim. 2.12 Acts 4.32 5.14 c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another of the parent church c. It is a meer novel device of Papists who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds and Paedobaptists who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties the Church their owners the nation believing their parents next or remote faith Which is a gross and absurd conceit For that in profession alone makes visible believers which makes in reality true believers But that 's a mans own faith Hab. 2.4 not anothers therefore a mans own and not anothers profession of faith makes a visible believer Again the form denominating must be inherent or in or belong to the person denominated so as that there is some union of iâ— to him but there is no inherence or union of anothers faith to an infant Ergo. Naturally there is none nor legally if there be â—et him that can shew by what grant of God it is Infants may have civil right to their parents goods a natural interest in their mothers milk parents and masters may have power over the bodies labour c. of their children and servants they have no power to convey Faith or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent But this conceit is so ridiculous that I need spend no more words to refute iâ— I subsume Infants make no profession of faith they are onely passive and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christiâ—ns as experience shews yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry and as they are able oppose it Ergo. To this faith Mr. M. I answer even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members though they were visible members of the Jewish Church But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can that the same thing to wit natural birth and Jewish descent and dwelling which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church doth denominate a christian visible church-member And till he do this the force of the argument remains 5. I argue If infants bee visible Christian church-members then there may be a visible Church christian which consists onely of infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive though not organical But this is absurd Ergo Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member To this Mr. M saith I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behinde them Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abrahams or Israels house which they might be though but infants But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ which infants cannot do and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may bee onely of infants of believers whereof not one is a believer by profesâ—ion not so of ths Jewish church 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose though it never were or should bee so in the event sith the absurdity followes upon that grant as well as the actual event 6. I argue If infants be visible Christian church-members then there is some cause thereof But there is none Ergo. The major is of it self evident every thing that is hath some cause by which it is The minor is proved thus If infants be visible-Christian church members by some cause then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some onely But of neither Ergo. I presume it will be said of some sith they account it a priviledge of believers infants But to the conttary there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members Mr. B. plain Script c. part 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause not so much as instrumental properly of the childes holiness by which he means visible Church-membership but he makes it a condition which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non of childrens holiness I answer saith he fully If this be the question what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness It is the actual believing of the parent For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings it is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing or of actual faith it were vain to say that the promise to our infants is oneâ—y to faith in the habit The habit is for the act yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act therefore it is both faith in the habit or potentia proxima and in the act that is necessary But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed either in actu procreandi vel tempore nativitatis vel baptismatis It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly or else he hath no habit of faith and hath not fallen away from Christ but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer and then the said act will follow in season and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth It is not therefore the meer bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift but the former act and present disposition Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onely cause efficient Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds
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
from whom after the flesh they did proceed specially Abraham Isaac and Jacob the word is for the Fathers Then election must needs be understood of an external grace of the Covenant whereby God chose this nation to himself according to that of Moses Deut. 7.6 unless we are elect in Abraham to salvation and not in Christ. And Abraham Isaac and Jacob are our mediators of reconciliation and when the Apostle saith We are â—ccepted in the beloved Ephes. 1.6 it is to be understood of acceptation in Abraham and we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ but Abraham Isaac and Jacob we are not for their sakes beloved to salvation Answ. 1. That the election Deut. 7.6 must be understood of an external grace of the Covenant needs bettr proof then Mr. Bl. brings For God may be said to choose a nation and yet not choose every one of the nation it being usual as Mr Cobbet observes Just. vindic part 2. ch 2. that things said of a people collectively are meant of the greater or better part distributively 2. The absurdities will press Mr. Bl. as well as me For if as Mr. Bl. saith the election and love be to a meer visible Churchstate and condition we may say by the same reason which he useth We are elected in Abraham to Churchstate and not in Christ he is our mediator of reconciliation we are accepted in Abraham the beloved we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ but Abraham Isaac and Jacob which are absurd We are not beloved for their sakes in the sense in which we are beloved in Christ to visible Churchstate any more then to salvation 3. Though we are not for their sakes or for them beloved to salvation yet the Jews are 4. We are elect in Christ as the first-born among many brethren Rom. 8.29 as the head of many members as the mediator the second Adam by whom the life we are elected to is conveyed in which sense we are said to be accepted or favoured he is the mediator of reconciliation by his bloud we conclude our prayers in and through him as the High Priest of our profession But they that say the Jews are beloved to salvation for the fathers sakes or for Abraham Isaac and Jacob need not nor do mean it in these senses but thus they are beloved to salvation by reason of Gods Covenant to them Exod. 32.13 Levit. 26.42 their fidelity to him Nehem. 9.8 so that Abraham was called the friend of God James 2.23 which are no whit derogatory to the prerogative of Christ in whom alone we are elected reconciled favoured heard as the onely begotten son of God and the alone mediator between God and man What Mr. Bl. desires me to consider that Moses interceded for the whole body of Israel Exod. 32.13 and that God promiseth to remember the whole nation under suffering Levit. 26.42 is nothing for Mr. Bls. purpose For if it were granted that Moses interceded for the whole nation yet it follows not that Gods promise was to every individual of that nation Levit. 26.42 And if it were yet it follows not that it must be so Rom. 11.26 27 28 29. Nor if it were granted though the contrary is to me more probable doth it follow that the election love gifts calling cannot be to salvation but must be into a meer visible Churchstate and condition or as Mr. Bl. terms it external grace of the Covenant sith there is no absurdity that I know of to conceive that at the calling of the Jews every individual Jew shall be a true believer and saved Nor doth my opinion impute any errour to Moses or Paul but Mr. Bl. doth in this as in other things egregiously triffle as one that writes without heed of what he saith My 8th argument is this If the ingraffing both of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief then the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith But the former is true vers 30 31 32. Ergo the later Mr. S. rather flights then answers this argument For he takes no notice of that part of the medium the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief which shews what mercy it was by which they were ingraffed to wit converting and reconciling mercy proper to the elect as the very opposition of the terms shews v. 32. they were before shut up in unbelief by severity now by mercy they are brought to faith and favour but tels me this proposition is unsound on which the argument is built what ever is a fruit of Gods mercy is from election and ingraffing into the invisible Church because that health c. are fruits of Gods mercy But â—t is not true the proposition on which the argument is built is as hee â—â—ith but thus That mercy which doth take away the shutting up in unbelief is converting reconciling mercy from election whose effect is the ingraffing into the visible Church by giving saving faith ergo if the ingraffing c. And this Mr. S. hath not disproved nor do I think can be disproved Mr. Bl. saith He hath answered this before and onely desires mee to give him a Comment on Hos 1.6 9. But first if he have answered this before then his answer is also refelled and it is shewed that the mercy here is more then the priviledge of a visible Churchstate 2. Mr. Bls. desire I shall not reâ—use to yeild to when I finde any argument drawn by him from Hos. 1.6 9. to make void my argument from Rom. 11.30 31 32. But to my additional confirmation of my arguments in my Apology p. 73. that the whole scope and series of the Chapter and the frequent mention from v. 1. to 13. of termes importing election reprobation and their consequents with the Apostles exclamation v. 33. do fully shew the ingraffing to be into the invisible Church by election and giving faith Mr. Bl. replies thus Mr. T. might do well to tell us what ingraffing is by election I take that to be an immanent act in God which is terminated in himself and not on the creature such expressions do not sute with Mr. T. his high pretendings to scholastical learning Answ. Where and when I made high pretendings to scholastical learning if Mr. Bl. had informed mee it might have done mee good to humble mee for such folly but this dealing of Mr. Bl. by â—uips to mis-represent me as an arrogant man hath no better appearance then a shew of a malevolent minde in him towards mee I hope I have so much scholastical learning as to vindicate my own writings from his and others Cavils and sure I am that what â—ver my learning bee Master Bl. hath shewed more of a surcostical bitter spirit in his writings against mee then of scholastical learning in which how much hee is defective I had rather Mr. B and such birds as are of the same feather should tell him
Pemble vind Fidei sect 2. c. 3. sect 4. c. 1 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham who had not to glory before God nor was justified by works Rom. 4.1 2 c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former when he saith Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith But of this by the way That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house 1 Tim. 3.15 2 Cor. 6.16 and separate Act. 13.2 2 Cor. 6.17 that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament though it were true yet proves no more but this that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described the Old Testament is necessary but not that which is to be proved that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old Mr. C. adds p 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.24 Mar. 10.14 Acts 15.10 Mat. 28.19 which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review I need onely to refer the Reader thither Yet I add it is but said without any proof that 1 Cor. 7.14 that children are termed holy because they come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth and separateth from that which is common or unclean For 1. there 's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents 2. Nor that the scope analysis allusion in the Text leads to such an exposition 3. Nor doth it follow that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth God blessed Noah and his sons Gen. 9.1 yet all of them were not sanctified yea many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons Psal. 107.38 Ierem. 12.1 much less is it true that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy yet not blessed 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24 are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers or that they are to be accounted holy by us till God hath purified their hearts by faith Acts. 15.9 And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation till they profess the faith such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation without profession of faith by each person so accounted there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples upon their own profession so judged no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith though wee know not them to be inherently holy or in the Covenant of grace Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy because they are not onely within the Covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate 1 Cor. 7.14 that it had been but affirming the thing is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards or that he â—scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11 and 9.12 is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect 11 c. to the end of the Book that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered without shewing the insufficiency of the answers if hee meant candidly as one that endeavoured to clâ—er the truth But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building that upon this account not onely children of believers but also nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations To this he answers The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for nations they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy Ref. I reply the objection in form stands thus They which come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. must be reputed holy This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. â—04 and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism I subsume But nations yea all nations come under the word of bâ—essing from God in as much as that word was not onely confirmed unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. and if the word families bee taken as Mr. C. seems to take it for housholds and all housholds then the same objection is concerning all in housholds servants wives as well as children they come under the bleâ—â—ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition Ergo according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is