names of the 12. tribes and these represented the elect for whom Christ made intercession and atonement not every Iâ—raelite Rom. 9.6 What Mr. C. saith the Covenant of works holds out pardon or mercy to transgress I do much question It seems to me that Aâ—ab though under a Covenant of works yet had some mercy 1 Kings 21.29 And whether the offence against some of the laws were not in some respect forgiven Levit. 4. to them who had not faith in Christ for the sacrafice they offered which were all offered according to the Law Heb. 10.8 I do make question Nor do I think but that by the Covenant of the law in respect of temporal evils there was some pardon by vertue of obedience to legal prescriptions though some sins as of presumption Num 15. were not no not to them that were in the covenant of grace as its liâ—ely in Eli. his Case 1 Sam. 3.24 see Gethard Ioh. Voss. resp ad Judic Ravensp c. 22.23 Concerning the Covenant of the Law though it require no faith in Christ or repentance for justification yet whether according to the covenant of the law some repentance were not accepted for revoking some temporal evils contrary to the promises of the Covenant with the Iews at mount Sinai may be doubted from Deut. 29 21.25 and 30.2 3 8 9 10. But of these Chapters more hereafter in answer to M. B. I grant no salvation but by Christ but denies that therefore al the Iews best worst had salvation external covenant-right nor though al the Iews best worst had the same dispensers of the covenant mentioned Exod. 19.5.6 24.7.8 wil it follow they had all right at least externally in the covenant of grace For that speaks of the covenant of the law I grant that the first Covenant of works was made withal in Adam and that the Covenant Gen. 17. was a particular covenant made with the seed of Abraham yet the Covenant at mount Sinai was not made with all men without distinction but only with Israel whom he brought out of Egypt the Jews Ro. 11.20 were broken off from the invisible church of true believers which was in that nation in their progenitors as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. c. I agree with Mr. C. that the Covenant in Horeb Deut. 29.1.2 with Deut. 30.6 had the stipulation of do this and live and that the Covenant of the law was differnt from the promise Gen. 17. that it held out temporals this externals How the Gentiles were ingraffed in the room of the Iewes and not into the externall right privilege as by Mr C. imagines is shewed in the Review ubi supra That the covenant of Sinai was without mercy I question as above And methinks Ezek. 16.60 proves That God would remember his covenant with Israel in the dayes of their youth and shew them mercy for it Now the covenant made with Israel in the dayes of its youth is meant of the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt for so the whole description of their pitiful estate which can be referred to no other than the time of their bondage in Egypt v. 4 5 6 7. after which was his covenant in the dayes of their youth v. 8 shews the covenant in the dayes of their youth to have been the covenant at mount Sinai And so the new Annot. on Ezek. 16 8 I sware unto thee I made a solemn covenant with thee that I would take thee to be my people Exod. 19 24 chapters Ier. 2.2 Piscat S hol in v. 7 nudissima i. e. destituta omni ope pressa sc servitute in Aegypto in v 8 visitari te per Mosen educendo te ex Aegypto pangendo tecum fedus atque ita ducendo te in uxorem Grot. in Ezek 16.5 Populus enim in Aegypto natus est in v. 7. sic exprimitur miseria Geâ—tis in Aegypto in v. 8 ingressus sum pactum tecum in Sinai As for Mr C. his paraphrase on Ezek. 16.60 I will remember my covenant with Thee not with this or that particular Jew but with them all in an Ecclesiastical way and in respect of externall right albeit some onely had the saving benefits thereof as being the select covenanters mainly intended He therein supposeth that some had the saving benefit of that covenant which is contrary to Rom. 3 20. That by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in Gods sight And he supposeth the covenant was made with them all in an Ecclesiasticall way and in respect of externall right Which what it is else but this that they should all have a right to circumcision and other Ecclesiastical privileges I know not Whereas the covenant was of prosperity in Canaan continuance of long life c. to them upon obedience to the law he gave them by Moses which notwithstanding they had broken were carried captive yet he would remember his covenant made with that people when he brought them out of Aegypt and upon the prayers of Daniel c. restore them to their own land Esay 48 1 2 3 c. teacheth the Jewes that notwithstanding they were evill yet he would for his names sake that the heathens might not say that God could not deliver them and bring them from the north v. 10 11 14. The like is Ezek. 20 14. The objection from Rom. 9 7 8 is ill framed and as ill answered 1. it is proved from the Text that the promise of fulâ—â—lling of which the Apostle speaks was the promise to Abraham I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 from the terms used Rom. 9.7 8. which shews that the question was how Gods word could be true concerning Abrahams seed if the Jewes were rejected as the Apostle supposeth v. â— 2. That the answer is directly this that this promise was not made to all Israel or to all the children of the flesh that is begotten of Abraham by naturall generation for it was not promised to Ishmael and Esau but to the elect as Isaac and Jacob whence this proposition ariseth They onely are children of the promise that is by an usuall Hebraâ—sm subjects of the promise to whom it belong as children of wrath to whom wrath belongs a son of perdition to whom perdition belongs who are elect therefore not all the naturall seed of Abraham And consequently the promise Gen. 17.7 belonged not in the Evangelicall sense to the body of the Jewes even the worst Now what doth Mr. C. answer He distinguisheth between children of the promise in respect of externall filiation and externall salvation and applies it thus In the later they were not but if you take it of the Church-seed of the promise and such as were externally adopted of God and instated in the covenant of grace as invested with church covenant so they were children even of the free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3 25 26 and had
be sinners by nature as those which are born of the heathen Answ What I said before I say still without any jeer or disregard to Mr. Cartwright that the conceit that 1 Cor. 7.14 and Gal. 2.15 are two full parallel Scriptures is but a dream there being neither agreement in scope matter words or sense between them Not in scope For 1 Cor. 7 12 13 14. the Apostles scope is â—o resolve a doubt about continuance of married persons in disparity of religion Gal. 2.15 his scope is to determine by what we are justified not in matter for the one speaks of the sanctifying of husband and wife to each other and the holiness or uncleanness of the children the other of Jews and Gentils acding to their different national state nor is there one word used Gal. 2.15 which is used 1 Cor 7.14 nor can the sense be agreeing For Jew by nature cannot be as much as holy 1 Cor. 7.14 because then the children of the Corinthians should bee Jews by nature which was impossible they being born of Gentile parents for such were the Corinthians 1 Cor. 12.2 Nor is Mr. Bls. sense Jew by nature that is holy by birth from believing parents any where else found in Scripture Nor doth Jew by nature intimate their Churchstate as if hee meant it thus we who are members of the visible Church or have this priviledge to bee in the Covenont of grace by nature in that wee are born of believing parents For they are said to bee Jews by nature by reason of their natural descent without any respect to the faith or unbelief of their parents even those whose parents were idolaters as Aâ—az Manasseh or any other of that line were Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles and the children of the most holy Proselites yet were not Jews by nature nor were they Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace they were Jews by nature without respect to the Covenant of grace for that was alwais to them who were believers whether Jewes or Gentils and the covenant whereby the Jews had priviledge was not the Covenant of Evangelical grace but the Covenant of peculiar national blessinigs but here the opposition to the Gentiles and the occasion shews Jews to bee taken as a term appropriate to natural Jews by natural descent from Jacob in contradiinstction to Gentiles from other roots If any ask who are meant by we and why here is mentioned Jews by nature and why they are opposed to the Gentiles and they termed sinners I answer the words seem plainly to be a part of Pauls speech to Peter and that by we are meant himself with Peter termed a Jew v. 14. and other believers of the Circumcision mentioned v. 12 13. and the sense is We though we are Jews by nature or even we who are Jews by natural birth and this mentioned because they had the Law peculiarly given them as Piscator in his Analysis Nos quantumvis Judaei sumus quibus nimirum lex peculiariter a Deo data est Or as the opposite term sinners of the Gentiles intimates knowers and keepers of the Law of Moses and therefore if any certainly much more then sinners of the Gentiles we should seek and expect to be justified by the Law yet if we know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ and even we have believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law it is not equal that wee should as Peter did at Antioch dissemble our liberty in Christ compel the Gentiles to Judaize or keep the law for righteousness and so not walke uprightly or rightfoote it according to the truth of the Gospel Now the Gentiles are termed sinners in the sense in which in the ordinary acception among the Jewes it was taken for men that observed not the law opposed to the righteous Matth. 9.13 Luke 15.1 2 7 10. 18.9 13. and many more places And in this sense it is taken v. 17. we our selves also are sound sinners that is we our selves also are deprehended convinced or proved to be prophane breakers or despiseâ—s of the law which the Gentiles did and which I think is meant Ephes. 2.1 2 3. and that Paul doth not any more reckon himself with them Ephes. 2.3 then he doth with them that are alive at Christs comming opposite to them who are dead in Christ 1 Thes. 4.17 though he use the first person plural in both for I see not how that could stand with his speeches of himself Acts 23 1. Philip. 3.4 5 6. and therefore do conceive a conception or an enallage of person Ephes. 2.3 used often in speeches whereby a speaker takes that to himself which is proper to others whether to avoid distaste as if he upbraided them or to insinuate into their affections or for such like reason Out of all which I infer 1. That Jews by nature is not put Gal. 2.15 to intimate a birth-priviledge of the children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles concerning their Ecclesiastical state even in infancy as visible Churchmembers but it is put to note either the advantage peculiar to the Jewish nation in that the law of Moses was given to them or rather the greater likelihood and meetness or congruity to seek or claim righteousness by the law then the Gentiles 2. That he meant not they were Jews by nature through the Covenant of grace For that were clean opposite to his intention which was to shew that their estate of being Jews by nature did not confer to their justification which doubtless it would have done if it had been by the Covenant of grace but to intimate that the law was given to them or rather they studious of it and Zelots for it and therefore if any they should be justified by it as Paul in a like place Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 7 8 9. So that whatever advantage or precedency is intimated by it it is ascribed to the law and their observing of it not to the new Covenant of grace 3. The deteriority or worse condition of the Gentiles is ascribed to them not barely in respect of their birth from unbelievers and so agreeing to their infants much less as agreeing to infants of unbelieving Jews as well as Gentiles but in respect of their manners either onely or chiefly and so not competent to infants And therefore notwithstanding Mr. Bl. thought Gal. 2.15 a fit Text for his Sermon in which he asserted infants birth-priviledge of believing Gentiles though Mr. Calamy and Mr. Vines crack in their Epistle before Mr. Bls. answer to my Letter that he hath truly stated the the question set it upon the right basis and well fortified it and Mr. Bl. hath produced somewhat from Mr. Cantwright to colour his parallelling 1 Cor. 7.14 with Gal. 2.15 yet I say still and have such a gift of impudence as to aver that both Mr.
made to infer salvation and Zaccheus in that he was the son of Abraham proved to be one that the son of man came to seek and save which can agree onely to elect persons therefore the term seed of Abraham equipollent to son of Abraham as Evangelically such notes onely elect persons or true believers Piscat Analys Luc. 19.9 Electio Dei patris significatur v. 9. his verbis eo quod ipse quoque filius Abrahae est ubi intelligitur non simpliciter filius secundum carnem sed filius secumdum promissionem Dei qua promiserat ipsum futurum patrem credentium schol filius Abrahae nempe filius secundum promissionem id est electus vide Rom. 9. v. 7. and 8. New Annot on Luke 19.9 Is the son of Abraham to be a son of Abraham is to be chosen freely Rom. 9.8 To walk in the steps and faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 12. And generally to do the good works of Abraham John 8.39 Whereby we moy be assured of Election to eternal life Rom. 8.29 30. 2 Pet. 1.10 Trap com in Luke 19.9 He also is a son of Abraham that is freely elected Rom. 9. A follower of Abrahams faith Rom. 4.12 And a doer of his works John 8.39 3. It is said by our Lord Christ John 8.39 If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham he granted them ver 37. To be Abrahams seed by nature but not the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant Evangelical because their practise was unlike Abrahams Whence I inferre they Onely Evangellically are Abrahams children or seed even of those who descended from Abraham by generation who are like unto Abraham in their Actions But such onely are true believers or elect persons therefore true believers or elect persons onely are Abrahams children or seed Evangelical Diodati Annot. on John 8.39 children namely true and lawfull imitators â—f Abrahams faith Father of all believers wherein consists the true meaning of this name of children of Abraham Rom. 4.16 and 9.6 7. Gal. 3.7 4. With our Lord Christs words accord the words of Paul who doth plainly determine that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 That God would be the God of Abrahams seed as it was Eavngelical belongs are believers or elect persons and no other Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Is so plain to prove it that the very reading the words is enough to clear it to a heedfull reader For therein the Apostle doth shew how the promises Gen. 17.7 Are true of the Gentiles as well as the Jewes in that Abraham is considered therein as the father of believers v. 11. And the father of circumcision that is as Beza of the circumcised yet not a father to all of them nor to them onely but to those circumcised ones onely and with them to all other that believe or walk in the steps of that faith which our father of us believing Gentiles Abraham had being yet uncircumcised v. 11.12 Now if Abraham be considered in the promises as Evangelical onely as the Father of believers of either sort circumcised or uncircumcised then the seed of Abraham are onely believers or elect persons And to this purpose doth Master Dickson paraphrase the words thus Abraham received from God the sign of circumcision to seal the Covenant of grace or the righteousness of faith which â—e had uncircumcised to that end that he might be father of uncircumcised believers and in like manner of circumcised to wit who are both sons of the flesh and sons of the faith of Abraham Therefore the righteousness of faith is common to the circumcised and uncircumcised believers or them that follow the steps of the faith of Abraham not yet circumcised But Abraham is said to be the father of believers in that he is the first eminent example of faith and of righteousness imputed by faith and by his example an Author to all that they may believe Beza in his note on Rom. 4.12 For as speaking of the uncircumcised he said not simply that Abraham was the father of them all but of them onely who should believe he also hath deservedly kept the same distinction in the Jewes because as I said before it is not simply the Apostles purpose to teach Abraham to be the father of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised but also especially by what reason he is the father of both which is his scope For to be a child of Abraham before God and to be justifyed by faith cohere Again v. 13. shewes the same For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law but through the righteousness of faith I shall use the words of the same Authors Dickson thus paraphraseth v. 13. He proves Abraham to be Father not but of believers onely uncircumcised alike and circumcised and together addes a third argument The promise made to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the land of Canaan in time and of the world and heaven in truth came not to him by the law or by the condition of works but happened to him by an absolute promise to him already justified by faith and having the righteousness of faith Therefore his sons are not they which are of the law seeking to wit righteousness by works but they onely who are by faith seeking righteousness by faith that is all and onely believers circumcised alike and uncircumcised to whom equally the common righteousness of faith and the inheritance is promised The argument is of force for if father Abraham be not the heir of the world nor have righteousness but by faith certainly none are his sons but believers who have righteousness by faith and by righteousness the inheritance Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.13 But in these words there is a continuation of the former conclusion the application of the example of Abraham neither to the circumcised neither to the uncircumcised otherwise not availing unless two things be shewed to wit that God made that Covenant not with Abraham alone but with his heirs also and that under the name of his posterity any who shall believe that covenant like Abraham are understood Therefore Paul conjoynes the promises of God made to Abraham as it were into one body and when he had taught all believers whether cicrumcised or uncircumcised to be Abrahams sons he verily deservedly calls Abraham the heir of the world by the term world understanding all Nations and therein following the Lords stâ—ps For when the Lord had said to Abraham that he would be the God of him and his seed after he expounded what he understood by the term seed to wit all the nations of the earth when he said that it should be that in him he would vouchsafe them all his grace The next v. also confirms it v. 14. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect
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
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
a fact of God which is a transeunt thing and I think it were a foolish undertaking for mee to prove the repeal of a fact Wherefore still I press you that you would shew me where that law ordinance statute or decree of God is that is repealeable that is which may in congruous sence bee either by a later act said to be repealed or else to be established as a law for ever This I never found in your books nor do I conceive that law is implied in any thing I grant and therefore I yet pray you to set me down the particular text or texts of holy Scripture where that law is Which need not hinder you from opposing the Quakers in which I have not and hope shall not be wanting of whom I think that you are misinformed that they are Anabaptists I think there are very few of them that were ever baptised and have good evidence that they have been formerly Seekers as you call them And I think you do unjustly impute the direfull consequences you speak of to the denial of infant baptism and to the practise of adult bapâ—ism and that as your self are deceived so you mislead others I yet expect your texts knowing none in any of your books that mention that law of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert either explicitly or implicitly and am yours as is meet Bewdley this 4th of April 1655. John Tombes About a fortnight after I received this Letter to me from him Sir If you will needs recall me to this ungrateful work let me request you to tell me fully exactly and plainly what transient fact you mean which you conceive without law or promise did make Church members that so I may know where the competition lieth When I know your meaning I intend God willing to send you a speedy answer to your last Your fellow-servant April 16. 1655. Rich. Baxter Upon the receipt whereof I speedily returned to him on the day of the date of it being then at Bewdley this following Letter Sir The transeunt fact of God whereby infants were visible Churchmembers was plainly exprest in my last to you to be the taking of the whole people of the Jews for his people which is the expression of Moses Deut. 4.34 Exod. 6.7 And by it I mean that which is expressed Levit. 20.24.26 when God said I have severed you from other people that you should be mine The same thing is expressed 1 Kings 8.53 Isai 43 1. This I term fact as conceiving it most comprehensive of the many particular acts in many generations whereby he did accomplish it Following herein Stephen Acts 7.2 and Nehem 9.7 I conceive it began when he called Abraham out of Ur Gen. 12.1 to which succeeded in their times the enlarging of his family removing of Lot Ishmael the sons of Keturah Esau distinction by Circumcision the birth of Isaac Jacob his leading to Padan Aram increase there removal to Canaan to Aegypt placing preserving there and chiefly the bringing of them thence to which principally the Scripture refers this fact Exod. 19.4 Levit. 11.45 Nehem. 1.10 Hos. 11.1 the bringing them into the bond of the Covenant at Mount Sinai giving them laws settling their Priesthood tabernacle army government inheritance By which fact the infants of the Israelites were visible Churchmembers as being part of the Congregation of Israel and in like manner though not with equal right for they might be sold away were the bought servants or captives whether infants or of age though their parents were professed idolaters And this I said was without promise or precept meaning such promise or precept as you in your Letter say I confess and you describe a promise conferring to infants the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges a precept constituting the duty of devoting and dedicating the childe to God and entering into Covenant which confers the benefit For though I grant the promises to the natural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. and the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai and Deut. 29. wherein Israel avouched God and a precept of Circumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calling the people and requiring them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. and Deut. 29. Yet no such particular promise concerning infants visible Churchmembership or precept for parents or others concerning the solemn admission of infants as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision as in your Book of Baptism you assert Nor do I conceive that infants of Israel were made visible Church members by the promises in the covenants or the precepts forenamed but by Gods transeunt fact which I have described Which I therefore term transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall bee for the future though capable of continuance in the same or the like acts or of interruption Which continuance or interruption is known by narration of what God hath done not by any legal revocation or renewing or continuance of a promise or precept concerning that thing Now as the Churchmembership of the Israelites began as I conceive with Abrahams call and was completed when they were brought out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 so I conceive it ceased when upon their rejection of Christ as was foreâ—told Matth. 21.43 they were broken off from being Gods people which was completed at the destruction of Jerusalem when the temple was destroyed as Christ fore-told Luke 19.43 44. And instead of the Jewish people by the preaching of the Gospel confirmed by mighty signes God gathered to himself a Church of another frame in a spiritual way according to the institution of Christ Matth. 28.19 20. Mark 16.15 16. in which he included not infants the Jews themselves were no part of the Christian Church without repentance and faith in Christ professed at least Having now fully exactly and plainly told you my meaning as you request I do now expect your speedy answer to my last and therein to fulfill my request of setting down the particular texts of holy Scripture wherein that law largely taken comprehending promise and precept of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert to be unrepealed is contained If you shall in your answer set down wherein the blessing benefit and priviledges of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert unrepealed did consist I may better understand you then I do But I shall press you no further then you shall be willing in this thing I am Yours as is meet Bewdley April 21. 1655. John Tombes On May 29. 1655. I received this following answer Sir A probability of doing or receiving good is to me a call to action Seeing no such probability I told you at first my purposes to forbear any further debates with you till you had better answered what is said In your next you seemed to deal so plainly as if some small probability of
may further them Of which though much may be said I shall say no more because I will not stand on things so much questioned Answ. I might then well have omitted this as of no validity but to shew the multiplicity of Paedobaptists errours He gâ—es on thus I come next to prove from other parts of Scripture That the fundamental promise of Grace is thus to â—e interpreted as including infants 1. If the same Covenant of grace when it is more fully and clearly opened do expresly comprehend infants as to be Churchmembers then is this fundamental promise so to be understood or then doth this also comprehend them But the antecedent is certain therefore so is the consequent The antecedent I prove from the Covenant of grace made to Abraham the father of the faithful which comprehended infants for Churchmembers The Covenant made with Abraham comprehending infants was the same with this in Gen. 3. but in some things clearlier opened Which is proved thus Both these were the Covenant of grace and free justification by faith in the Redeemer therefore they were the same For there is but one such If Abraham had some special promises additional to the main Covenant that makes not the Covenant of free justification by faith to be divers That this in Gen. 3. is the promise or Covenant of grace and free justification is not denied that I know of That the promise to Abraham was the same is evident from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal was the Covenant of free justification by faith Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of Faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of believers c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law buâ— through the righteousness of faith Now it 's certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed did comprehend infants The consequence of the mâ—jor then iâ— evident that the same promise expressed more concisely is to bee expounded by the same expressed more fully And it 's acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees Answ. That the fundamental promise of grace Gen. 3.15 did include infants was never denied by me and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it This I deny that it includes all infants or all infants of believers and that any infant is made a visible Churchmember by that promise as the next cause or the sole efficient which is Mr. Bs. term neither of these is proved by him I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical grace though mixt as I have often shewed and that it did include infants and that they were Churchmembers to wit of the invisible Church of the elect I mean so many as the Covenant of Evangelical grace was made to I grant also that Abrahams infants in his house were visible Churchmembers but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical but by vertue of the transeunt fact before asserted by me and if in any respect by vertue of the Covenant it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather thâ—n Evangelical So that although I deny that from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. it is proved that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen 17. and that the promises Gen. 17.4.5 6 8. were additional to the main Covenant and not as well the main Covenant as v. 7 yet I grant Mr. Bs. conclusions which he here infers that the promises Gen. 3.15 17.7 did comprehend infants that there is but one Covenant of free justification by faith in both places that the one may explain the other that infants were from the beginning Churchmembers that is members of the invisible Church of the â—lect But this I deny that this is true of all or perhaâ—s onely of the infants of believers or that because they are of the invisible therefore they are members of the visible Church there being more required to make visible Church-members then election the Covenant of grace and parents faith But Mr. B. adds â— That the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Churchmember that had infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose infants also were not Churchmembers Except onely the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism unto Christ. And whether their infants be Churchmembers I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one infant of a Churchmember in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Churchmember except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Answ. Mr. B. undertakes to prove Gods constant administration but instead of proving sends me a challenge and hoâ—ly urgeth me to answer it which course indeed is ridiculous to the intelligent yet subdolous as taking much with shallow heads who know not the laws of Dispute as if he got the better of me if I did not answer it But let such know 1 That it is Mr. Bs. part now to prove mine onely to answer 2. That if I could not answer either through defâ—ct of reading memory histories in such matters or such like cause yet this is no proof of Mr. Bs. assertion 3. That I have no reason to answer Mr. Bs. questions and challenges but his arguments 1. Because I find a meer captious spirit in him seeking advantage to himself from my words which he very seldome doth rightly represent to the Reader when he wants proof of his assertions as appears most evidently in this his answer to my Letter in which he hath gathered almost half his answer besides the business propounded from my writing to him 2. That the understandings of men even of Scholiers and Learned men are so superficial or so partial that without ever examining yea or reading my writings upon Mr. Bs. exclamations and vile suggestions of me and mine answers they do most unrighteously and like men that seek not the truth conclude on his side scorn and speak evil of me and the cause I assert which is indeed the cause of Christ of which I have much experience 4. Nevertheless I answer his challenge categorically thus 1. No infant born of a Churchmember was a visible Churchmember in the Christian Church or any other besides that of the Nation of the Hebrews as I have proved before
what regard is the new frame betterâ—d by casting out infants which were in the old Answ. By leaving out infants and taking in onely believers the Church is more spiritual Qu. 8. Whether any Jew at age was a member of the old Church without professing faith in the Articles necessary to salvation repentance and obedience And wherein the supposed new call and frame doth in this differ from the old save onely that a more full and express revelation of Christ requireth a more full exâ—ress faith Answ. The former question is somewhat difficult it being hard to determine what Articlâ—s were necessary to salvation which is a question so hard that I should not be unwilling to learn of Mr. B. This I can onely say that I know not what profession each Jew did make or was to make I find a confession injoyned Deut. 26. and imprecation ch 27. I finde idolaters blasphemers and some others adjudged to death yet I finde not in the times of mal-administration of Moses Laws that idolaters and such great sinners were cast out of the Church but were members of it The later is answered before often enough Mr. B. tels me You may see the words near the end of your Letter that occasion the 7. last questions and towards the middle that occasioneth the first As for your motion of my fully describing the priviledges of Churchmembers I shall add no more at this time to what is already elsewhere said of it Answ. I knew Mr. B. so well that I expected I should have questions enow though I desired onely a few Texts it s his vain to multiply questions which might be omitted and serve to weary the reader and respondent and for advantage to himself to insult on his antagonist though without cause But how ill he deals with me in writing so many sheets about questions taken from my words when I desired onely a line or two about his texts and how ill he deals with me and the reader who will not distinctly shew me the priviledges of his visible Church-membership the denial of which he makes so hainous and from which he argues so much I leave to the considerable Reader to judge But Mr. B. is yet more severe to me after all my work in answering him I must be corrected ere I be dismissed SECT LXIII Mr. Bs. ten Calumniatory questions and Conclusion of his Letter are answered ANd now saith he I have gone thus far with you in an enquiry into the truth I entreat you be not too much offended with me if I conclude with a few applicatory questions to your self Q. 1. Is it not an undertaking as palpably absurd as most ever any learned sober Divine in the world was guilty of to maintain that infants were visible Churchmembers not by any promise or precept but by a transeunt fact and that there was no law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely a fact of God which is a transeunt thing not repealable Answ. I am resolved not to be angry with Mr. Bs. interrogatories he ministers to me imagining he doth it like an Ordinary in salutem animae though I pitty him that takes so much on him as thus magisterially to censure what he does not or will not understand presuming perhaps he may take on him to determine as an irrefragable Doctor after so much magnifying of his writings by learned and unlearned ones But to his question I answer negatively and return it back to him is it not an undertaking palpably absurd to make visible Churchmembership to be a right to a benefit by Gods promise as the sole efficient and anothers faith as the condition But saith he either by this fact you mean Legislation and Covenant making or not if you do what a saying is it that infants were made Churchmembers not by Covenant but by a Covenant making not by a Law but by a Law making If not either you must say that God makes duty without any law and gives right to the benefit without any promise or Covenant-grant as the cause or else that it is no benefit to have right to Churchmembership and no duty to enter into that relation and to accept of that benefit and to bee devoted to God Which ever of these wayes you chuse and one you must chuse or change your opinion hath the world heard of any more unreasonable and ridiculous or else more unbeseeming a Divine from a learned sober man of that profession Pardon the high charge Let the indifferent juâ—ge Answ. That I need chuse none of the wayes hee mentions nor change my opinion is amply shewed Sect. 55. this high charge would have been leâ—t out had he more sobriety and humility I look upon it and overlook it as ridiculous and contemptible and go on Qu. 2. Is it not a great disgrace to all your followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism and be so confident that they are righter and wiser then others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what a law promise or Covenant is And do you not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by your meer interest or confident words these people are changed and held to your opinion Do they know what a transâ—unt fact is that without law or Covenant makes Churchmembers I say do they know this which no man that ever breathed till now ner ever man will know again And do you not proclaim them men of dâ—stempered consciences that dare go on in such a Schism on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so long after their perversion and never waking man I think did before so solemnly maintain Answ Ne saevi magne sacerdos The followers of me in the point of Baptism are not led by shifts but the plain word of God Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.37 from which Mr. Bs. dream of a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed his conceit of infants discipleship mediate by the faith of the parent is too silly a conceit to draw an intelligent man that will examine it specially when they have so plain Scripture proof for their warrant as the institution of Christ and practise of the Apostles which they follow without Schism endeavouring a reformation of that great corruption of infant Baptism which hath been very pernicious to the Church of God If any Schism have been a great cause hath been in Mr. Bs. virulent charges of the truth as if it were a damnable errour accursed of God and his followers violent opposition of which Bewdley hath had sad experience of men for doing their duty in being baptized after profession of faith and breaking bread together though convinced by Mt. Bs. own arguing in his Book of Baptism pag. 342. that it should be so And if in this point they conceive themselves righter and wiser then others
Gospel Covenant and that in him all nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the Covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahamâ— promise but also a promise to them and their seed which plainly shews that he imagines Gal. 3.8 the Gospel Covenant to be a promise to believers and their seed who are their natural seed as in Abraham his seed is implied which conformably must be his natural And if Mr. Cr. did not in the dispute mean Abrahams natural seed he went from the point to be proved and by me denied that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not simply everlasting to the natural seed of Abraham sith they were dispossessed of Canaan His suggestions therefore of my using officious untruths and pious frauds are but the venome of his spirit which throughout his book he discovers and most pestilently in that Section for which the Lord rebuke him What he next saith that when I say the thing promised Gal. 3.8 was justification and that of the heathen and that through faith therefore this text proves not Abrahams natural seed in Covenant under the Gospel is As if all this might not be and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel who professed were justified and had faith as well as the heathen which I grant but then they were not onely Abrahams natural seed but also his spiritual to which I grant the Covenant is made Gen. 17.7 and is everlasting and if he can prove infants of believers to be such there 's no question but they are in Covenant under the Gospel and to be baptized till then he can never prove either from Gen. 17.7 or Gal. 3.8 that Abrahams natural seed much less infants of believing parents to be in the Gospel covenant which whether hee had reason to bee ashamed of attempting the Reader may judge That the entring into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11. was a tranâ—â—unt fact and not a thing perpetually binding I had thought none would deny nor argue as Mr. Crag doth it was by command Deut. 29.1 they werâ— v. 29. to do the words of the Law and that was a command and the revealed things belong to them and their children for ever therefore the entring into Covenant v. 10 11. was a command perpetually binding under the Gospel which is too frivolous to spend time in answering and his argument that if wives and servants were in Covenant under the Gospel much more infants is alike frivolous â—ith he himself makes no other then believing wives and servants in Covenant under the Gospel which when he proves of infants their being in Covenant will not be denied This is enough in answer to that Section and most of the 8th and 9th Sections of the third part I said his allegation is vain of Heb. 8.6 to prove that if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons He asks me what then will it follow if a Covenant was made to no more then before therefore not to all that were before Answ. No yet it will follow that the text is vainly alledged to prove the co-extension to persons that speaks not at all of that thing nor is it at all to the purpose that it is extended to more to wit to Gentiles For 1. however that text speaks not of it 2. It is extended to more nations of the world besides the Jews but to none but believers of those nations and consequently not to infants of believing parents as such That the new Covenant contains promises of better things then the old Covenant and differs more then in administrations is shewed before Sect. 43. and yet theâ—e is no such thing implied as if there were salvation in any other then Jesus Christ unless he could prove salvation were by the promises of the Law My third Paradox as he cals it that the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers is proved before Sect. 33. That there are in the Gospel Covenant promises of external ordinances made to all visible members is more then Mr. Cr. proves or any other and therefore I count it a figment I know none but spiritual promises in it which Mr. Cr. grants are made absolutely and terminated or performed onely to the elect and invisible members which is the same with my Paradox but hath more assertors then his most gross speech that the meliority of the Covenant consists principally in outward ordinances manner of administration and dispensation extent and amplitude of the proposal not of grace and glory He adds of which there was alwayes the same reason Enoch Abraham Eliah Moses were as well justified by faith which is true but not according to the Covenant of the Law but by the Covenant of the Gospel which it seems Mr. Cr. understands not though he assume the title of a Preacher of the Gospel Mr. Cr. saith of me His last assertion is that because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers therefore they are not to infants as the natural seed of believers The antecedent is proved to be false for though the spiritual part of Gospel promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the elect yet they are conditionally proposed to all Professors and the external part which consists in administration of ordinances is equally belonging to all visible members But are the promises to all professors because they are conditionally proposed to them If so we may say the promises are to the most obstinate infidels to eveâ—y man in the world for to them they are conditionally proposed Sure this is not according to the doctrine of the Scripture which makes the promises to bee the believers inheritance 2 Cor. 1.20 2 Pet. 1.4 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Heb 6.12 17. according to the doctrine of Protestanâ—s the Saints Legacy yea Paedobaptists make them their priviledge Rom. 9.4 though the promises there were other promises As for an external part of Gospel promises which consists in administration of ordinances equally belonging to all visible members it is a mere figment no where in Scripture And the sayings of Mr. Cr. Part. 3. Sect. 11. p. 261. Christ is said Heb. 8.6 to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could noâ— be if infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant that the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth right tuition self-profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant that what he hath said Examen part 3. sect 1. Antipaed part 1. sect 5. touches not the true state of the Controversie but is a confused
Anti-Paedobaptism OR THE THIRD PART BEING A full REVIEW of the Dispute concerning Infant-Baptism IN WHICH The Arguments for Infant-Baptism from the Covenant and Initial Seal Infants Visible Church-membership Antiquity of Infant-Baptism are refelled AND The Writings of Mr. Stephen Marshal Mr. Richard Baxter Mr. John Geree Mr. Thomas Blake Mr. Thomas Cobbet Dr. Nathaniel Homes Mr. John Drew Mr. Josiah Church Mr. William Lyford Dr. Daniel Featley Mr. John Brinsley Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham Mr. William Carter Mr. Samuel Rutherford Mr. John Crag Dr. Henry Hammond Mr. John Cotton Mr. Thomas Fuller Mr. John Stalham Mr. Thomas Hall and others are examined And many points about the Covenants and Seals and other Truths of weight are handled By JOHN TOMBES B D. ISA. 5.20 Wo unto them that call evill good and good evill that put darkness for light and light for darkness that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter LONDON Printed by E. AISOP over against the Upper Pump in Grubstreet 1657. TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THE Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland HAving presented the two former Parts of this Review to His Highness and His Council I take boldness to tender this to your Honours as those who are intrusted with the affairs of these Nations in which are many Churches of Christ whose safety and welfare doth much depend under Christ on your wisedome and uprightness that it may serve to justifie your Honours in allowing those who agree with me in the â—oint herein discussed liberty employment and maintainance alike with dissenters Wherein your equity and wisedome is very conspicuous and laudable notwithstanding the clamours and practises of those our opposites who would have the ship of this Commonwealth so ordered that the power of it should all incline to one side to the endangering of the whole 'T is true the asserting of this truth hath heretofore been unhappily managed partly by reason of the conjunction of some errours very dangerous in the Assertors of this truth and partly by reason of the violence of spirit in them and their opposites which have occasioned hard Lawes against them and great hatred towards them Nor do I know any likelihood but that still not onely about this but also about any other point in difference when one party seeks to oppress the other there will be much unquietness unless Governours become moderatours between them In the Declaration of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament Ordered to be printed 4. Martii 1647. I read these words The name of Anabaptism hath indeed contracted much odium by reason of the extravagant opinions and practises of some of that name in Germany tending to the disturbance of the Government and peace of all States which opinions and practices we abhor and detest But for their opinion against the Baptism of Infants it is onely a difference about a circumstance of time in the administration of an Ordinance wherein in former ages as well as this learned men have differed both in opinion and practice And though wee could wish that all men could satisfie themselves and joyn with us in our judgment and practise in this point yet herein wee held it fit that men should bee convinced by the Word of God with gentleness and reason and not beaten out of it by force and violence And yet May 2. 1648. there was an Ordinance which made it punishable with imprisonment to affirm that the Baptism of Infants is unlawfull or that Infants Baptism is void and that such persons are to be baptized again Notwithstanding which it is to be acknowledged with all thankfulness to His Higness and your Honours that we enjoy our Peace and Liberty as Dissenters do which they who value not forget the goodness of God and make forfeiture of their own good For those who so do I plead not but for that Truth and Practise which is delivered and appointed by Christ which should be encouraged not suppressed by Governours For this I am moved to appear out of Conscience of my duty to Christ commiseration of them who have been condemned and injured for avouching my position and my engagement by solemn Covenant enjoyned by Parliament to endeavour Reformation in Doctrine and Worship according to Gods Word And do humbly present it to your Honours craving that if any Lawes do remain in force against it they may be repealed And that while we walk according to the rule of Christ Liberty Peace Encouragement may be granted to us as to others who have joyned in the Common Cause which will be a motive to us the more affectionately to pray for your Honours prosperous and happy proceedings in repairing the Breaches and building up this Commonwealth whereto you are advanced and for which I am Your Honours Humble and Devoted Servant JOHN TOMBES TO The christian Reader THough all personal Pleas and Narrations are suspected to be partial and are usually judged to have something of ostentation or dissembling oâ— some such inordinate affection which may abate their credit and esteem yet the practises of opponents in Controversies and the great prejudice to the Truth and person opposed they create thereby and the difficulty for persons who are not actors in such contentions to understand the truth without them make them necessary Doubtless if such pleas were not necessary the Apostle Paul would not have thought his course justifiable who hath written one Epistle to wit the second to the Corinthians almost wholly Apologetical for himself that the misunderstanding of himself and wayes might not be advantage to Seducers for hindering the success of his preaching It is true my credit and esteem is nothing comparable to the Apostles the Church and Truth of God may stand though I be buried in perpetual silence yet sith I am a Preacher of the Gospel as Paul was absit verbo invidia and my labours therein as I hope not altogether without fruit and sith the Lord seems to me to have set me though in a lower Sphere for defence of that One Baptism which Paul mentions Ephes. 4.5 as one of the chief points of Christianity and Heb. 6.2 is counted as a foundation point I assure my self Paul's practise doth justifie mine and that I should be wanting not onely to mine own credit but also to that truth which is dearer then my credit if I should pass by with silence those misrepresentations whereby both are abused and the mindes of men alienated from them Which is the more necessary because of the great repute which my Antagonists have in this generation and their confident speeches and their incessant endeavours upon all occasions in Pulpits Presses Disputes Conferences to represent the way I avouch as dangerous my self as instrumental to an evil designe of perverting and dividing the Churches of God unto which the proneness of men to uphold an Errour inveterate and speciously pretended to be approved and blessed by God and the contrary opinion accursed besides the advantages it hath for their carnal ease and
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
the person baptized repents of his sins and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements communion with Satan and engageth himself to be Christs disciple Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water it minds us of Christs death burial and rising again and testifyeth our salvation by him and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons and true believers for it assures salvation onely to them not to all that are baptized and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it So that if from hence that baptism is the administration of the Covenant a title be derived for infants to be baptized it can intitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant which are only the elect or true believers But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious For 1. when it is said it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant the expressions sometimes are as if it were the administration it self calling it the new administration as I shew in my Apology sect 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant which is either non-sense or at least inâ—ptly spoken 2. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the outward or inward Covenant The latter I presume they will not say for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therin regenerarion remission of sins and if so then it administers them in a natural way and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato or in a moral way but baptism can administer regeneration remission of sins c. no other moral way but by assuring or perswading or the like what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy nor to any but the elect now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such then it is not baptism but to such if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is except they mean the outward administration which is no other then baptism as I shew Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say that baptism is the administration or appointed for the administration of baptism 3. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God or Gods promise to the baptized If the former then it is no more but this that baptism is the administration that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christs disciple which is indeed the best sense of it but then it will not fit them for so it is not in infants for they signifie no profession or engagement of theirs by it If the later then by baptism God doth promise man but that 's not true his promise is in the Word before baptism or he signifies his promise formerly made this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others either baptized or unbaptized as the then baptized and not at all of use or avail to infants who cannot apprehend the signification or he assures the benefits of the Covenant and that can be only to elect or true believers or that he contains them by it and so it gives grace ex opere operato 4. The Covenant of grace is I take it the Covenant of saving grace opposite to the Covenant of works the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law Gal 3.18 This covenant was made mixtly Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. purely Heb. 8.10 11 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one or the other or both The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision and to seal the same Covenant that it did But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan and greatness in it But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed so Mr. Geree here we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed But if so 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did and so succeeds not in it's use nor is there a reason given but their own conceit why it should seal one part and not another 2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant then it administers not this promise that God will be a God to a believer and his natural seed as such For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found Gen. 17.7 3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16 But this is not administred by baptism which signifies Christ already come 4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abrahams seed by faith Gal. 3.29 Rom. 4.11 12. But they are only the elect Rom. 9.7 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant onely to elect persons and true Believers 5. There 's ambiguity also in the term the Gospel covenant is extended The Gospel covenant is The just shall live by faith that God will be a God to Abrahams seed by faith But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant which is but a fiction that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile 6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onely to the Elect onely it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary But he shews no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise sure such a construction was unknown to Paul Rom. 9.6 7 8. when he expounded that very promise Gen. 17.7 nor doth such a construction agree with the words sith when God saith I will be a God to thee and thy seed the meaning according to M. Geree should then be I will be a God to thee that is every believer and to thy seed that is every believers natural seed which are
for his questions why your children is in the verse it hath been answered because of their imprecation Matth. 27.25 to which he replies thus To see the sad shift of errour is wonderful Can any man imagine that the parents could doubt more or so much of their childrens being accepted and saved when God should call them who were innocent and only under the sudden rash curse of their parents when they saw that the promise was to themselves who were the actual murtherers of the Lord Jesus Answ. To me who am so well acquainted with the shifts of Paedobaptists it is not wonderful to see the shifts of errour This very reply what is it but a vain shift For he supposeth the children were innocent which he cannot prove and that the curse was sudden and rash which seems rather to have been deliberate and that they saw the promise was to themselves and Christ offered pardon to themselves when there was nothing but horrour on their consciences for crucifying Christ till after Peters speech to them and that if the parents were not imagined to doubt more or so much of their childrens being accepted and saved as themselves then there was no reason to insert your children by occasion of the imprecation Matth. 27.25 whereas if they doubted any whit yea if for the present they did not think on that curse yet might afterwards as there was cause they should there was reason enough for Peter to insert those words whether they tended to take away a present or possible fear in them concerning their children But there is more of his trifling yet behind 2. Saith he Such a consideration would rather sadden them then refresh them to mention the calling of their children For they might more doubt of that then of any thing whether God would call them or no and be as far to seek as ever they were that they would have but cold comfort upon this account this was enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye Answ. The phrase and be as far to seek as ever they were intimates the Jews had attained some comfort before this speech of Peter which is manifestly false from the Text and that telling them that the promise was to their children if called by God would rather sadden them then refresh them it was cold comfort enough to break their hearts if that were in their eye which is in effect all one as if a man should say when a man is in a swoon hot water will rather sadden him then refresh him or when a man is sad it is cold comfort enough to break his heart to give him a cup of Sack But Mr. Sidenham will not be thought sine ratione delirare For saith he they might doubt more of that then of any thing whether God would call them or no. What was it likely they should doubt more of their childrens calling and pardon if they were called then of their own pardon who were then under horrour of soul for their own grand crime of killing Christ or if they did thus doubt would it break their heart to be told that there was a possibility and hope that the promise was to their children who might be called I have heard that if it were not for hope the heart would break but I never heard that the telling of a person of a thing of which there was hope though he might doubt of it would break his heart But Master Sidenham addes The old way of conveying the promise is cut off no promise but to called ones our poor children are uncalled and God knows whether ever they may be called of God thus might they reason Ans. It s true they might thus reason But that they did or by Peters words as expounded by me were likely to reason thus is against reason to imagine The old way of conveying the promise I imagine he means the giving the initial seal to their infants that is Circumcision Now will any sober man think that in that perplexity they were in through conscience of their guilt and danger of wrath impending on their children by reason of their impious curse when Peter tells them to stay them from despair that yet in Christ sent the promise was fulfilled for remission of sins to them and their children if each of them were called of God that is did repent and believe that they would repel this comfort by questioning the losse of Circumcision and bemoaning the want of it to their infants I know the Jews were zealous after for Circumcision and the Law even those who became Christians yet sure in that perplexity there was not the least thought of such a poor priviledg as an initial seal but of the freedome of themselves and children from their guilt and curse But I would know where this doctrine is that Circumcision conveys the promises or is the old way of conveying them and what Scripture saith the promise of remission of sins here meant as Master Sidenham himself expounds it is to any but called ones Paul saith Rom. 8.30 whom he hath called them he hath justified Hos non alios saith Augustine and Orthodox Protestants as from the Text may be evinced sith all these agree to the same persons to be predestinate called justified glorified Is this such doctrine as were enough to break their hearts But let 's hear him out But when he includes them in the same promise with parents and exhorts the parents to repent upon this ground that the promise is to them and their children this savours like a Gospel comforting-exhortation and could not be but of great efficacy upon their spirits Answ. Me thinks it should be comfortable to them that the promise was to them and their children upon condition of calling that is sanctification repentance believing It is Antinomian doctrine not Gospel to say justification is to a person uncalled that afore he believes he is justified actually before God even while he lives in the height of sin It is true the promises of the land of Canaan and other benefits were to Abrahams natural seed but the Gospel-promises of remission of sins and everlasting life in Christ were never to Abrahams or any believing parents natural seed as such but only to Abrahams spiritual seed elect and true believers Master Sidenham addes 4. What strange mysterious tautologies would be in this one verse if that last sentence should refer to all the former expressions we must read it thus to make out their sense The promise is to you parents of the Jews when God shall call you and they were then under call and to your grown children when God shall call them and to all which are afar off when God shall call them Can any man with his understanding about him think the holy Ghost should faulter so much in common expression of his minde when there was no need of adding of calling to any part but to those that are afar off who never
the visible Church and partake of them who are not elect nor true believers But none but elect persons have the promises of the new Covenant made to them none but an elect person hath the promise that God will write his Laws in his heart be his God c. And therefore none but such in truth are in the covenant of grace though others may be in shew in it and accounted so by us Mr. Josiah Church in his Book forenamed pag. 41. interposeth thus 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant for a mixt Gospel Covenant is a Covenant partly of works and partly of grace and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was not mixed after that manner for the Law was not given untill four hunâ—red and thirty years after iâ— and then it was not mixed with it but onely annexed to it Gal. 3.17 Answer Mr. Church his Confession that spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant is as much as I need to justifie my speech Exercit. pag 2. who did not call the Covenant made with Abraham mixt in any other sense But saith he â— the difference was onely in the dispensation and not in the substance of the Covenant the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was as pâ—rely Evangelical as this whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us and the temporal promises were Evangelical and belonged to believers as such for because of unbelief many obtained them not Heb. 3.19 Also there are temporal promises in this dispensation and the people of God have Christ and all other things by the same charter Matth. 5.5 6.33 Rom. 9.32 Ezek. 36.25 30. Answer If there were difference in the promises there was difference in the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham and ours It is proved from Gal. 3.8 that the covenant made with Abraham was Evangelical but not purely Evangelical It is not true that the temporal promises Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. belonged to believers as such For though many through unbelief entered not into Câ—naan Heb. 3.19 yet neither all nor onely believers entered in The Gospel was preached to them as well as to us Heb. 4.2 but not either by so purely Evangelical a covenant nor in so perspicuous a way We have temporal promises now but not the same nor by the same charter As for what he adds that the promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual I grant it but deny it any absurdity to say that no promise was sealed to many circumcised infants that their souls were not profited nor any benefit to them by circumcision though there was profit by it attainable and attained by many more than which to the present purpose is not gathered from Rom 2.1 2. I return to Mr. M. I take his grants pag. 99. That Circumcision was comprehended in his c. as belonging to the manner of administration af the Covenant together with sacrificeâ— and that the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted and so blot out my second exception against his first conclusion onely it is to be observed that pag. 187. he doth cross himself For whereas here he grants it to belong to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant there he will have it to belong to the substance of the Covenant not as a part of it but as a means of applying it And this is in effect all one as in his language to say it belongs not to the substance of the covenant for of it onely are the parts but to the administration For how doth it administer it but as a means of applying it But my third Exception requires more reviewing Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. had mentioned besides Christ and true believers a third sort of Abrahams seed not born Jews but made Proselytes who were Abrahams seed by profession who sought justification by the works of the Law did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God and alleged â—al 4 29. for it Against this I excepted 1. that I thought he could not shew where in Scripture such are called Abrahams seed To this he replies 1. That he named not Proselytes to add any strength to the argument it had been enough for his purpose to have said Some in the Church of the Jews were visible members yet not inwardly godly and these were called Abraham's seed as well as others Answ. I should have yielded to call such if they were Jews by birth or nature Abrahams seed but not so of any Proselyte and so Mr. M. had not his purpose of applying the term Abrahams seed to Gentiles who were believers onely in profession much less to Gentiles who did not so much as profess faith in Christ but sought righteousness by the works of the Law 2. He saith He never expected to have met with a quarrel for calling them who joyned to the Church by that cowmon name whereby the Church-members were called viz. the seed of Abraham or the children of Israel Answer There was no quarrel in my words but if Mr. M. did not expect that his sayings in that Sermon would be sifted to the bran it was his oversight They that doubted of the divine warrant of Paedobaptism had very great cause to discuss that Sermon being preached and printed at that time by such a man and taken to be the sense of the Assembly of Divines then â—itting at Westminster He says The seed of Abraham or the children of Israel were the common name by which Church-members joyned to the Church of Israel were called but he proves it not and till he do prove it I reject it 3. Saith he And could no place of Scripture be produced where Proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were noâ— Tanti Answer It would follow then that the promise Gen. 17.7 of being God to Abraham 's seed is not meant of Gentile Proselytes who were onely by profession Gods people not in reality much less of their natural seed and this would make most of the infants baptized unbaptizable by Paedobaptists own pâ—inciples for sure the do not take the natural infant children of them that are not Abrahams seed to be in the covenant Gen. 17.7 and therefore must confess them unbaptized 4. Saith he But if it were a thing of any mâ—menâ— it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that Proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2.10 22. compared Acts 13.26 compared with v. 43. but I forbear Ans. Of what moment it is hath been said I think it would be a very hard matter out of those Texts to prove any Proselytes much less such as were onely visible Church-members of the Jews seeking justification by works not
submitting to Gods righteousness Abrahams seed In the former of the Texts is not the term Abrahams seed which was the term in question nor do the Verses compared prove that the Proselytes mentioned v. 10. are called v. 22. Men of Israel any more than Men of Judea and dwellers at Jerusalem v. 14. nor doth it appear they were called Men of Israel v. 22. in any other sense than as Israelite by generation The later Text mentions the children of the stock of Abraham v. 26. but so called by natural generation opposite to the Gentiles as v. 46. shews not Proselytes called Abrahams seed though self-justiciaries and Gods people onely so far as outward profession yea children of the stock of Abraham are there distinguished from those among them that feared God that is Proselytes I told Mr. M. that he joyned with Arminius in calling self-justiciary Proselytes Abraham 's seed which Mr. Bayn denied He saith He joyned not with Arminius that I mis-allege Arminius joyn with Servetus To which I reply no more than I have done in my Apology pag. 22. Sect. 5. To acquit himself from what I charge him with that Mr. Bayn opposeth him he brings words six lines before of Mr. Bayns that say children of the flesh in some other Scripture doth note out justiciaries and that these words clear him and that I was guilty of negligence or falshood But sure I must continue still this charge against Mr. M. and add further an imputation of negligence at least if not of falshood who heeded not that the words of Mr. Bayn which I alleged say as much that the term children of the flesh elswhere signified self-justiciaries though not there yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so tâ—ken Now I did not charge with this that he had no Scripture to prove self-justiciaries to be called children of the flesh but that he had no Scripture to prove self-justiciary Proselytes called Abrahams seed which Mâ— Bayn saith is never so taken and therefore Mr. Bayns words clear him not but condemn him Mr. M. says I speak of Abraham 's seed by calling and that the promise I will be the God of thy seed was made good in the calling the Gentiles all which were not partakers of an inward calling and therefore yield a seed of Abraham onely by profession But that which I say I mean not of a meer outward calling nor of all the Gentiles who are outwardly called I excepted also against Mr. Blake for making some Abraham 's seed in the bosom of the Church now who are born after the flesh and thereby have a Church-interest or a birth-right to Church-privileges and that he grosly alleged for this Gal. 4.29 And Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. saith We have also some meaning in the Church who are onely a holy seed by external profession Gal. 4 29. What Mr. Blake replied hereto in his Answer to my Letter is answered in the Postscript to my Apology Sect. 5. what he hath said in his Vindic. Foed cap. 41. is answered in the second part of this Review Sect. 18. Mr. M. wonders at my calling those passages very gross and tells me 1. That it is apparant Ishmael and the civil justiciaries of which he was Type had a visible standing in the Jewish Church and were the same of whom Paul speaks Rom. 10.3 and that in the same place Paul himself saith Even so it is now even in the Church of Galatia it was so and Paul by his doctrine laboured to make them better I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument that some have a visible Church-membership and ought to partake of outward Church-privileges notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children unless they repent Answer If this had been all Mr. Blake inferred from Gal. 4.29 I should have granted the conclusion though I deny his Exposition and the proposition he raiseth from the Text. But it is another thing that Mr. Blake and Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. would have Mr. M. that Gal 4.29 There is mention of some who are onely a holy seed by external profession and here expounds even so it is now in the Church of Galatia there is a different seed of Abraham one which is holy onely by external profession seeking righteousness by the works of the Law and have thereby a visible Church-membership and ought to partake of outward Church-privileges which is clean besides the meaning of the Apostle who doth not say Even so it is now in the Church of Galatia but simply Even so it is now that is it so happens in the world they that seek the righteousness by the works of the Law persecute them that are born after the spirit that is who through the spirit do wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith which was true in the Jews who persecuted the Apostles and other Christians out of zeal for the Law Now these had no visible standing in the Christian Church nor is the term born after the flesh taken in the better part so as to import a privilege a holy seed by external profession but in the worser part for an unholy seed by external profession and practice persecuting the Christian faith and hope Mr. Blake exponds being born aftâ—r the flesh as if it imported a privilege whereas it imports a cursed estate opposite to being born after the spirit and would have derived a title to Church-interest of some in the bosome of the Christian Church particularly believers infants whereas to be horn after the flesh is applied there to persecuting unbelievers who were not in the Church but cast out nor had any Church-interest by virtue of being born after the flesh but had an opposing enmity to it thereby Nor is it said of infants that they were born after the flesh but of such as persecuted them that were born after the spirit nor is there a word intitling them that were born after the flesh in that respect Abrahams seed though Ishmael their Type and the Jews his Antitype were Abrahams natural seed So that M M. is mistaken in conceiving that which offends me in Mr. Blakes expression is that he thinks there is a fleshly seed of Abraham for I grant the Jewish self-justiciaries were such But I conceive a gross absurdity in Mr. Blake that he takes being born after the flesh in the better part as importing the privilege of Church-interest to infants of believers and calling such as are born after the flesh Abrahams seed by way of privilege derived from that birth importing the seed of such to be visible members in the Christian Church of which I still conceive I passed a right censure in my Examen for the Reasons given however Mr. Blake and his Seconds take it SECT XXVI The mixture of the Covenant Gen. 17. as by me asserted is vindicated from Mr. Blake's Exceptions Vind. Foed c. 26. BUt I am necessitated to have moâ—e
than a malignant spirit towards me he would have judged that not to side with Jesuits but to keep my Oath which I took in the solemn Covenant I did oppose infant-baptism in maintaining of which he and the rest of the Paedobaptists have broken the covenant whereby they bound themselves to reform the worship of God after the Word of God And for what he chargeth me with that I borrow my weapons from the Jesuits though my denial is enough to acquit me from it there being none but knows my actions better than my self and with men not malevolent to me I think my words at least deserve as much credit concerning my own actions as Mr. Blakes yet as I said so I repeat it it appears to be a loud calumâ—y in that all along in my Examen and now in my other writings almost in every point I produce Protestants of good note concurring with me not onely in the point about the extent of the covenant Examen sect 4. part 3. and the holiness of children 1 Cor. 7.14 Exam. part 3. sect 8. Exerc. sect 5. Review part 1. sect 22. but also about the institution Mat. 28.19 Review part 2. sect 5. even in this point of the mixture of the covenant in the Section next before this Yea the Principle upon which I found all my dispute is that which Mr. Cotton in his Preface to his Dialogue for infant-baptism confesseth to be a main principle of purity and reformation And though Protestant writers do many of them oppose my conclusion yet they do agree with me in the premisses on which I build it to wit that Baptism is to be after the institution and that neither the institution nor practice in the New Testament was of Paedobaptism and all Paedobaptists whether Presbyterians or Independents who do hold that infâ—nts belong to the visible Church as the posterity of Abraham to the Jewish Church â—o injuriously keep them whose Baptism they avouch to be good and to be viâ—â—ble Church-members from the Lords Supper for want of knowlâ—dg as for what he tells me He can trace me out of some Jesuit in what I deâ—â—â—er â—bout the Covenant and Seal though I do not yet believe it yet there is no reason therefore to reject it as Doctor 〈◊〉 saith truly Bishop Morton in his Apology hath produced Popish writers and many of them Jesuits who deliver the same things which the Protestants do yet this is so fâ—r from discrediting their cause that it is justly counted a good plea for them and why should not the like plea be good on my behalf sith Jesuits are Adversaries to me as well as others But enough if not too much in answer to these calumnies sufficiently answered before Postscript Sect. 13. Mr. Blake proceeds thus Secondly if Circumcision have respect to those promises that were no Gospel-mercies but civil domestical restrained to Jews and not appertaining to Christians How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion it might have made a civil distinction and the want of it have been an evidence against other Nations that they had been none of the multiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh and that their interest had not been in Canaan But how could it have concluded them to have been without Christ strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision Ephes. 2.11 12. cannot be imagined Ans. 1. Circumcision did not make such a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion as that every circumcised person was of the Jewish Religion for if the posterity of Ishmael and Esau were not circumcised as Mahometans at this day which some Historians say of them at least for a time that they were yet Ahab and other worshiperps of Baal were of the posterity of Jacob and the Samaritans as Mr. Mede in his Discourse on John 4.23 were circumcised yet were not of the Jewsh Religion or at least there was a distinction in Religion between them John 4.22 Noâ— every one that worshipped the same God with the Jews was circumcised Cornelius and many other Proselytes of the gate owned the God and spiritual worship and moral Law of the Jews though they were not circumcised as Mr. Mede proves in his Discourse on Acts 17.4 nor doth the Apostle Ephes. 2.11 12. determine upon their uncircumcision that is conclude them without hope without God barely from their uncircumcision as if he held all uncircumcised were without hope without God but he onely sets those things down as concurrent not one the certain cause or sign of the other 2. Circumcision did distinguish between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion not because it sealed Gospel-mercies nor because it sealed promises of civil or domestick benefits but because it bound to the observance of the Law of Moses in respect of the observation of which the distinction in Religion was known by Circumcision not by its sealing the covenant-promises either Evangelical or civil and domestick 3. If the distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion were made by Circumcision as sealing the covenant Gen. 17. it might have made a religious distinction by my Tenet who hold it signed the spiritual promises though not them onely as wel as by Mr. Blakes The next thing which Mr. Blake urgeth against me from Jerem. 4.4 Rom. 2.28 Deut. 10.16 Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 44.9 is that Circumcision had relation to promises spiritual which is not denied nor any thing against the mixture I hold in the covenant nor to evacuate any inference I make from it In like manner the fourth tends to prove that Circumcision did not respect alone the civil interest of the Jews which I grant But the fifth thing urged by Mr. Blake needs some examination Fifthly saith he How is it that the Apostle giving a definition of Circumcision refers it to nothing rational civil or domestick but onely to that which is purely spiritual speaking of Abraham he saith he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised The righteousness of faith is a promise purely Evangelical Rom. 3.22 3.30 10.3 Phil. 3.8 and this Circumcision sealed the self-same thing that our Sacraments seal Answer The Apostle doth not give a definition of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 12. For 1. that which is to be defined is say Logicians a common term but Circumcision Rom. 4.11 is not a common term but a singular or individual to wit that which Abraham had in his own person it is that which he received and the time is noted to be after he had righteousness by faith which he had yet being uncircumcised for a singular privilege to be the father of believers Ergo 2. There is no genus nor difference of Circumcision from other things therefore no definition No genus for the term seal cannot be the genus it being a meer Metaphor and so
which Mr. Dickson thus paraphraseth if they which are of the Law or which seek righteousness by works were the sons of Abraham and heirs of life and partakers of righteousness then faith should be made void and the promise vain But this is absurd Therefore they which are of the law are not heirs but alone believers are sons of Abraham and heirs of life and righteousness The 16. v. doth yet more plainly express that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 As Evangelical is made are believers onely Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that onely which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all Upon which saith Mr. Dickson with that uery counsel God appointed that the inheritance should be of faith that it might agpear to be of grace or by grace Therefore onely and all believers uncircumcised and circumcised alike are heirs The inheritance is of faith and by grace by the Counsel of God that the promise might be sure to all the â—eed not onely to that which is the seed of Abraham by the law of nature and hath faith also that is the circumcised Jewes believing but also to that seed which is not by the law of nature or the flesh but onely by the faith of Abraham that is the uncircumcised believing Gentiles Therefore unless suspending the promise of righteousness and the inheritance upon the condition of the law to be performed we would make it unsure and uncertain the whole seed of Abraham or all and onely believers circumcised and uncircumcised are heirs by faith with father Abraham who according to faith is father of all us believers of Jewes and Gentiles Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.16 Paul manifestly devides into two members that which in general he had said of the whole seed of Abraham that is believers both circumcised and uncircumcised Pisc. Sch. to all the seed that is of Abraham to wit all believers Diodati to all namely to the spiritual seed according to the faith of which God intended to speak in that excellent promise I will be thy God and of thy seed after the Gen. 17.7 Lastly the Apostle interprets the promise Gen. 17.5 That Abraham should be the father of many Nations thus that the Gentiles should be his seed by faith v. 17. as it is written I have made thee a father of many Nations on which Master Dickson By force of the divine promise promising that he should be the father of many Nations Abraham embraced for sons all believers to be ingrafted into his seed and so in vertue of the promise as it were begat or conceived believers to himself as sons promised The new Annot on Rom. 4.17 I have made thee a Father See Gen. 17.5 Not of those only that should issue from him according to the flesh but also of those among all nations that by faith should be adopted and received into his spiritual family 5. The texts also which are Gal. 3.7 16 â—9 and 4 28. Are very pregnant to the same purpose that the seed of Abraham to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical is made are only true believers or elect persons The first of these places is that which is asserted in terms Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham where the speech is equipollent to an exclusive For having v. 2.5 told them they must have the spirit and be Abrahams children either by the works of the law or by faith and determined that they had not the spirit by the works of the law but by faith supposing that they who are children have received the spirit as it is v. 14. it plainly followes that they only are the children of Abraham which are of faith even as Protestant divines conclude from Gal. 2.16 that justification is by faith only because the disjunction being sufficient justifycation is either by faith or by works and works excluded it followes we are justified by faith onely And so Mr. Dickson conceives that the Apostles argument is Gal. 3.7 They onely who are of the faith or who seek to be justified by faith and not by works are the children of Abraham therefore the only reason of justification is by faith Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.7 yet you know that is to say this doctrine is clear and resolved upon amongst Christians that the true children of Abraham comprehended in the covenant which God made with him and his posterity are not the carnal Jewes which are borne of him or joined to him by circumcision and by professing of their ceremonies but all such as according to Abrahams example do renounce all confidence in their own proper works and put it wholly in Gods promises and grace in Christ as Abraham was made a father example and paragon of faith to all those to whom the covenant made with him was to appertain The like is the determination of Mr. Perkins that I may omit others who in his com on Gal. 3.7 Saith the promise and election of God makes properly children of Abraham and that the true mark of the child of Abraham is to be of the faith of Abraham and that profession of Abrahams faith and descent from Isaac are not sufficient to prove men children of Abraham without following of his faith The texts Gal 3.16 29. have been considered before and our inferences vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams evasions The other to wit Gal. 4.28 Speaks to the same purpose to which the fore alleaged texts do Now we Brethren as Isaâ—c was are children of the promise that is we of whom the Jerusalem which is above is mother that is as Beza Annot. adde v. 26. we who embraced Christ adde v. 27. he shewes the true sons of Abraham are born spiritually by the Gospel adde v. 28. are children of the promise that is that seed to which pertaineth that promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed out of all which it appears that as the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee was Evangelical it was made only to the elect of God and true believers and they only are Abrahams seed there meant 6. I shall next adde the consideration of that text Rom. 9.6 7 8. Whâ—re the Apostle speaks thus not as though the word of God hath taken none effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed I suppose it will not be denyed that this passage is an answer to an objection occasioned by the intimating of the rejection of the Jewes from being Gods people v.
and have those that have promised as sureties the infant should believe and obey Christ which they have not been able to perform but have taken on them Christs prerogative Heb. 7.22 Nor is the baptism of the infant his sign or seal he being meerly passive as they say and so doing no act nor engaging thereby and if the parent do engage for the child the parent should be baptized for the child if baptism be the baptized party his seal But as I said I do not call baptism a seal of the covenant and therefore am not tied at all to answer this Argument except to shew the fuciâ—ity of it For which end 1. the mannâ—r of speech is liable to exception in the use of the term Proper Covenant which I imagine Mr. B. useth unskilfully for Properly so called 2. There is no proof of the Major from this that Baptism or the Sacrament is a mutuall engaging sign or seal For that proves rather that baptism or the Sacrament it self is a proper covenant than that that which is sealed by the Sacraments is a proper Covenant 3. Nor doth it follow That if the very definition of a proper Covenant be that it must be a mutuall engagement that which is sealed by the Sacraments must be a proper covenant but onely proves that upon supposition that the covenant sealed to by the Sacraments must be a proper covenant that then it must be with restipulation or mutuall engaging 4. though Lawyers do determine that a covenant properly so called is a mutuall engagement yet this proves not that which in Scripture is termed the covenant which they say baptism seals is such Yea in all the places that I know where the covenant of grace is mentioned there is no restipulation at all mentioned neither Gen. 17. nor Jer. 31. nor Luke 1. nor Heb. 8 10. But where there is a restipulation it is rather the covenant of the Law than of the Gospel 5. That which is a meer prophesie or promise is as properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Covenant as a mutuall engagement as I shall shew hereafter against Mr. Bl. 6. Nor do I know why that may not be a mutuall engagement if the absolute promise were sealed to by the Sacrament as well as if the conditionall For if the engagement in the conditionall covenant on Gods part is that if he believe he shall be justified and on mans part that he will believe or rather in baptism he testifies he doth believe The absolute promise is to give faith Is not God and Man in like manner engaged by baptism in sealing this as well as the other 7. I know not how it can be truly said That Baptism as given is Gods seal and as accepted Mans seal For neither doth God give baptism to be accepted but his promise nor is the baptized said to accept baptism but the promise Nor is there any act of God which may be called his Seal but he covenants and I presume they will not confound Covenant and Seal 8. Nor doth the infant accept or seal or engage and therefore in infant-baptism there is no covenant or seal 9 By this description of Mr. B. there should be a mutuall seal and so a severall seal and not baptism Gods and Mans seal too For according to the manner of sealing Covenants which are mutuall as the one party seals with his own seal so the other party seals with his own distinct seal and so if baptism be Gods seal the party bapâ—ized should have another seal to signifie his engagement 10. Mr. B. tells me that Grotius de jure belli and other Lawyers will inform me that the very definition of a proper Covenant is that it must be a mutuall engagement But he doth not tell me where it is in Grotius nor in what other Lawyer I have lightly looked over the â—1 Chapter of the second book of Grot. de jure belli ac pacis which is de promissis and some other following and find not that which Mr. B. saith but find ch 11. sect 5. that he determines that of an infant is no promise because the use of reason is required to a promise and therefore in infant-baptism there is no restipulation or mutuall engagement and so no proper covenant by Mr B. his doctrine But what ever other Lawyers say I am mistaken if it be not usuall with the Lawyers in conveyances to use this expression That the seller is said to covenant to and with such a person who makes no restipulation or reciprocall engagement And both in the Scottish covenant and in our solemn League and Covenant I find covenanters engaged to do many things without any restipulation or reciprocall engagement and therefore do not conceive it necessary to a covenant that it be a mutual engagement or with restipulation Mr. B. adds 2. If it were the absolute promise of the first grace that is sealed by the Sacraments then the Sacraments must be given to no man or to all men but that is absurd therefore so is the former The consequent is manifest because that absolute promise or prophesie is onely of the elect and that before regeneration Now no man hath any sign given him so much as probable by which to judge of the unregenerate elect so that it must either be given to all or none Answer The whole frame of this Argument depends on these mistakes 1. That a person hath title to baptism by vertue of its interest in Gods covenant of grace and that accordingly a Minister is to baptize 2. That a probable sign of such interest warrants the baptism of the party so interessed which I have often proved to be false and that nothing but manifest discipleship certainly known to the baptizer warrants him to do it And indeed if we must baptize according to that rule of persons interest in the covenant probably signified Salvages in New England are to be baptized upon the probable signes they give of being wrought upon by a Sermon afore they know and profess the faith of Christ and few or no infants are baptized there being either no sign given to any man of their being in covenant or at most but of very few of the baptized Mr. B. Ap. to his Aphor. p. 70. If a Minister adventure to administer it upon probability then should he be guilty of prophâ—ning the ordinance 3. Saith Mr B. Or we may argue thus It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments But it cannot be known before the fulfilling no not at all to whom particularly that absolute promise doth belong therefore that absâ—lut promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments Answer 1. By denying the Major 2. By retorting the argument thus It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments But it cannot be known ordinarily in this to whom particularly the conditionall promise
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
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
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-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
not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging Ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29.10 11. c with 30.11 12 13 14. so Isai. 51.7 Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this I will be your God whence all is inclosed up in that phrase ibid. or was not the first made to the Iews after their return from Captivity more expresly Ier. 3â— as before more implicitely Gen. 17. Reply The objection I concieve though I do not well know whose it is is this that the covenant at mount Sinai with the Iewish nation or the covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. were not the same with the covenant for that was in the flesh in circumcision or with the fleshly Iew in that at mount Sinai this is the heart by writing Gods Law there and comprehends onely them in whose hearts Gods Laws are written And indeed this difference the Apostle makes between the Covenant of the Law and the Goâ—pel the one was of the letter the other of the spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 the promise of the spirit is said to be by faith Gal. 3.14 and in the new covenant this is made the promise different from what was in the first which was faulty for want of it Heb. 8.10 â— that God would write his laws in their hearts now what Mr. C. speaks seems to me no whit to infring this For though it is true the word of Covenant was in their hearts yet it is true if meant of sanctifying implantation only of the elect not all Abrahams natural seed or the whole body of Israel How Moses is said to judg Ecclesiastically I understand not Deut. 29.10 11. c. with 30.11 12 13 14. do not prove that Moses avowed of every Isralite that the word of covenant was in their heart In some places doubtless the promise I will be your God includs also the writing of Gods Laws in our hearts nor will I deny it included in the promise Gen. 17.7 But I do then not understand it of every Israelite in that sense for if so then I must make Gods word fal sith he doth not perform it to al. And for that which Mr. C. seems to hold that they had the promise dispensed unto them with execution of the covenant it is in my apprehension to charg God with falshood if any say I wrong Mr. C. let him construe this passage otherwise if he can yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them suppose he did not that is the execution of the covenant as for the very â—erith or Covenant itself it is the promise whereof dispensed to them and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30.6 To circumcise the heart to love God is to imprint gracious dispositions to promise the same to them is a Covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid In which words he seems plainly to make God promise to imprint in some the gratious disposions he doth not actually imprint which is to make God not keepe his word nor is the matter mended by asking is not Gods Covenant now also sacramentally on our bodies too and in many no further For I grant many are baptized who are not regenerate yet I do not believe Gods Covenant of grace is to any such or as Mr. C. speaks Gods Covenant to write his Laws in their hearts is to any such Nor do I think that either Ierem. 31·33 or Deut. 30.6 God promiseth to all Israelits to write holy dispositions in their hearts but only to the elect nor to these in his covenant at mount Sinai though he made these promises to some of the natural seed of Israel neither Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. nor Gen. 4.15 16. Compared with Gen. 6.1 2. nor Gen. 17.18.19 20 21. compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12. and Gal. 4. nor Heb. 12 15 16.17 prove that either Cain or Ishmael or Esau were ever in the Covenant of Evangelical grace nor is there any text that proves that he new covenant is intailed to natural generations of the most Godly men Mr. C. in answer to the tenth objection saith thus But it 's false to say the Commandement gave right to Covenant Interest since Covenant right was first promised and declared to be the ground of that commanded service of the initâ—atory seal Gen. 17 7 8 9 10 11. c. Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant He doth not say you must be or are circumcised and therefare I will be your God But I will be a God to thee and thy seed therefore thou and they shall be circumcised the nature of a seal supposeth a Covenant to be sealed To which I reply I confess it were ridiculous for any to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest or covenant-right For what is covenant-interest but interest in the covenant and covenant-right but right from the covenant But setting aside Mr C. his inept phrasifyings which I count to be Paedobaptists-gibberish it is not false but manifest truth that it is the command of God onely that gave title to persons to be circumcised and is the Rule to know who are to be circumcised and who not as I have often proved and shewed to be in effect confessed by Mr M. As for Mr. C. his inference from thou therefore Gen 17.9 it is answered often before in the first part of this Review Sect. 5. and elswhere that neither is the reading certain thou therefore nor doth the inference arise meerly from the promise v. 7. nor is the inference at all of a right to circumcision but of a duty nor is this duty urged from each circumcised persons interest in the covenant but Gods making it with Abraham Nor is it true That the nature of a Seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed sith other things are to be sealed as Letters Books Stones Men Fountains c. besides covenants Abrahams circumcision Rom. 4.11 was a seal not of a covenant of some things to be done but of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised if it were true yet is it as little to the purpose sith there may be a covenant sealed to a person that hath no interest in the promise as when ones name is used onely as a Trustee for others And for what is said That the commandment required only a male of eight dayes old to be circumcised which Mr. C. seems to conceive false meaning not before the eighth day is so plain by reading the chapter that I should make question of his wit or his forehead that should deny it And the reason thus exprest is as frivolous The promise heing made indefinitely to the seed whether male or female and not to the eighth day old seed but to the seed albeit but a day old For though the promise be to the child of one day old yet the command is not to him nor is
studied arguments in unusual expressions that he might the more easily entangle me having no time to weigh his words but being required presently to give answer For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument Which that I may do I conceive it necessary that in the entrance I do enquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church and admissiâ—n into it and the meaning of his expression ought to be admitted visible Church-members 1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to the judgement of man to be the same with the mystical Praefestin Morator sect 11. 2. That to be a member of the Church visible is but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdome of Heaven if a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members of the Church Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 31. pag 105. ch 27. pag. 73. He saith to be member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Answ. to my Valedict Orat. pag. 176. You say you dispute them not out of the invisible Church Answ. 1. But will you yeeld that they are so much as seeming probable members of the invisible Church If you do then they are members of the visible which you deny For to be a visible member of the Church or a member of the visible Church as such is no more thâ—n to be a seeming member of the invisible Church or one that we ought to take in probability to be of the invisible Church Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 17. pag. 229 c. 3. Ch. 20. He imagâ—nes an universal visible Church existent not dissolved which is all one as to say there is or was an universal visible Church consisting of indiviâ—ual members immortal or perpetually visible Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows 4. Ch. 5. ch 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church But therein he is mistaken For though they may be termed substantial parts yet not essential the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it but integral 5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed that the Jews Church was not repealed ch 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church and many of its accidents was grounded is not changed or repealed Though the Jews are cast off yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same Which speeches with other more of the like kind shall be God willing examinâ—d in that which follows and the non-sence and vanity of them shewed 6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off 7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God which is made higher then that Gen. 17.7 even that Gen. 3.15 Ch. 23. Yea he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdome And ch 13. therefore infants to be church-members Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith as if Church constitution were natural and not by meer institution 8. Animadv on Mr. Bedfords treatise of Baptismal regeneration Plain Script proof pag. 3â—6 pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent The falsity of which conceit is shewed by me in the 2d part of this Review sect 10 17. and elsewhere 9. That this visible church-membership notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant yet endures not but til they when they come to years do themselves make profession So Plain Scrip. proof part 2. ch 6. pag. 119. He is not to be taken for a Christian who will not visibly by himself when he comes to age as he did by his parents in infancy publickly profess both his assent to to the fundamental Articles of Faith and his consent that the Lord onely shall be his God and Christ onely his Redeemer and so his Saviour and Lord and promise in heart and life to be true to him accordingly And I deliver the Sacrament to none that will not thus profess and promise And pag. 335. He saith He will not contradict this proposition of Davenant Those who in Baptism were truly justified regenerated and adopted suitable to their infant state when they come to the use of reason are not justified regenerated and adopted suitable to the special state of the aged unless by repenting believing and abrenunciation they fulfil their vow made in Baptism 10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church but by Baptism pag. 24.108 But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism 11. I presume that when he saith All that ought to be admmitted visible church members ordinarily ought to be baptized he means this of Christian Churches church members and admitting into them not the Jewish For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed as in his non-sence he speaks ch 20. that is as I imagine in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same and so they that were admitted into the Jewish are to be admitted into the Christian which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression ought to be admitted visible church-members Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christs coming while the Jewish Church stood if he should I should deny it 12. That this admission which infants are to have is as he often speaks into the visible Church But what this admission into the visible Church is by whom and unto whom it ought to be according to Mr. Bs. judgment is yet to me uncertain Admission is according to the common use of iâ— the
as injurious and pernicious tending to take away that liberty of examining things receâ—ved and to impose on mens consciences new subscriptions and conformities as intollerable as those the Prelates urged and consequently shutting out light from shining and inducing persecution afresh and that he and such as he is who are partial in Gods law prophaning yea quite changing or dissolving the prime solemn ordinance of Christ and opposing contrary to their solemn Covenant the reformation of that abuse should be made contemptible before all the people Mal. 2.9 Mr. B. adds yet in private I confess he cited two texts to prove the repeal of Gods Ordinance and merciful gift that infants should be Church-members and I will read the two places to you which private conference I would not mention but lest it should be thought a wrong to him to overpass his onely proofs The first was Gal. 4.1 2 3 4 5. when I considered that such a man should deny all infants Church-membership and affirm that God hath repealed that his Ordinance and merciful gift and have no more Scripture for it then such as this and yet be so confident it maketh me amazed Hath he not a good wit that can prove that Christ hath repealed his merciful gift because he hath redeemed us from under our bondage and tutorage or that he hath shut out all infants from his Church because he hath delivered them from the inconveniences of their minority If I had no better proof then this for infant baptism I should be ashamed once to open my mouth for it Answ. Had Mr. B. any true love or justice towards me as he seems to have by his pretended loathness to mention my private conference he had not so often and with such false caluâ—niatory inferences mentioned in his writings what past in private conference concerning my censure of mens not receiving the doctrine of Antipaedobaptism my plea for plurality of places c. whereby he hath done what in him lay to defame me as proud covetous schismatical and given over by God to a reprobate minde though there was no necessity of such divulgings But much experience hath taught me to expect no better usage from an intemperate Zelot for his opinion though a pretended friend and seeming godly then from an open enemy Mr. B. is amazed that I alledged Gal. 4.1 2 3 4 5. as I did and but that I have learned nil admirari of such passages I should be amazed at his dealing with me in setting down my proofs though they were but in a private conference without study The thing of which he urged me to prove the repeal I remember not whether it were of the visible Church-membership of infants or of their admission The latter was it the repeal of which he denied For so was his antecedent By the merciful gift and appointment of God not yet repealed some infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church and this is proved plainly from Gal. 4.1 c. that the ordinance of admission which was no other then circumcision of infants is repealed yea if that explication of Beza Legem enim id est totam illam legalem oeconomiam dicit fuisse instar tutoris sive curatoris ad certum tempus dati thus Englished in the New Annot. For hee saith that the law that is the whole Government of Gods house according to the law was as it were a kinde of tutorship or office of an Overseer appointed for a time be right the Church-membership visible of infants which was peculiar to the Jews and belonged to the legal Church-state is plainly limited in that place to a certain time now expired and consequently the ordinance of such Church-membership if there had been such repealed And I say that if he had so good proof for his infant baptism as this is for the repeal of his pretended ordinance of infants admission and visible Church-membership unrepealed I would plead for it as he doth But Mr. B. as one that haâ—h a good wit can by his Chymistry prove hence his non repeal Nay saith he I pray you do but consider whether his own proof be not sufficient against him â— Doth not this text plainly tell us that the heir in his minority is Lord of all and so approve of the natural birth priviledge of our children in civil things And will God then deny children to be heirs of any thing and bereave them of their spiritual or Church-priviledge and neither tell us why he doth it nor that he doth it Answ. Gods heirs are but co-heirs with Christ Rom. 8 17. true believers or elect persons who are not deprived by me of any truely so called spiritual Church priviledge The priviledge of infants visible Church-membership as it came with the spiriâ—ual Church-state of Abrahams family so it ceased with the dissolution thereof of which God hath given us reason in that it was but for an appointed time by God which as it began with Gods special love to Abraham so it ended upon his loathing his unbelieving posterity and setting his love on the Gentiles Again saith he more plainly if Christ came to free the heir from his bondage and tutorage onely and from the servitude of his minority is it likely that he came to free them from their Church-membership Can any man think that this was any part of the â—ondage require those whose consciences are not wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits to judge of this soberly whether they can possibly think it a bondage to be a member both of the universal Church and of a particular Let them not here tell me that Circumcision was a bondage or that the Law was a Tutor For I speak of none of these but of their being members of the Church of God Answ. Whom Mr. B. means by person whose Consciences are wholly enslaved to their fancies and conceits I cannot determine I know few men who give me more cause of fear that they are such then Mr. B. who seems to me to have more conceits and â—ancies then one and those with so much pertinacy and violent zeal promoted as me thinks searce agree to a sober man For my self I say that such a visible Church-membership as the infants of the Jews had in my soberest judgement I not onely can possibly think which Mr. B. himself also may do sith it implies no contradiction but do verily think to have been a part of the imperfect state of the Church and in some respect of the bondage For though Churchmembership be a priviledge of it self yet comparatively and in respect of some consequents attending it as namely subjection to the whole Law of Moses it is a manifest imperfection and bondage As the state of the Apostles was a state of minority bondage imperfection while Christ was on earth in comparison of the estate after his ascension when the spirit was powred out upon them John 16 7. And I doubt not to affirm that Christ
all the nation was called in one way even servants and all but now God calâ— here one and there one Besides he shews that the Temple Priesthood sacrifices are taken down and therefore the Church constitution This is the very strength of all that Mr. T. hath to say to prove the repeal of Gods merciful Ordinaâ—ce of infants Church membership And I cannot chuse but say They are silly souls and tractable to novelâ—y and easily seduced from the truth of God and far from the stability of judicious tender conscienc't Christians who will be drawn by such misty cloudy arguing without any Scripture proof yea and against so much Scripture Answ. And I cannot chuse but say that Mr. Bs. dealing is disâ—ingenuous and Sopâ—istical in sore â—aâ—ling Readers by such censures which are the mere evaporations of his own ignorancâ— and confidence and I might add arrogance But to the argument I deny that this is the very strength of all that I have to say to prove the repeal or that it is cloudy misty arguing against any Scripture But from it The argument is taâ—en from the notation of the word Church put into the definition of it by the generality of Divines yea by Mr. B. himself plain Scrip. proof c. pag. 71 8â— that the Greek word for Church is from calling out and that the Church is a peoâ—le or a society of persons called out of the world Whence it follows that they who are not called out of the world are not of the Church they that have not an outward call are not of the visible Church But infants have not the outward call of the Christian Church therefore are not visible members in the Christian Church The minor is proved from the proper call of the Christian Church which is proved negatively not to be as the Jewish Church 1. by authority 2. of a whole people together 2. affirmatively by assigning 1. the onely way of outward call in the Christian Church to be by preaching the Gospel 2. that this call is of single peâ—sons severed in their habitations relations c. The former is proved by story Two remarkable outward calls there were of the Church of Israel one by Abraham and that was Gen. 17. perhapâ— there was some other but no other occurs to me and that was according to Gods direction by authority taking in all his house together not by preaching as the Apostles did The other of Moses Exod. 19 c. which was done in like manner The later is proved by institution and practise to be seen in these and many more Scriptures Ephes. 4.11 12 c. Acts 2.41 47. Act. 8.12 c. But of this which is the onely outward churchcal infants are not the subjects therefore neither of visible churchmembership which is always this way and no other in the Christian Churches This is further confirmed from those Scriptures which deny the new-birth necessary to admission into the Christian Church to be by humane generation which it must bee if it bee as the Jewish church-membership was as Joh. 1.13 and ascribe it even in Jews themselves to the word Jam. 1.18 1 Pet. 1.23 It is further confirmed in that the distinction of the Church visible and invisible is from their different calling They are not of the invisible who are not inwardly called they are not of the visible who have not the outward call Primum illud quod actu Ecclesiam constituit est vocatio unde etiam nomen suuâ— accipit definitionem Hudson vindic p. 67. exteâ—nal vocation and submission gave right in foro Ecclesiae to be admitted members of the Church Ecclesia enim est caetus hominum vocatorum 1 Cor. 1.24 cum 10.32 Ames Medul Th. l. 1. c. 31. § 6.7 But infants have not the outward call they are not brought into the Church by the word Therefore they are not visible Church-members What saith Mr. B. now 1 You must distinguish between the particular Church of the Jews and the universal visible Church And here I lay down these three proposâ—tions 1. The Jews Church was not the whole universal visible Church that God had then in the world And this he alleageth as my opinion with others and confirms it by sundry arguments Answ. Though the Assembly at Westminster say Confess of faith ch 25. art 2. The visible Church which is also Catholick or universal under the Gospel not confined to one nation as before under the law consists c. yet I agree with Mr. B in his proposition though not in all his proofs For the text Gen. 18.19 proves not the continuance of the Church in any of Abrahams posteriâ—y but those by Isaac nor do the instances of Bethuel Hiram the Ninivites Candace Queen of the Ethiopians evince a Church of God distinct from the Jewish His 2d proposition is if the Jewish Church had been the whole visible Church yet it would have been conâ—â—derable in both respects both as the Jewish Church and as the universal whic◠〈◊〉 pass His third is There is no member of any particular Church who is not also a member of the universal Church Therefore infants were members of the universal visible Church as well as of the Jews particular Church so that if it could be proved that their membership in that particular Church is overthrown yet that is nothing to prove that they have lost their standing in the universal Church But this shall fullier improve and vindicate her after Answ. It is much to prove they have lost their standing in the universal if they had no standing in the universal distinct from that in the particular as an excommunicate Apostate c. hath lost his standing in the universal visible Church if he have no standing therein distinct from that in the particular Church which he hath lost And this was the case of infants they had no standing in the universal distinct from that which they had in the Jewish Church and therefore if that particular Church-state or frame be dissolved in which alone infants are reckoned as members as it is and another erected in which they are not reckoned infants are not any longer to be reckoned as visible Church-members And â—his I shall make good when I come to Mr. Bs. fuller improvement of this 2. Saâ—th Mr. B. You must distinguish between the essentials and some accidentals of the Jewish Church The Priesthood Temple Sacrifice c. were meerly accidental and might be repealed without the reâ—eal of the essentials or the ordinance establishing the Church it self Answ. I grant the distinction but find it of no use till it be shewed what are the essentials and what not what the ordinance is that established that Church that it is of the essentials of that Church that infants be visible members is of the essentials of that Church which to assert were all one as to say the Jewish Church had been no Church visible without infants which I take to be absurd 3. Saith
Mr. B. You must distinguish between their Church consideâ—ed in it self and considered comparatively as to otheâ—s The Jews were a peculiar people and Church of God no other had the like priviledges Now if they had bâ—lieved they should have kept all their priviledges absolutely considered except it be a losing them to change them for greater But comparatively coâ—sidered they should not have kept some relative priviledges For they should no longer have been a singular peculiar people seeing others should have enjoyed as great priviledges as they yet this would have been without any loss of theirs much more without wholly unchurching them or their children When a man hath but one son he hath the priviledge of being his Fathers onely Son But when his father hath many more he hath lost that priviledge and yet is not therefore turned out of the Family nay the adding of more Brethren in our case is an increase of the happiness of each pâ—rticular for this is the very case of the Jews The adding of the Gentiles would have made the Jews no more to be so peculiar as to be singular in their priviledges and yet they should have enjoyed never tâ—e less Therefore mark iâ— the Scripture speaking of taking in the Gentiles it expâ—esseth it as by taking down the partition wall and making of both one Church but it speaks not of unchurching the Jews first and their children or bereaving them of their priviledges And when in his Vision Peter was taught the Doctrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church Acts 10. it was not by making the Jews unclean but by clensing the Gentiles to be clean as the Jews So that if the Jews would have believed they should have lost only their comparative priviledges consisting in the singularity of their enjoyments which is no loss to them to have the Gentiles enjoy them as well as they but their priviledges in themselves considered would not have been diminished but some lesser turned into greater And therefore certainly God would never have turned their children all out of the visible Church Answ. The distinction is of the â—ewish Church considered in it self and comparatively as to others but the application is as if Mr. B. had forgotten his distinction of their privileâ—ges considered absolutely and comparaâ—ive and tâ—en he saith if the Jews had believed they had lost onely their comparative priviledges not in themselves considered Concerning which conceits it had been requisit if he would be understood that either he should have given a catalogue of each sort of priviledges or such a description of them as whereby we miâ—ht understand which are of the one sort which of the other My opinion is that had the Jews believed that is every individuâ—l Jew of age or the greatest part â—ad received the Gospel they should have enjoyed with the Gentiles all the priviledges of the Covenant of saving graces the Jewish people should have enjoyed their possessions in their own Land which me thinks Christs words import Luke 19 4â— 42 43. But deny that they should have this as a priviledge to them that their children should be accounted visible members of the Christian Churches For Gods purpose was to erect a Church universal uniformly by preaching the Gospel and not by birth and it appeared plainly by the practise of John Baptist Christ and his Apostles who never took in any believing parenâ—s infant to Baptism and the Christian Church noâ— admitted any Jew without his own personal profession of Faith in Christ. Nor is the contrary proved by Ephes. 2.14 but that very thing I assert For the taking down the partition wall was by taking away the Jewish rites and Church-state that none could be joynâ—d to them without conformiâ—y to the Law now one Church is made of both by faith through the Gospel Ephes. 3.6 And in like maâ—ner when Peter took in Cornelius Acts 10. he declared Gods mind in his Vision v. 35. that in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with him but he doth not say that every one of their infant children are taken into the Church nor did he any act whereby to shew that to be Gods mind Nor are Mr. Bs. observations of any force for they suppose that if the Church state of the Jews were altered Paul would have spoken of their unchurching Ephes. 2.14 and Actsâ— of their making unclean which implies as if there were no other way then these to alter their Church-state and to leave the infants out of the visible Church Christian whereas I have often shewed the contrary thâ—t it was done by taking in onely to bapâ—ism bâ—lievers releasing from the burden of Circumcision and the Law which might have been though all the Jews of age had been believers 4. Saith Mr. B. So when we call the Jews a National Church and when Mr. T. saith God toâ—k the whole Nation to be his Church it may be meant either in regard of the appropriation and restriction to that Nation onely as if God had not called any other whole Nation and so it may be true that the Jews onely were a National Church though yet it is doubtfull as what is said of Melchizedek before sheweth and also in regard of their National and Church unity which yet is the excellency and strength of all other Churches or else by a National Church may be meant as if all were Church members that were of that Nation and no more were required to the being a Church member but to be of that Nation And thus I perceive it is by many understood But this is notoriously false Answ. It is in this last sâ—nse I mean it and I think it manifestly true with these explications 1. That they were of that Nation by birth property or proselytism 2. That they were Church-members while they continued to be of that Nation any of these wayâ— 3. That they were Church-members with some disâ—uiparance or inequality of priviledges Let 's view Mr. Bs. proofs For it was then as well as now the Covenant of God wherein he took them for his peculiar people and they took him for their onely God the parents engagiag for themselves and their children which made them members of the Church For 1. No aged person no not servants much less ordinary proselites were members except they entred the Covenant though they are commanded to circumcise all in their house yet it is supposed that by their interest and authority they caused them first to enter the Covenant Therefore they were to circumcise the servants bought with money as being absolutely their own whom they had most interest in but not the hired servants whom they had no such authority over except they became proselytes voluntarily Answ. A mutual Covenant such as that at Mount Sinai I deny not to have made the people of Israel the Church of God and consequently the infants then born visible Church-members But I dâ—ny that it was then by reason of the
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
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
order of Nature is inverted To all these arguments against infants visible Christian-Churchmembership this one may be added That there is neither example rule nor hint in all the New Testament of their admission into the Church or ordering in it or care of the Elders and Officers of the Church for them as members nor any other sign that Christ would have them reckoned as visible members in the Christian Church which is a strong presumption against it I know none that hath disputed for it so much as Mr. B. I will therefore go on to examine what he saith SECT LIII Letters between me and Mr. B. are set down concerning the Law and Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which he asserts whereby the point is stated THat the Reader may understand the true state of the Dispute between me and Mr. B. he is to take notice that when at first in the Dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. Mr. B. urged for infant Baptism his argument of the ordinance or law or appointment of God whereby infants were once to be admitted members of the visible Church now Printed in his book of Baptism ch 5. part 1. I not knowing what other it might be and he denying it was that of circumcision urged him often to tell me what it was which he would not which occasioned the Dispute to be more confused then otherwise it might have been After in my Praecursor I again told him I found it not but in the peculiar national policy of the Jews no universal law or ordinance for it To which what elusory reply he made is shewed in the second Part oâ— this Review sect 2. pag 8 9. Which moved me being then upon the examining of his 4th and 5th ch from Bewdley within two miles of Kidderminster to write and send April 3d. 1655. this Letter to him Sir Not finding yet that Law or Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership which you assert in your book of Baptism to be unrepealed I do request you to set down the particular Text or Texts of Holy Scripture where you conceive that Law or Ordinance is written and to transmit it to me by this bearer that your allegations may be considered by him who is Yours as is meet April 3. 1655. John Tombes The next morning I received from him this Letter directed to me Sir I mean to see more said against what I have already written before I will write any more about infant Baptism without a more pressing call than I yet discern I have discharged my conscience and shall leave you and yours to take your course And indeed I do not understand the sence of your Letter because you so joyn two questions in one that I know not which of the two it is that you would have me answer to Whether there were any Ordinance or Law of God that infants should be Churchmembers is one question Whether this be repealed is another you joyn both into one For the first that infants were Churchmembers as you have not yet denied that I know of so will I not be so uncharitable as to imagine that you are now about it And much less that you should have the least doubt whether it were by Gods ordination There are two things considerable in the matter First the benefit of Churchmembership with all the consequent priviledges It is the work of a grant or promise to confer these and not directly of a precept Secondly the duty of devoting and dedicating the child to God and entring it into the Covenant which confers the benefit and this is the work of a law or precept to constitute this duty I am past doubt that you doubt not of either of these For you cannot imagine that any infant had the blessing without a grant or promise that 's impossible nor that any parents lay under a duty without an obliging law for that 's as impossible Taking it therefore for granted that you are resolâ—ed in both these and so yeeld that such a grant and precept there was there remains no question but Whether it be repealed which I have long expected that you should prove For citing the particular Texts in which the ordination is contained though more may be said then is said yet I shall think it needless till I see the ordination contained in those Texts which I have already mentioned to you proved to be reversed Nor do I know that it is of so great use to stand to cite the particular Texts while you confess in general that such a promise and preeept there is by vertue of which infants were till Christs time duly members of Christs Church for Christs Church it was even his univeâ—sal visible Church Still remember that I take the word law not strictly for a precept onely but largely as comprehending â—oth promise and precept and I have already shewed you both and so have others So much of your endeavour as hath any tendency to the advancement of holiness I am willing to second yoâ— in viz. that at the age yoâ— desire people might solemnly profess their acceptance of Christ and their resolution to be 〈◊〉 But I hope God will find me better work while I must stay here then to spend my time to prove that no infants of believers are within Christs visible Church that is are no infant Disciples infant Christians infant Churchmembers I know no glory it will bring to Christ nor comfort to man nor see I now any appearance of truth in it I bless the Lord for the benefits of the Baptismal Covenant that I enjoyed in infancy and that I was dedicated so soon to God and not left wholly in the Kingdome and power of the Devil They that despise this mercy or account it none or not worth the accepting may go without it and take that which they get by their ingratitude And I once hoped that much less then such an inundation of direful consequents as our eyes have seen would have done more for the bringing of you back to stop the doleful breach that you have made I am fain to spend my time now to endeavour the recovery of some of your Opinion who are lately turned Quakers or at least the preventing of others Apostacy which is indeed to prevent the emptying of your Churches Which I suppose will be a more acceptable work with you then again to write against rebaptizing or for Infant-baptism Sir I remain your imperfect brother knowing but in part yet loving the truth Rich. Baxter Being the same day to return home yet loth to be put off thus I wrote immediately upon the reading of his Letter this also to him Sir I confess infants were by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people in that estate of the Jewish Paedagogy not by any promise or precept visible Church members that is of the Congregation of Israel I do not confess that there was any law or ordinance determining it should be so but onely
promiseth the continuance of it Right being a moral or civil thing can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action A gift that was never given is a contradiction So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four Answ. Visible Churchmembership is not a right but a state of being as to be healthy strong rich c. which are not given by a civil moral action but by providence of God acting physically as the soveraign disposer of all It is certain that it is by Gods will as all things are but this will is no otherways signified then by the event as conversion and many other gifts of God are My meaning is though these things are by vertue of Gods will and are signified in the general by some Declaration of Gods purpose and order by which he acts which may bâ— called his Covenant yet in the particulars I mean for the persons time c. there is not any Covenant that assures these persons conversion or visible Churchmembership or that estates infants in either of those benefits as their right by vertue of Gods promise as the sole efficient of it upon that condition Mr. B. asserts that is the parents faith as I have proved before Sect. 52. I deny therefore that there is such a promise of God as conferred infants visible Churchmembership upon â—he parents faith And to Mr. Bs. argument I say that though it be easie to prove that visible Churchmembership is by Gods donation or grant yet to argue therefore it must be by a promise such as Mr. B. asserts follows not it being no good argument which is drawn affirmatively from the genus to the species it must be by Gods gift or grant ergo bâ— promise Yea according to Mr. B. here a promise confers onely a future right and therefore it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some further act and therefore not the promise or Covenant of God is the next adequate cause of it but some other act of God and consequently there is another possâ—ble yea manifest way without the promise of it upon condition of parents faith which Mr. B. asserts But Mr. B. saith 2. God hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it Answ. These aâ—e but words as will appear by that which followes The 2d Proposition saith Mr. B. to be proved is that there was a law or precept of God obâ—iging the parents to enter their children into Covenant and Churchmembership by accepting of his offer and re-engaging them to God And this is as obvious and easie as the former But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms The word law is sometimes taken more largely and unfitly as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God considered without any sign to represent it to the creature So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law which indeed is no law nor can be fitly so called 2. It is taken properly for an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law Some define it Jussum maâ—estatis obliganâ— aut ad obedientiam aut ad paenam But this leaves out the praemiant part and some others So that of Grotius doth Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est I acquiesce in the first or rather in this which is more full and exact A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando is the general nature of all laws Some quarrel at the word sign because it is logical and not political As if politicians should not speak logically as well as other men There is a two-fold due 1. What is due from us to God or any Rector and this is signified in the precept and prohibition or in the precept de agendo non agendo 2. What shall be due to us and this is signified by promises or the praemiant part of the law and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties All benefits are given us by God in a double relation both as Rector and Benefactor or as Benefactor regens or as Rector benefaciens though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former or to do the same thing and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former or to revive the memory of them or to excite to the obedience of them And these do not properly constitute duty because it was constituted before but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it and therefore doth confirm the constitution and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before For obligations to one and the same duty may be mulâ—iplied 3. Some take the word law in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts especially directed but to one or a few men and will onely call that a law which is witten or at least a well known custome obliging a whole society in a stated way These be the most eminent sort of laws but to say that the rest are no laws is vain and groundless against the true general definition of a law and justly rejected by the wisest politicians That which we are now to enquire after is a precept or the commanding part of a law which is a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty of which signs there are materially several sorts as 1. by a voice that 's evidently of God 2. by writing 3. by visible works or effects 4. by secret impresses as by inspiration which is a law onely to him that hath them Answ. Mr. B. undertook to explain the terms and he onely and that unnecessarily and tediously explains one term to wit law which was not the term in my Letter to which his Proposition was to be opposed but the word precept whereas he should have explained what he meant by the parents entring their children into Covenant and Churchmembership and what offer he meant they were to accept and how and how they were to engage them to God and how this entring accepting re-engaging did confer the benefit of visible Church-membership to their children and what precept it is that is unrepealed distinct from the precept of Circvmcision which I presume he doth not hold unrepealed All these were necessary to have been distinctly set down that I might have known his meaning and thereby have known whether his assertion
revealed will that must thus oblige then there was some sign by which it was revealed And if there were a sign revealing Gods will obliging us to duty then there was a law For this is the very nature of the preceptive part of a law which is the principal part so that you may as well say that you are a reasonable creature but not a man as say that men were obliged to duty by Gods revealed will but yet not by a law or precept 3. We shall anon produce the law or precept and put it out of doubt that there was such a thing In the mean time I must confess I do not remember that ever I was put to dispute a point that carrieth more of it 's own evidence to shame the gain-sayer And if you can gather Disciples even among the godly by perswading them that there were duties without precepts or laws and benefits without donations covenants or promise confirming them then despair of nothing for the time to come You may perswade them that there is a son without a father or any relation without it's foundation or effect without it's cause and never doubt but the same men will believe you while you have the same interest in them and use the same artifice in putting off your conceits Answ. This tedious unnecessary discourse I have set together lest it should be said I omitted it because I could not answer it though I might have well done it and granted him his conclusion without any revocation of what I had written to him For his conclusion is that there was a law or precept to the Israelites to accept of Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant which I never denied onely I denied that this was any other then Circumcision or that this conferred the benefit that is made them visible Church-members or that this mercy as he calls it was offered by a Covenant to be a God to believers and their seed or that parents did by their act enter the children into Covenant that is Gods Covenant to be their God or Covenant to God in proper speech whereby they covenanted to be his people And for the first it seems to me 1. That Mr. B. can produce no other law or precept binding the Israelites to this duty besides that of Circumcision because he neither here nor elsewhere that I know of produceth any other 2. That he means no other by two passages in this discourse 1. because he saith there was a most terrible penalty annexed to this law obliging Israelites for non-performance as shall be anon particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. which he neither shews to be any other nor do I think he could mean any other then that of Circumcision 2. He saith the omission of entring infants into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed his limiting it to the time before Christs incarnation intimates he meant it of Circumcision 3. That he deals like as if he meant deceitfully in putting off the naming the law or precept to another place which it had been requisite for the Answerer and Reader to have found here that it might be discerned what law he meant And for the 2d I say if he could prove or produce that or any other law or precept yet if he did not prove that thereby the infants were made visible Churchmembers he proves not the contradictory to my writing The other two points belong to the two foregoing and following questions As for his confession though his injurious insinuations of me are so frequent and so frivolous that I could pass by them as the hissing of a Goose or the snarling of a Curre yet because his speeches do much wrong the truth and way of God through my sides I judge it fit to reply 1. That I see not reason to be ashamed of my assertion but Mr. B. hath cause to be ashamed of his own heedlesness and misrepresentation of my assertion and roving from the point he should prove 2. That I gather no Disciples to my self but endeavour to reform the abuse of Infant Baptism and to restore the right use of Christian Baptism according to the plain appointment of Christ in Scripture and practice of his Apostles 3. That he that will be perswaded by Mr. B. that infants are Disciples meant Matth. 28.19 and that in Gen. 1.26 3.15 is a law or ordinance of God for infants visible Churchmembership will believe any thing that he saith 4. That were it not for the opinion he hath obtained of godliness by his Book of Rest the esteem he hath gained by his writings for the Ministery and the advantage they have by his Book of Baptism to maintain their practice and station it were not likely so vain a Book would be esteemed among Schollers 5. That were it not for the affrightments of Mr. B. through his calumnies and slanders as if Ranters Quakers and all sorts of errours and sects sprang from Antipaedobaptism godly tender conscienc'd persons durst not maintain as they do so gross a corruption as their Baby sprinkling is nor neglect so great and fundamental a duty as Baptism is according to the Scripture But the Lord will judge betweene us I proceede The 5 th Qu. saith Mr. B. requireth me to lay down this assertion that there is no law or precept of God which doth not oblige to duty and no actual promise or donation which doth not confer the benefit This I aver on occasion of your last Letter where in contradiction to the former you confess the promises to the naâ—ural posterity of Abraham Gen. 17. and the Covenants made with Israel at Mount Sinai and Deut. 29. and a precept of Câ—rcumcision and precepts of God by Moses of calliâ—g the people and requiring them to enter into Covenant Exod. 19. Deut. 29. Yet you do not conceive that the infants of Israel were made visible Churchmembâ—rs by the promises in the Covenants oâ— the precepts forenamed If so then either you imagine that among all those precepts and promises there was yet no promise or Covenant that gave them the benefit of Churchmembership or precept concerning their entrance into that state or else you imagine that such promises were made but did not actually confer the benefit and such precepts were made but did not actually oblige Your words are so ambiguous in this that they signifie nothing of your mind to any that knows it not some other way For when you say there is no such particular promise concerning inâ—anâ—s visible Church-membership or precept c. besides Circumcision as in my Book of Baptism I assert who knows whether that exception of Circumcision be a concession of such a precept or promise in the case of Circumcision or if not what sense it hath and what you imagine that precept or promise to be which I assert and before the sence
may make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christs towards the Hebrews one fact of making the Jews his people and assign it to this office rightly onely using the word fact or making as it comprehends not onely the beginning and increasing and compleating of that people but also the continuation recovery from captivity and preservation of that people 11. Saith Mr. B. You say that you call this fact transeunt because it's past and so till it 's past it seems Isaac and Jacob that were dead before are no Churchmembers I would then fain know whether it be this same transeunt fact or some other that makes infants Churchmembers five hundred years after it is past If it be this same then how comes a meer transeunt fact to work effectually so many hundred years after it is past unless it made a Law or Covenant which doth the deed If it be a new transeunt fact that must make infants Churchmembers after the compleating of this the setling their inheritances then I pray you let me know whether it be one fact exercised on the whole nation in gross or must it be a fact upon every infant member individually If on the nation remember to tell us what it was and do not onely tell us the cause of the membership of former infants And seeing it must be such as the membership of every infant till Christs time at least must be caused by I pray you remember to make your work sâ—uare and full and be sure to assign us no other kind of fact then what you will prove to have been so frequently repeated in every age and so fully extensive to every infant among the Jews as that it have no gaps but may make all members that were so in each age And remember that it is no law precept promise or covenant that you must assign for the cause for that 's it you are engaged against but a constant succession of transeunt facts extending to each individual member O what work have you made your self and what a sort of new political Doctrine shall we have from you when these things are accomplished according to the frame you have begun Such as I believe the Sun never saw nor the wisest Lawyer in England ever read before Which makes me the less marvel that so many of your opinion are so mâ—ch against the Lawyers for I dare say they will be but few of them for you if these be your grounds or at least not for these your grounds Answ. I call the whole transeunt fact past because it consists of many transeunt acts which are past being done But I do not limit the being of Churchmembers to the entire transeunt fact as if none were Churchmembers till each act was past which I set down but the accomplishing or compleating the Congregation of Israel to either all or the chief of the later acts That which made Isaac and Jacob Churchmembers was the transeunt fact or acts of Gods providence in their age whereby they became to be part of Abrahams house which God by his call of Abram setting up his worship in it and other ways had made his Church The same transeunt fact in kind though not individual which made Isaac and Jacob Churchmembers in their age made infants visible Churchmembers in the several ages till Christs time to wit the continuance of the Jews to be Gods people in the continuing his ordinances laws worship c. among them And each infant was made a visible Churchmember by such transeunt fact in each age renewed and repeated by which the infant was made and known to be a part of that people which what it is hath been often before said and shewed not to be by such Covenant and precept as Mr. B. asserts All which was plainly expressed in my Letter and is such work as I need not be ashamed of without any new political Doctrine or Law as Mr. B. imagines it being cleared by the History of the Bible and other Histories which set down this fact of God And if Mr. B. or any Lawyer gainsay this they gainsay the plain narration of the Bible His foolish exclamations I let pass as shewing nothing but his own inconsiderateness and vanity That many of my opinion are against the Lawyers is more then I know they know well that I honour their profession and study though I do no whit flatter them in their injurious and covetous practises Nor do I doubt but conscionable and understanding Lawyers will be for me upon my grounds as soon as other men if they peruse my writings with love to the truth and so would all godly learned Divines also if it were not for prejudice and some other partial affection But I must attend on Mr. B. 12. Saith he But all this yet is but a light velitation The principal thing that I would enquire into is what your great comprehensive fact is in the true nature of it which you call Gods taking the whole people of the Jews to be his people Doth the word taking signifie a meer physical taking or fact or a moral such as among men we call a civil action If it be a meer physical taking then 1. it cannot produce a moral effect such as that in question is 2. And then it must have an answerable object which must be individual existent persons 3. And then you cannot call it one fact but many thousand even as many as there were persons taken in to the Jews in above four hundred years 4. And then what was the physical act which is called Gods taking was it such a taking as the Angel used to Lot that carried him out of Sodome or as the Apocryphal Author mentions of Habakkuk that was taken by the hair of the head and carried by the Angel into another countrey to bring Daniel a mess of pottage If God must by a physical apprehension take hold of them that he makes Churchmembers we shall be at a loss for our proof of their Churchmembership But I cannot imagine that this is your sence But what is it then Is it a physical action though a moral causation of some physical effect That it cannot be For it is a political or moral effect that we enquire aâ—â—er It necessarily remains therefore that this be a political-moral taking that you here speak of And if so then the transeunt fact you speak of must needs be a civil or political action And what that can be which is no Law Promise or Covenant in this case I pray you bestow some more diligence to inform us and not put us off with the raw name of a transeunt fact opposed to these Certainly if it be a civil or legal action the product or effect of it is jus or debitum some due or right And that is either 1. a dueness of somewhat from us which is either somewhat to be done or somewhat to be given 2. or a dueness of something to us which
is either of good or evil If good it is either by contract or donation whether by a Testament praemiant Law or the like if evil it is either by some penal Law or voluntary agreement Now which of these is it that your transeunt fact produceth To be a member of the Church is to be a member of a society taking God in Christ to be their God and taken by him for his special people The act which makes each member is of the same nature with that which makes the society The relation then essentially containeâ—h 1. a right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerfull and gracious Soveraign to such Subjects and from such a Head to his Members As also a right to to my station in the Body and to the inseparable benefits thereof 2. It containeth my debt of obedience to God in Christ acknowledged and promised actually or virtually really or reputatively Now for the first how can God be related to me as my God or Christ as my Saviour and I to him as one that have such right to him and his blessings by any other way then his own free gift This gift must be some signification of his will For his secret will is not a gift but a purpose of giving This way of giving therefore is by a civil or moral action which is a signifying of the Donors will and can be by no way but either pure donation contract testament or law In our case it must needs partake of the nature all these It is not from one in any equality nor capable of any obliging compensation or retribution from us Being therefore from an absolute dis-engaged Benefactor it must needs be by pure donation or it cannot be ours Yet as he is pleased as it were to oblige himself by promise or by his word and also to call us to a voluntary acceptance and engagement to certain fidelity gratitude and duty and so is the stipulator and we the promisers in the latter part of the action it is therefore justly called a contract or Covenant though indeed the word Covenant frequently signifieth Gods own promise alone As it proceedeth from the death of the testator in natural moral-reputative being so it is called a testament And as it is an act of a ruling Benefactor giving this benefit to the governed to promote the ends of government and obliging to duty thereby so it partaketh of the nature of a law The commonest Scripture name for this act is Gods Covenant or Promise and sometimes his Gift which all signifie the same thing here It follows therefore that either by Gods taking Israel to be his people you mean some civil political action as a Covenant promise or the like collation of the benefit and then you assert the thing which you deny or else you know not what you mean nor can make another know it without the discovery of the grossest absurdity And as for the other thing which is contained in Churchmembership the professed duty of man to God it is most certain 1. That Gods law obligeth us to that duty 2. And obligeth all according to their capacities to consent to the obligation and so to re-engage themselves 3. That this actual consent professed doth therefore double the obligation And thus by a mutual contract Covenant or consent whereof our part is first required by a law is the relation of Churchmembership contracted Now to lay by and deny all this and give us the general naked name of taking for Gods people is meerly delusory seeing that taking means this which you exclude or it means nothing that 's true and reasonable And therefore tell us better what it means Answ. All before being but a velitation or light skirmish I looked here for some great battel But I find it nothing but a rallying together the forces scattered before there being not one thing I know of in this passage but what was set down before and is answered I have distinctly shewed how moral and physical acts concur to the visible Churchmembership of the people of which infants are a part and natural to that visible Churchmembership which the Jews infants had and what they were both in my Letter and in this answer What M. B. replies is vain 1. It is not true that the effect in question is a moral it is at least in infants meerly a physical effect their Churchmembership is not by any act which reacheth not to the effect 2. The taking is of individual pâ—rsons existent 3. By many particular acts yet in a good sence before given summed up into one transeunt fact 4. The physical acts are none of those M. B. frivolously imagines but such as are mentioned in the Scripture and declared in my Letter 5. It is not true that a meer physical taking cannot produce a moral effect For supposing the Spirit should inspire faith immediately without any preaching the effâ—ct would be moral though produced by a meer physical taking or act 6. The transeunt fact I set down doth not exclude but did expresly include in my Letter both Covenants single and mutual and laws and precepts yet as I have said before it doth exclude that promise of Mr. Bs. of Gods being a God to believers and their seed and a precept of believing or accepting this for their children which confer the benefit of visible Churchmembership Yea it is fully proved before that if there were such a promise and precept yet these would not actually make infants visible Church-members 7. It is not true that the relation of visible Churchmembership essentially containeth a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men Christs headship and that favour protection provision and other blessings which are due from such a powerful and gracious Soveraign to such subjects and from such a head to his members For to omit the unfiâ—ness of the expression of right to the great benefits of Gods soveraignty over men which contains these two fond conceits 1. That great benefits are included in Gods soveraignty over men whereas the soveraignty of God includes not any benefit but his own greatness he is soveraign over the reprobate men and Angels as well as the elect and yet they have no benefit yea his soveraignty is shewed in their reprobation as well as the election of the other 2. That visible Churchmembers have a right to the great benefit of Gods soveraignty over men whereas what benefit soever it be yet right is not to us by visible Church-membership it is most false that that relation either constitutivè or consecutivè doth essentially contain that right For neither doth the term formally import any right at all but a manner of being or state with relation as I have before distinctly declared nor doth that right inseparably accrue to such visible Churchmembers There are and may be visible Churchmembers
do all expresly tell how God severed Abram from the Chaldees how he made his house his Church promising to encrease and to settle it and neither Moses nor the Levites nor Stephan do go higher in the narration of Gods calling of the Hebrews to be his people And I think it safest to go no higher then the Scripture What Mr. B. adds after shall have answer in its place He adds So Exod. 19.4 5. hath no word that gives the least intimation that God by that act of taking them out of Egypt did make Israel a Church or the infants or any others members of it But onely that by fulfilling a former promise in the deliverance of a people formerly his own he layeth further obligations to duty on them by redoubling his mercies The same I say of Levit. 11.45 Nehem. 1.10 I will not believe yet but that you believe your self that the Israelites and their infants were as truly Churchmembers before as after their deliverance out of Egypt And mee thinks the texts you cite might put it out of doubt What if God say Hos. 11.1 When Israel was a childe I loved him and called my Son out of Egypt Is it easie hence to prove that calling him out of Egypt did make him his son that was none before or to prove that Israel was Gods son before he called him out of Aegypt If you should maintain the former I might expect that you should say the like of Christ himself to whom the Evangelist applieth this text and so you may prove as fairly That Christ was none of Gods son till he was called out of Egypt but was made his son by that call Certainly the Text termeth him Gods son that was called as being so before that call By this time I am well content that any waking man do compare your doctrine and mine and try whether it be a Transeunt fact or a Law and Covenant that made infants and all others Churchmembers and if they do not admire that ever a learned man should harbour such a conceit as yours and that ever a godly man should build such a weight on it and go so far on such a ground yea and that ever ordinary godly people should be so blinded with such palpable non sense or absurdities then let them still follow you in the dark for I expect not that reason should recover them Answ. My conceits were and are still that infants were onely visible Churchmembers in the Church of the Hebrews or Congregation of Israel and that they were such not apart by themselves but as they were a part of that people which God took for his Church which made a peculiar Commonwealth and Chureh to God consisting of the same persons This God did not by a promise to be God to the faithful and their seed as the sole efficient and a precept of the parents to accept of this offered mercy and to dedicate them and re-engage them to God as Mr. B. conceives but by a transeunt fact containing many acts of Gods providence whereby they were severed from other people and appropriate to God The prime act of Gods providence whereby God brought this to pass was Gods calling of Abram out of Uâ— whereby he severed them from idolaters and by degrees establâ—shed his worship in Abrahams house upon which followed a long tract of providences which I mentioned as tending to the same end And this calling of Abram I refer the beginning of that people and Church to and I think I follow therein the Scriptures The other chief act of providence was Gods calling of Israel out of Egypt wherein I comprehend all the acts mentioned by me in my Letter which followed by which I said it was completed and to that end I alleged many as I concâ—iâ—e express texts not to prove that they then began to be Gods people as Mr. B. contrary to my plain words insinuates but to prove that then they were completed that is completely severed from other people and formed into a Church or Commonwealth with Lawes distribution of Offices order and other things requisite thereunto which they had not before And thus I interpret their bringing to God Exod. 19.4 the bringing them up out of the land of Egypt to bee their God Levit. 11.45 their redeeming to bee his people Nehem. 1.10 their calling out of Egypt Hos. 11.1 That is from a miserable state among idolatrous oppressors to be a people of themselves in a complete state of liberty under Gods rule which I conceive described by Ezech. ch 16. under the similitude of a childe cast out relieved and educated If Mr. B. can shew any non-sense or absurdity herein it is surely that which the plain Scripture affords or else I am in a dream and if Mr. B. bee awake I think hee may espie non-sense and absurdity manifold in his conceit of visible Churchmembership as a right to a benefit of such a Covenant and Condition and Precept which hee imagines to confer it I am willing Mr. Bs. Doctrine and mine bee compared though I lay so little weight on this point that I think if I bee mistaken neither is Mr. Bs. cause gained nor mine lost I would have none follow me in the dark nor would I have men befooled by Mr. Bs. misrepresentations of me and others much less by his frivolous Rhetorick in which hee discovers a great deal of prejudice rashness confidence and intemperate zeal with which I think him so drunken that I doubt whether reason will recover him till some providence of God bring him to see his folly which I think will much appear in that which followes on which nevertheless I conceive hee builds the main or whole of his Cause of Infants visible Churchmembership SECT LVII Mr. Bs. Law of Infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed is not proved from Gen. 1.26 27 28. or Gen. 3.15 I Come now saith Mr. B. to the 8 th Qu. that is to speak to the point which you propounded You urge me to cite to you the particular texts that contain this Law Ordinance Precept or Covenant To which I answer thus 1. There are two sorts of Laws one which firâ—â— make a duty the other which suppose it so made and do onely call for obedience and excite thereto or prescribe somewhat as a means in order thereunto If I could sheâ— you no written law or promise as first constituting the duty or granting the priviledg of Churchmembership it were noâ— the least disparagement to my cause as long as I can shew you those following laws which presuppose this You know the Church of God did live about 2000. years without any written law that we know of Where then was Gods will manifâ—sted about such things as this but in tradition and nature If Moses then at the end of this 2000. years did find this tradition and find all the infants of Church-members in possession of this benefit then what need he make a new law about it or why should
infants but also all infants if it be so much for their good welfare preservation real happiness and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement and sith they are in their power as well as parents yea before them and they may list them into Christs army enter them into Covenant and the Church they are bound to do it Yea considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds that by Christs commission Mat. 28.19 Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born and none can do it so soon as Midwives they ought to do it according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses immediately upon their birth Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the infant is not sui juris but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own childe As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but onely for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already and more shall be Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called this last speech is denied He goes on thus And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world perfectè sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the lawes and capable of honors and right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers and that nature revealeth to us that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Under the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents and have the immunâ—ties of that society 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much lesâ— under the Gospel to the members of Christ then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence Exod. 34. and in the 2d Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes as many texâ—s of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or naturâ—l guilt So much of that Answ. 1. All these considerations if they were yeelded to be true would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible which would contradict the Scripture Rom 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. yea rather sith the 4th consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption which is into the invisible rather then the visible Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 3. It is a gross conceit and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau which is intimated as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be that as the members or seed of Adam so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire as I conjecture I do not contradict peremptorily as not knowing how he stated the question nor what his proofs were Yet it seems to mee to be an errour nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid Once more saith he Yet before I cite any more particular texts I will add this one argument from
strength such a blessing as they had in their cattel as well as their children as Psal. 127.3 4 5. 144.12 13 14 15. and many more places is expressed And v. 9. though their Churchmembership was established according to Gods Covenant and oath yet the establishing was not the Covenant oath or promise of God but a transeunt fact of providence in preserving teaching them continuing his worship among them and such like acts And saith Mr. B. Ezra 9.2 They are called the holy seed Answ. Not all the seed of Israel are called the holy seed but those onely who were legitimate that is begotten by lawfull marriage according to Moses law the rest were termed the mixed multitude Neh. 13.3 whom they separated from the rest Ezra 10.3 as being no Churchmembers that is part of the congregation of Israel according to the law Neh. 13.1 Deut. 23.3 7.3 Exod. 23.32 of which more is to be seen in the first Part of this Review sect 25. So that those Ezr. 9.2 are termed the holy seed not barely by Covenant upon the parents faith nor as all visible professors as Dr. Hammond in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 78. but as begotten by an â—sraelite on an allowed wife by the law of Moses Mr. B. proceeds Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough It is called a Covenant All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God and which he made to them It was a Covenant to establish them for a people to himself and that he may be to them a God as he had before said and sworn It is a Covenant made even with them that stood not there whether it be meant onely of the successive Israelites and then it 's not a transeunt Covenant or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms and then it 's not proper to Israel It 's a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites but as obedient to the Covenant terms and Covenant breaking would cut them off v. 19 20 21 23 25 26. Is not Churchmembership contained in God 's being their God and taking them for his people thus in Covenant Doth not the promise give them an established right in this blessing Is all this then no promise but a transeunt fact Answ. What hath been spoken of Deut. 29. by Mr. B. in the Dispute at Bewdley and in his Book of Baptism part 1. ch 14 17. and his Corrective sect 5. will be examined in that which follows For present 1. it is sufficient to shew the impertinency of this Text to prove that there the Covenant or promise of God upon condition of parents faith is the sole efficient of infants visible Churchmembership in that the Covenant being then put even with the children unborn v. 15. yea and the parents then believing yet the children unborn could not be then visible Churchmembers as Mr. B. himself grants of Baptism pag. 250. They that were not could not be members visible or invisible For the sole efficient cause being actually put as the Covenant and the parents believing are Deut. 29. even according to Mr. B. the effect must be in act but it is not so in the unborn therefore the Covenant and parents faith are not the sole efficient 2. The Oath or Covenant of God is a distinct act from his establishing them for a people unto himself and being a God to them which are the consequent upon it and are by transeunt acts consequent upon the Covenant So that though the Covenant give a right to a blessing yet it doth not make actually visible Churchmembers without some other transeunt fact consequent upon it The Covenant assures a future existence but suppposeth a present absence of the thing covenanted and consequently without a further act consequent on it makes not any in present being visible Church-members So that as yet I find no Text of Scripture setting down the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by Gods promise upon parents faith or dedication commanded as the sole efficient unrepealed Lâ—t's view the rest Deut. 30.19 saith he there is a law and promise choose life that thou and thy seed may live This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it there would have been no penalty and then he would not have made it death to withdraw It is the same Covenant which Josiah caused the people to enter 2 Kin. 23.2 3. 2 Chron. 34.31 32. Of Levit. 25.41 54 55. I have spoken elsewhere and of some other Texts Answ. 1. There is a law and promise Deut. 30 19. but not such as Mr. B. asserts as the sole efficient of infants visible Churchmembership The life there is not visible Churchmembership but a prosperous being in Canaan v. 20. And the distinction between thou and thy seed proves that Deut. 29.12 thou notes the Captains Elders Officers men of Israel v. 10. distinct from the little ones wives strangers v. 11. though represented by them and that my speech so much exagitated by Mr. B. of Baptism p. 57 249. was justifiable 2. The Covenants 2 Chron. 15. 34.31 32. 2 Kin. 23.2 3. of Asa and Josiah were Covenants of Israel to God there 's no mention of Gods promise or Covenant to them as then made and therefore it is not that whereby infants are made visible Churchmembers according to Mr. B. and so is impertinent to the point in hand 3. The futility of Mr. Bs. argument from Levit. 25.41 54 55. is shewed in the 2d part of this Review sect 14. It follows in Mr. B. The second Commandment Exod. 20.5 6. Deut. 5.9 10. I think is a law and containeth a promise or praemiant part wherein he promiseth to shew mercy to the generations or children of them that love him and keep his Commandments of which I have also spoken elsewhere to which I refer you I see no reason to doubt but here is a standing promise and discovery of Gods resolution concerning the children of all that love him whether Jews or Gentiles to whom this Commandment belongs nor to doubt whether this mercy imply Churchmembership And that this is fetcht from the very gracious nature of God I find in his proclaiming his Name to Moses Exod. 34.6 7. Answ. If this mercy here imply Churchmembership to the infants of them that love him to a thousand generations then it implies it to all the infants in the world which cannot be true without such limitations as take away the certainty of any infants Churchmembership existent But there is nothing to prove that this mercy must be Church-membership or that it must be to all the children of them that love God and are obedient or that it must be to them in infancy sith it may be true of other mercies as preservation provision c. to some onely sith the speech is indefinite in a matter not necessary and
their own persons first believers Nor is it true that the seed of the righteous as such taking it reduplicatively have a promised blessing For then all and onely such should have it and at all times the contrary is manifest in Cham Esau c. Mr. B. concludes I suppose I have already been more tedious then you expected I will therefore add no more of these passages of Scripture having said that which satisfieth me formerly to the same purpose and having yet seen nothing that leaves me unsatisfied And also because one text either containing such a Law or Covenant as you call for or declaring to us that God did make such a Law or Covenant is as good as a thousand in point of authority Answ. It is true Mr. B. hath been more tedious then was fit considering the impertinencie of his allegations yet not much more then I expected knowing it to be his course especially in this controversie to heap many texts impertinently That he is satisfied with his former writings especially after the answering of the chief parts by me and others shews either his injudiciousness or his heedlesness or unwillingness through prejudice to see his errour That there is not one text for his purpose brought in his Letter to me is made manifest by this answer the rest shall be examined after the answer to the remainder of his Letter if God permit SECT LXII Mâ— Bs. 9th and 10th Qu. about the repealableness and repeal of his imagined Law of infants visible Churchmembership and his eight additionals are answered THe next Qu. saith he that I should speak to is whether these Laws or Covenants or promises are capable of a revocation or repeal And I shall take this for a question that needs no further debate among men that know what a Law or Promise is Gods immutability and perfection may make some â—aws unrepealable while the subject remains but otherwise the thing it selfe is capable of it Onely where a promise or law is but for a limited time when the time is expired it ceaseth and the cessation is as to the nulling of it equal to a revocation or abrogation I put in this question lest you should hereafter change your minde and say that indeed it is a law or promise or covenant by which the right of Churchmembership is conferred and infants dedicated to God but it is but a transeunt law or covenant Answ. If so then it is either immediately or presently transeunt or at a certain limited time onely when it will cease The former is certainly false and intollerable For 1. they are promises and laws for the future and therefore cease not immediately 2. That were to make God the most unfaithful promiser and mutable Law-maker in the world if his promise and his lawes cease as soon as they are made Nay it makes them to be no lawes or promises 3. It was one standing law and promise that belonged to the Nation of the Jewes successively And God did not make his promise anew to every infant that was made a Churchmember nor renew his law to every parent to enter their Children into his Covenant by the signe of Circumcision Were not the circumcised Israelites in the Wilderness made members by the efficacy of the former Covenant of God remaining in force And did former Laws oblige to Circumcision till Christ Else there were but few members nor but few that circumcised warrantably if the promise and precept did extend but to the person that it was first delivered to and every one else must likewise have a personal promise and precept The mother of Christ cannot then be proved to have been a Churchmember in infancy If it be said that these promises were limited in the making of them to a certain time when they were to cease I say when that 's proved we shall believe it which I have not yet seen done Answ. The occasion of this question I conceive to have been the words in my second Letter Wherefore I still press you that you would shew me where that law ordinance statute or decree of God is that is repealable that is which may in congruous sense be either by a later act said to be repealed or else to be established as a law for ever The reason of my speech was because I perceived by his former Letter Mr. B. made his law unrepealed to be by promise and precept Now though I conceived a precept might in congruous sense be said to be repealed yet I conceived a promise which it seems is the law he means not in congruous sense repealable For though a promise be a law to the promiser yet I know not how congruously it should be repealed 'T is true the act of promising being transeunt ceaseth but that cannot be repealed that which is done cannot be infectum not done The obligation of the promise may cease if it were limited to a certain time and that expired or if it were upon condition and that fails or to a person not existent or of a thing not feasible or unlawfull The former is not by repeal but by expiration which Mr. Cawdrey doth distinguish from reâ—eal and substitution Of the Sabbath part 1. ch 2. part 3. ch 3. The later are not by repeal of the promise for it stands in force as much as ever but by accident through intervenient impediments there is for present an intermission of the obligation Repeal properly is by an after declaration which cannot be congruously said of God that he did promise indeed such a thing but now he will not promise it or will not stand to his promise it were to make God fickle and unfaithful And therefore I expected a Law of Precept to make infants visible Churchmembers to bee assigned by Mr. B. for mee to prove repealed and not a law of promise which is not in congruous sense repealable and therefore a repeal properly so called not to be expected of me Which being rightly conceived answers this question and saves me the reply to what he saith to prevent an imaginary change of my minde and assertion not yet delivered He adds And it falls in with the last question which is whether these promises be indeed revoked and ceased and these laws repealed or ceased And here it is that I have long expected your solid proof together with the satisfactory answer to my arguments to the contrary And so I shall leave this task in your hands Sure I am that Christ never came to cast out of the Church but to gather more in much less to cast out all the infants even all of that age in which himself was head of that Church But to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered Joh 11.52 And therefore he would ofâ— have gathered all Jerusalem and Judaea even the national Church that then was unto himself as the true head even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings and they would not It was not
because he would not as intending a new frame where infants could have no place but because they would not and so cast out themselves and their infants Certainly it is the joy of the formerly desolate Gentiles that they shall have many more children then she that had an husband and not fewer Gal. 4.25 26 27. And we as Isaac are children of the promise even that promise which extended to the infants with the parents Gal. 4.28 Answ. I have examined all that Mr. B. saith in his answer to the 8th question and do profess that I finde no promise no not in Gen. 3.15 of infants visible Churchmembership or any precept but that of circumcision Gen. 17. which Mr. B. confesseth to be repealed in respect of the outward act and for the dedicating of a childe to God by prayer to God to sanctifie it or vow to bring it up for God if God give life c. or adjuration that they should cleave to God left in writing or any other way upon record I still allow it and so need prove no repeal So that in truth I see no reason Mr. B. should expect that I should perform his task of proving a repeal of that which is not but that he should make good the task I impose on him to prove such a law or ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by promise or precept unrepealed which I expect to be done at latter Lammas And to his confident speeches I reply Sure I am from Luk. 2.34 Joh. 9.39 that Jesus Christ came that many of the Jewish Church might be left or cast out of his Church from Matth. 28.19 and other places before alledged that he intended to leave all infants out of his visible Church since his comming in the flesh though he were an infant head of the Church that though he died to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad Joh. 11.52 yet hee intended not to gather them into a visible Church national comprehending infants that he preached not to any infants nor by his Disciples baptised any of them that it is false which Mr. B. saith that he would oft have gathered all Jerusalem and Judaea even the national Church that then was unto himself as the true head as his visible Church from Matth. 28.19 Markâ—6 â—6 15 16. and the course he John Baâ—tist and the Apostles followed that he did intend a new frame of his Church visible where infants could have no place that Hierusalem which is above the Covenant of the Gospel had more children in the Gentile Churches then the Covenant of the Law in the Jewish Church though infants were not visible members in the Christian Church as they were in the Jewish that the promise meant Gal 4.28 is not a proâ—ise to a believer and his natural seed of visible Church-membership much less to every visible professour and his seed but a promise of righteousness and blessing and the spirit through the faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe as is plain from Gal. 3.7 8 9 11 14 16 18 21 22 29. But Mr. B. hath yet more work for me Before I end saith he I shall be boâ—d to put two or three questions to you out of your last Letter Qu 1. didâ—o â—o nomine cease to be Churchmembers though they forsook not God â—nd so of the infants if they were sold in infancy If you affirm it then prove it If you deny it then infants might bee Churchmembers that weâ—e not of the Commonwealth Answ. Such servants and infants were members of the Jewish Commonwealth as they were of the Church in right undoubtedly in fact if they owned the Jews God and Moses Laws and submitted to the Senate of Elders so far as they knew and could be permitted if they did not though they forsook not God yet they were neither of the Jewish Church nor Commonwealth as Cornelius Acts 10th was not of the Jewish Church or policy None was of right of the Jewish Church who was not of the Commonwealth even then when they were violently held under a forraign power as when they were under the Chaldean Persian Greek and Roman Empires they did submit to both though with much reluctancy Qu. 2. If as you say it was on the Jews rejection of Christ that they were broken off from being Gods people were those thousands of Jews that believed in Christ so broken off or not who continued successively a famous Church at Hierusalem which came to be a Patriarchal seat Whether then were not the children of the Disciples and all believing Jewes Churchmembers in infancy If no then it was somewhat else then unbelief that broke them off Answ. The believing Jews were not broken off from the people of God but from the Jewish people or Church national which rejected Christ these believing Jews continued a famous Church after some time of publishing the Gospel and the Jews presecuting the faith sepated from the Jewish Church not having infants Churchmembers and they were broken off from the Jewish Church national not by unbelief but by faith in Christ to which they did adhere and could not bee conjoyned to the Jewish Church without rejection of Christ. Mr. B. addes If yea then Qu. 3. Whether it be credible that he who came not to cast out Jews but to bring in Gentiles breaking down the partition wall and making of two one Church would have such a Linsey Woolsy Church of party colours or several forms so as that the Church at Hierusalem should have infant members and the Church at Rome should have none Jews infants should be members and not Gentiles Answ. Christ came to cast out the unbelieving Jews not from the Jewish Church national they continued still in it but from the invisible Church of true believers which was in that nation to which was joyned the Gentile Church of true believers which were all of one sort whether at Rome or Hierusalem to wit all that had one spirit one faith one baptism not one infant in the visible Church Christian either at Rome or Hierusalem Qu. 4. If unbelief brake them will not repentance graff them in And so should every repenting believing Jews infants be Churchmembers Answ. Faith and repentance will ingraff every penitent believer into the Church invisible the profession thereof will ingraff them into the visible Church but not their infants though the believer bee a Jew Qu 5. Was not Christs Church before his incarnation spiritual and gathered in a spiritual way Answ. The invisible was the visible Jewish national was not Qu. 6. How prove you that it was a blemish to the old frame that infants were members or that Christs Church then and now are of two frames in regard of the subjects age Answ. I say not that it was a blemish but that it was a more imperfect state of the Church then in that and other reâ—ards The later question is answered Sect. 50 51 52. before Qu. 7. In
they are not to be blamed having the plain word of God as interpreted even by Paedobaptists themselves yea almost all Commentaries for their warrant And truly though I delight not in recriminations yet I may justly retort Mr. Bs. words Is it not a great disgrace to all Mr. Bs. followers that they will be led so far into such ways of Schism as Mr. B. leads them into who would have none to have pastoral charge with publick pay that will not admit to the Lords Supper the baby sprinkled that inveighs against Baptism of believers now used as if it were murther and adultery that represents them that deny infant Baptism in the most odious way he can to the world and is so confident that he is wiser and righter then others and that by such unreasonable arguings and shifts as these a law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed no where extant a discipleship by the parents faith mediately without any learning of their own which one would think any man should laugh at that knows what visible Churchmembership or Discipleship is And doth he not prove that it is not because of the evidence of truth but by his meer interest or confident wordâ— the people of Kederminster Bewdley and elsewhere are changed from the truth of the Scripture made known to them and held to his opinion Do they know whâ—t an ordinance or law of infants visible Churchmembership and mediate Discipleship is which I find not any man vented afore Mr. B. And doth he not proclaim them men of distempered consciences that dare go on iâ— such a Schism as Mr. B. and with him many persons are brought into by him from me and the baptized in Bewdley and elsewhere on the encouragement of such fancies as were hatcht so lately and never waking man I think did before Mr. B. so solemnly maintain Qu. 3. Is it not a desperate undertaking and dare you adventure on it to justifie all the world before Christs incarnation except the Jews from the guilt of not dedicating their children to God to take him to be their God and themselves to be his people Yea to justifie all Jews against this charge that should neglect or refuse to engage their children to God in Covenant as members of his Church And doth not he that saith there is no law say there is no transgression Answ. He doth But Mr. B. should remember there is a law against beaâ—ing false witness against his neighbour which he much urgeth against Mr. Eyre and others but himself is deeply guilty of it in his high charges and particularly in this that I justifie all Jews neglecting to engage their children to God in covenant as members of his Church and all the world not dedicating their children to God Let him prove either if he can if not let him tremble at his desperate undertaking to uphold his lie of infant Churchmembership and Baptism by such lies as these and fear the fate of liars What I hold may be seen in that which goes before Qu. 4 Dare you yet justifie also at the Bar of God all the world since Christs incarnâ—tion from the guilt of sin in not dedicating their children to Christ and entering them into his Covenant as members of his Church Dare you maintain that all the world is sinlesse in this respect Answ. I dare justifie the non-baptizing them and am assured Mr. B. cannot justifie the baptizing of infant children Qu. 5. Have you well considered of the fruit of your wayâ— apparent in England and Ireland at this day Or have you not seen enough to make you suspect and fear whether indeed God own your way or not And is it any wonder if posterity be left in controversie about the History of former times when you can venture even in these times when the persons are living in our company to tell me that you think I am mis-informed that they are Anabaptists and you think that there are very few of them that were ever baptized when of many that we know and multitudes that we hear of there are so few that were not before against infant Baptism and the Seâ—kers first such and when the Quakers themselves commonly cry down infant Baptism and it is one of the questions that they send to â—e and others to answer how we can prove it by express Scripture without consequences or else confess ouâ— selves false Prophets Answ. My ways in opposing infant Baptism and endeavouring to restore believers Baptism are such setting aside my infirmities as upon consideâ—ation I find cause not to be ashamed of but to rejoyce in and conceive by many evidencâ—s that God ownâ— them What fruit of them in England and Ireland they have had I do not very well know if they that are termed Anabaptists do hold unjustifiable positions or practises they are not the fruit of my ways any more then the Nicolaâ—â—ans Gnosticks and others ways were the fruits of the Apostles preaching My conscience beareth me witness and so will the people where I have taught the brethren with whom I have walked yea I think some of my Antagonists with whom I have acted in the publick imployment of approving Preachers and perhaps the most eminent persons in England that I have opposed the errours risen and have sought reformation without separation have joyned upon all occasions in the common cause with dissenters insomuch that I had hoped impudence it self would never have dared so to belie me as to make Schism Quakerism and such like evils the fruit of my ways If many rents and errours have sprung up by accident after my writings they are no more to be charged on me then Antinomianism Swenekfieldianism c. were to be charged on Luther or Brownism Familism c. on the Antiprelatists What I wrote to Mr. B. I think still yea Mr. Bs. own relations confirm me they are not Anabaptists though they be against infant baptism Those very persons or some of that society which sent to Mr. B. if my intelligence do not deceive though they they were against infant baptism yet neglected baptism when convinced of it as their duty and they might have been baptized and as it was foretold them they were likely to be without the opportunity so it came to pass for they were after carried away with the delusion of the quakers It is not my observation alone but it is the Authors conceit who wrote the book against them termed The quakers blazing star who was carried away once by them that the living above ordinances and as Seekers hath been one of the chief ways which hath brought it in God justly leaving them to be deluded by Satan who would not submit to the way of Gods ordinances and he adviseth persons as to labour to be well grounded in faith and repentance so to joyn in Church communion of which he takes the Churches of the baptized to be most right and accordingly hath himself been joyned
is not this as great a mercy to the poor off cast Jews They are put out of the carnal Churchstate too But did God give so many admirable Elogies of the Jews Church and can Mr. T. yet think that it is better to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs Answ. I alledge the more spiritual Churchstate as one reason of Gods changing of churchmembership by birth into churchmembership by faith and as a mercy to the catholick Church For thereby they are free from the bondage they were in under carnal ordinances which infants are partakers of in actual possession and capable of the spirit though they be not actually visible churchmembers and therefore it is not true that by my doctrine they are kept out of the spiritual church-state And Mr. B. doth much mistake as if the carnal churchstate the Jew had when Christ was come was a priviledge or benefit For though many admirable Elogies were given by God of the Jews Church yet none of them were given of it in Christs time they were a rebebellious and gainsaying peoâ—le a generation of vipers denied the holy one and the just and desired a murtherer made the temple a den of theeves c. And therefore I verily think it was better then to be of no visible Church then to be of theirs As for the Jews who believed not they were justly put out of Gods favour their temple was destroyed and they cast out of their land for denying Christ Yet they were not put out of their carnal churchstate actually for they adhere to it unto this day and it is their curse 4. Saith Mr. B. And where did Mr. T. learn in Scripture to call the Jews churchstate carnal Answ. From 1 Cor. 10.18 where the nation of the Jews are called Israel after the flesh in contradistinctâ—on to the Israel of God or in the Spirit Rom. 9.6 Gal. 6.16 From Rom. 2.28 29. where there is distinction of the Jew outwardly from the Jew inwardly of Circumcision which is outward in the flesh from Circumcision that is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter From Gal. 4.25 26 23 29. where Hierusalem that then was is contradistingued to Hierusalem above and the former is in bondage with her children the later free the children of the former born after the flesh the later after the spirit From Gal. 3.3 where to be of faith is to begin in the spirit to be of the works of the law is to be perfect by the flesh From Ephes. 2.11 where their circumcision is termed circumcision in the flesh made by hands From Philip. 3.3 4 5. where Hebrew discent and churchmembership thereby are termed the flesh From Heb. 9.10 where their ordinances are termed carnal ordinances I had thought this had been so well known to Mr. B. that it needed not proof But he further demands Or what doth he mean by churchstate whether the essential nature of the Church it self or any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it Is not this word churchstate like his former of church call devised terms to darken the matter with ambiguities and signifying what pleaseth the speaker Answ. Neither the term Church state nor Church call were devised by me but are terms ordinary in the writings of Divines I have shewed the use of the later before and proved that the Church hath its denomination and definition from it and that according to Mr. B. himself And for the former me thinks Mr. B. should not be ignorant of it who its likely knows a Book of learned Dr. Usher intituled De visibilis Ecclesiae successient statu And to imagine it to be devised to darken the matter with ambiguities is one of Mr. Bs. evil surmises when the word is as apposite for its use as any term I think Mr. B. can give in stead of it and if it signifie what pleases the speaker it is so much the better for that is the use of words and this later accusation acquits it from darkening the matter with ambiguities if it signifie for that which signifies the speakers mind doth give light and not darken with ambiguities So ridiculous is Mr. Bs. accusation that his later words cross his former And to help Mr. Bs. understanding if I can I tell him I mean by it neither the essential nature of the Church it self nor any carnal ordinances of worship which were accidental to it but the manner of being or qualification incident to it from providence whereby it is denominated flourishing or decaying numerous or small rich in knowledge or poor carnal or spiritual by reason of the way of entry into it as natural descent or faith more or less of the spirit the promises ministery rites c. it hath Which term state comprehends innumerable terms such as are rich and poor noble or ignoble fat or lean and many more which whether they are to be reduced to the predicaments of quality relation or passion or to be called modi entis I leave it to Logicians to determine I hope this will serve to indoctrinate Mr. B. in the meaning of my speech But Mr. B. is resolved to follow me with more questions which he must not expect I will answer as I have done after this bout 5. Saith he And how long might I wait before Mr. T. would prove from Scripture that it is a mercy to the whole catholick Church to have all infants put out or unchurched These are the men that make their followers believe that we have no Scripture for our cause when themselves give us but their magisteâ—ial dictates But I wonder whence he should fetch such a Dream What are infants such â—â—ads or Vipers in comparison of men of years that it is a mercy to the whole catholicke Church to have them cast out Are not the aged worse then they And were we not once all infants Answ. I say not that all infants are put out of the catholick Church and so need not prove it nor had I asserted it was it either in the Dispute or Sermon my work to prove what I said by way of answer but for Mr. B. to disprove it Yet what I assert is distinctly before set down not without some proof from Scripture and I may wait long afore either I shall finde his pretended ordinance of infant visible Churchmembership unrepealed proved from Scripture or my assertions disproved by any solid arguments without idle questions and vain exclamations which I resolve to neglect And of the former sort are the questions here which insinuate as if I conceived it were a mercy to the catholick Church that infants are not in the visible Church Christian as members because they are Toads Vipers worse then the aged whereas I onely say that the dissolving of the Jewish Church national in which and by reason of which infants were visible Churchmembers and no otherwise was in mercy to the catholick Church Which is the very doctrine of the Apostle
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
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
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
Apostle fully sheweth that the promise upon which his priviledges were grounded was not made to Abraham upon legal grounds but upon the ground of faith From whence I might draw many arâ—â—ments but for brevity I desire you to peruse the Chapter onely from the eleventh verse And hee received c. From whence I thus argue If infants then usually were entred and engaged Churchmembers by that Circumcision which was a seal of the righteousness of faith and was not given on legal grounds then that Churchmembership of infants is not repealed as beeing built on grounds of Gospel and not Law and sealed with a durabâ—e seal that is the seal of the righteousness of faith But the antecedent is plain in the text Answ It is true Rom. 4.13 14 16 20 21. there is mention of Gods promise to Abraham and in particular two speeches are cited v. 17. Gen. 17.5 I have made thee a father of many nations which implies a promise v. 18. Gen. 5.5 So shal thy seed be it is true the privileâ—ges of justification by faith of the father of believers of heir of the world 〈◊〉 by faith and the promise but that his visible Churchmemhership 〈◊〉 infants was by promise is not said nor is there a word in that Chapter or elsewhere â—o prove that Churcmembership of infants was built on grounds of Gospel and not Law or that it was sealed or that the seal was durable which was termed the seal of the righteousness of faith or that the Circumcising of any person besides Abraham was a seal of the righteousness of faith and therefore I deny the minor which hee termes the antecedent and the consequence of the major also For if his reason were good I might by the same medium thus argue If that Circumcision by which infants were usually then entred and engaged Churchmembers was a seal of the righteousness of faith and was not given on legal grounds then that Circumcision of infants is not repealed But the antecedent is plain in the Text Ergo. What answer Mr. B. gives to this argument will also answer his own and I presume he will not hold Circumcision unrepealed which hee must if his argument be good Mr. B. addes I urged this on Mr. T. many years ago and all his answer was that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal to others that should come after of the unrighteousness of Abrahams faith but no otherwise A strange answer and very bold I hear that since he answereth that it was onely such a seal of Abrahams righteousness by faith but not of others afterward Answ. I am sure Mr. B. in this as he doth almost in every thing I have spoken written or done which he hath had occasion to mention doth mis-report me my anâ—wer to him and others was not as he and they represent it This is my answer 1. That Rom. 4.11 no other persons Circumcision but Abrahams is termed the seal of the righteousness of faith 2. That to Abraham his Circumcision was a seal of that righteousness by faith which hee had afore bee was circumcised 3. That Abrahams personal Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith to all that believe as he did and to no other 4. That the usuâ—l Ciâ—cuâ—cision of infants was not a seal of the righteousness of faith or of the Covenant of grace to every circumcised person But saith Mr. B. 1. The Text seems to speak of the nature and use of Circumcision and the end of its institution as being ordained at first of God to seal onely a Gospel righteousness of faith and not a legal righâ—eousness of works or ceremonies Answ. 1. If Circumcision were at first ordained of God to seal a Gospel righteousness of faith then it did not seal visible Churchmembership of infants for that is not a Gospel righteousness of faith sith it may bee without Gospel righâ—eousness or faith and these may bee without it as Mr. B. saith in this Chapter 2. The nature use and end of Circumcision in others is not at all expressed Rom. 4. â—â— but onely of Abrahams 3. The use and end of Circumcision was at first to signifie that Covenant God entered into with Abraham Gen. 17. after to binde the circumcised to observe the law of Moses as the Apostle conceived it Gal. 5.3 2. Saith he Doth God institute a standing ordinance to endure till Christ to have one end for him to whom it was first given 〈◊〉 another to all others Is not the nature end and use of Sacramâ—â—ts or holy engaging signs and seals the same to all though the fruit be not alway the same These are poor shifts against a manifest truth which deserve not answer Answ. 1. Doth not Mr. B. of baptism p. 2. ch 2. himself answer that baptism which he terms a Sacrament or holy engaging signe and seal hath more ends and uses then one and that the infant is capable of some though not of others yea though he make the end to be in the definition of Sacraments that it is of their nature to be signs and so no Sacraments but what do signifie yet hee will have baptism to bee a Sacrament to an infant to whom it never is any signe or signifies any thing for the baptised infant either never saw it or never saw it as a signe of the engagemâ—nt Mr. B. speaks of and so it is never a signe to the baptised the Baptism leaving no visible impression on the body as Circumcision did to signifie to the infant when hee comes to age Whence I infer 1. That according to Mr. Bs. own doctrine the Sacrament of Baptism hath one end to those to whom it was first given to wit to signifie their owning of Christ as their Lord and another end to almost all others to wit infants to seal them Gods promise without their personal owning of Christ. 2. That according to him the nature end and use of Sacraments or holy engaging signs and seals is not the same to all for Baptism is no holy engaging sign to an infant who doth neither signifie by it nor hath any thing signified to it by it no nor is naturally capable of it and consequently it is no Sacrament to it sith it is not either actually or potentially a sign to the infant no not when grown up of any thing signified by it 2. Doth not Mr. B. acknowledge that Abrahams Circumcision did seal the righteousness of saith which he had being yet uncircumcised sure he will not deny this which the Apostle expresly teacheth But sure it had not that end in all others therefore he must acknowledge one end of Circumcision for Abraham which to all others it had not 3. About the nature end and use of Sacraments I have expressed in part my mind before sect 31. Nor either there or here do I use any shifts against a manifest truth but Mr. B. haâ—h levied a company of poor feeble arguments which but for the shallowness or prejudice of Paedobaptists
deserved not an answer Ch. 19. he saith thus My 14 th arg is this If the law of infants churchmembership were no part of the ceremonial or meerly judicial law nor yet of the law of works then it is not repealed But it was no part of the ceremonial law nor meerly judicial nor part of the law of works as such therefore it is not repealed The consequence is evident seeing no other laws are repealed The antecedent I prove in its parts 1. None will say it was part of the law of works for that knows no mercy to those who have once offended But churchmembership was a mercy Answ. 1. Mr. B. should have first proved any such law at all which he hath not proved yet distinct from the law of Circumcision and this is my answer to this argument that there is no such law at all and this is enough Yet I add 2. If his preâ—ended law of infants visible churchmembership be no part of the law of works then it is not of the law of nature which before and after he asserts for the law and Covenant of nature is the law and Covenant of works which I think Mr. B. wil not deny surely it is not of grace in Christ Ergo. That is not of grace in Christ which was afore the fall but such is the law of nature Ergo. 3. That the law of works knows no mercy to those who have once offended is a dictate of Divines which needs proof That the law at mount Sinai was a law of works is proved before sect 43. But that yeelded some mercy Levit. 4.2 20 26 31 35. Numb 15.22 23 24 28. Ergo. 4. How far and in what manner visible churchmembership of infants was a mercy and how it is otherwise now is shewed before sect 64 66. 2. Saith Mr. B. If it were part of the ceremonial law then 1. let them shew what it was a type of and what is the antitype that hath succeeded it and prove it to be so if they can Answ. 1. I do not take every thing typical to have been ceremonial nor every ceremonial thing to be typical Or if it be so yet I am sure of every thing ceremonial which was typical Mr. B. cannot shew what was the antitype in particular at least he cannot prove it When Mr. B. hath shewed and proved what was the antitype to all the dishes bowls snuffers and other utensils about the tabernacle and of every thing appointed concerning them their colour fashion mettal c. and of every rite prescribed Israel by Moses there may be some equity in Mr. Bs. task But till then it is enough to tell him that to it with other things typified Christ Col. 2.17 succeeded The churchmembership by birth hath had churchmembership by faith to succeed it as is before proved from Gal 3. and if that be not enough let Mr. B. answer and not slight what Mr. Samuel Fisher writes in his Baby baptism meer Babism about the ceremonial holiness of the Jews infants pag. 112.113 114 115 116 c. 2. Saith he If the very materials of the Church were a ceremony then the Church it self should be but a ceremony And so the Church in Abrahamâ— family should be more vile then the Church in the family of Noah Melchizedech Sem Job Lot c. which were more then ceremonies Answ. The Levitical priesthood was ceremonial and yet not the materials that is the men a ceremony so churchmembership might be a ceremony yet not the churchmembers But I do not term either the one or the other a ceâ—emony it is sufficient that it was a meer positive thing alterable and that it was altered 3. Saith he And that it was no part of the meerly judicial law appears thus 1. As was last said then also the Church in Abrahams family should be more vile then the aforesaid for their churchmembership was not a piece of meer policy as we call the judicials Answ. Iâ— it weâ—e by any law that infants were Churchmembers it is more likely to be 〈◊〉 judicial law then any other of the â—hree sorts of the Mosaical laws which Divines do so distinguish And to the argument I say 1. By making infants Churchmembership to be by a mixt or meer judicial law in Abrahams family it is not made a piece of meer civil policy not Ecclâ—siastical for the Jewâ— Commonwealth was a holy policy and the members of the State were members of the Church and consequently it is rather made more excellent by referring it to the meer judicial laws as the constitution of the Sanhedâ—in and other things are and the admitting of the proselytes and their children was by the Elders of the Jews 2. How to say concerning the families of Noah c. we cannot resolve sith we find little or nothing of them no mention of Noahs infants or Melchizedecs Sems Jobs or Lots except Ammâ—n and Moab nothing said of their Churchmembership or of the government of the families what it was or by what law 2. Saith he It cannot be shewn that it hath any thing of the nature of a meer judicial law in it except we may call the moral laws or Gospel promises judicial upon which meer judicials are built why is it not as much of the judicial law to have women Churchmembers as children yet who dare say that this is meerly judicial Answ. It can be shewn that if there be such a law it is a meer judicial law because it belonged to the ordering of the Commonwealth or policy of Israel as it is termed Ephes. 2.12 and the entring of proselytes was to be done by the eldership of the people and not by the priests And this we daâ—e say of the womens visible Churchmembership as well as the infants and that neither of them were by a moral law oâ— Gospel promise as Mr. B. fancies 3. Saiâ—h he It is of the very law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects And Mr. T. hath told me his judgement that the Jews Church and Commonwealth was all one therefore according to Mr. T. his grounds it must needs be requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers I thinke this is past denial Answ. Kingdomes themselves are not of the law of nature no nor of the law of nations if they were all other government then of Kings were against these laws much less can it be oâ— the law of nature to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and the Kings subjects According to my judgment the Jews Church and Commonwealth were not all one naturally but by institution and therefore according to my grounds it is not requisite even naturally that infants should then be Churchmembers So that I find none oâ— these things past denial 4. Saith he The promise that took them in and the seal were both grounded on the righteousness of â—aith as is proved before therefore not a meer judicial Answ. Neither were they
taken in by a promise nor was the promise or the seal grounded that is made or given by reason of the righteousness of faith to or in those to whom they were made or given Nor is any such thing before proved by Mr. B. 5. Saith he Inâ—ants were Churchmembers long before the time of Moses when the Jews were formed into a Commonwealth and the â—udicial laws given them And as the Apostle argues the law which was many hundred years after could not make void the promise and so it could not be that this was part of the meerly judicial law Answ. The Jews were formed into a Commonmealth and judicial laws given as may appear by the appointment of Onan and Shâ—lah to take their brothers wife Gen. 38 8. and the sentence of Judah concerning Tamar v. 24. before Moses time though then both were compleated Though the law makes not void the promise yet the law of infants visible Churchmembership if there were any such might be meerly judicial 6. Saith he That it is neither a meer judicial nor proper to the Jews appeareth thus That which was proper to the Jews was given to them onely that is onely to Isaac and his seed on whom the Jewish priviledges were intailed But many hundreds were circumcised as Churchmembers among them many infants in Abrahams family before ever Isaac was born and all the proselytes with their infants afterward that would come in The children of Keturah and their children and the children of Ishmael c. were once all Churchmembers let any shew when they were unchurched except when they unchurched themselves by their wickedness or let any shew that the same sons of Keturah who must circumcise their sons as Churchmembers while they were in Abrahams family must leave them uncircumcised and unchurched when they were removed from that family Did God change laws and revoke such mercies and priviledges to the seed of Abraham meerly because of their removing from his house and change of place Who dare believe such fancies without one word of Scripture Remember therefore that it is here plainly proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews Answ. That which waâ— proper to the Jews was not proper to Isaac onely and his seed but common to Abraham Isaac and Jacobs family or the people that either by birth or proselytism were Hebrews When Ishmael was cast out and the sons of Keturah sent away from Isaac Gen. 25.6 they were not Churchmembers nor their children no more then the circumcised children of the Jews by strange wives when they were separated from the holy seed Ezra 10. Nehem 13. which the Lord did for that reason which he judged fit however it seem to us Nor is this conceit a fancy but plain from those Scriptures named and others which still reckon the Ishmaeliâ—es Edomites Ketureans and posterity of Jews by prohibited women and separated from the congregation of Israel as a profane people and so not Churchmembers Nor do I think they were bound to circumcise their infants as Churchmembers or did it when separated from the Hebrew people So that Mr. B. hath not yet proved that infants Churchmembership was not proper to the Jews but that it is partly natural and partly grounded on the law of grace and faith as he speaks SECT LXIX Mr. B. ch 20. by his 15th arg from infants being once members in the universal visible Church hath not proved their visible Churchmembership unreapealed CH. 20. My 15th arg saith he is this If all infants who were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church which was never taken down then certainly their Churchmembership is not repealed But all infants that were members of any particular Church were also members of the universal visible Church therefore their Churchmembership is not repealed The consequence is beyond dispute because the universal Church never ceaseth here And in my judgement the whole argument is so clear that were there no more it were sufficient Answ. The very conclusion is so palpably false that no man that understands it but will wonder that Mr. B. should shew himself so besotted as to prove so inâ—ustriously a thing contrary to sense that the visible Churchmembership of no infants who were members of any particular Church is repealed that is ceaseth For who knows not that Isaac Jacob Moses David with millionâ— more are dead and are now no members in any visible Church If it be said that Mr. B. means the species of infants I reply then he speaks non-sense and false For the species is but one and therefore to â—erm the species which is but one all infants in the plural number is non-sense And false for the species was never a member of any particular Church for members are individuals nor is the universal visible Church totum universale which may bee thus divided into adult and infants as into two sorts of Churches but totum integrale an integral whole consisting of parts existing and when the parts ceased to exist then they were not members visible and the whole Church visible must needs cease when all the members existent are deceased It is false also that the species an be termed visible For that is visible which may be discerned by sense but sense discerneth not species but individuals If it be said that Mr. B. means that the universal visible Church is as a fluent body as a river whiâ—h conâ—inues the same from a succession of ether water in the same channel neither will this â—ee for his purpose For 1. in that sense the infants that were members cease and other infants succeed 2. it is manifest that the visible Church is not now among those people to wit the Jews wâ—o had heretofore infants visible churchmembers they are broken off from being Gods visible Church and so the succession of churchmembers in tâ—at people ceaseth and it is that which is denied tâ—at in the other channel to wit the visible Christian Church infants do or ought to be taken to succeed in the place of the deceased Jewish infants and if the sense be thus the whole argument is this If infants visible churchmembership be and â—ught to be taken to be in the Christian visible Church as in the Jewish then it is not repealed But infants visible churchmembership is and ought to be taken to be in the christian visible Church as in the Jewish ergo of which I should deny the minor But this hath no likelihood to be Mr. Bs. meaning whose words import plainly that which I count non-sense and false And therefore I answer to his argument if the parenthesis which was never taken down be a part of the antecedent in the major and the sense be this and the universal visible Church existent in the age wherein infants were members of a particular Church was never taken down or ceased not and this be supplied in the minor I dâ—ny the minor if it be not supplied I
bring to that purpose 7. Saith Mr. B. And why should children be joyned in standing Church ordinances as prayer fasting c. if there were not strong hope of the blessing of these ordinances to them 2 Chron. 20.13 The children that suck the breast were to bee gathered to the solemn fast Joel 2 16. this will prove them also standing Churchmembers seeing they must joyn in standing ordinances so why received they circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith if there were not strong probability that they had the thing sealed and signified God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not Answ. There 's nothing here endeavoured to bee proved but what I have also granted that there is a strong probability that infants of believers so dying are justified and saved and yet I see no strength in these allegations to prove it For though the little ones and sucking children were to bee present to shew an universal humiliation as did the beasts also Jonah 3.8 yet the infants did not joyn in prayer nor was the end of their presence any special blessing of the Ordinance to them but the moving GOD to spare the whole people invaded or in danger of perishing by famiâ—e nor were the prayer and fasting standing Church-ordinances any more then the Covenanting Deut. â—9 Nehem. 9. but occasional nor doth this presenting of infants prove them standing Church-members any more then the like Jonah 3.8 proves those infants or the Ninivites beasts standing Churchmembers As for Cirâ—umcision that infants received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith is no where in Scripture affirmed and how much Paedobaptists are mistaken in their inference of the nature of Sacraments in general or Circumcâ—siâ—n in special from Rom 4.11 hath beene often shewed before Sect. 31 c. The ends of Circumcising of infants was to distinguish the Hebrews from other people and to fore-signifie from what people CHRIST was to come and to engage them to observe the Law of Moses which they were to receive by reason of Gods command whether they hoped for their childrens salvation or not Abraham was to circumcise Ishmael though hee knew hee was not a childe of the promise and Isaac Esau though hee were rejected by God The speech God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not is like the Popish Schoolmens conceit that Sacraments confer grace where no bar is put and intimates that Circumcision was Gods oâ—dinance to assure at least rigteousness of faith to each infant circumcised which is a false conceit 8. Saith Mr. B. Why else doth God so oft compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe 1 Thes. 2.7 Num. 11 12. Isa. 49.15 Psâ—l 103.13 Answ. Though I grant a strong probality of the salvation of believers infants so dying yet to shew the vanity of Mr. Bs. scriblings as if hee brought more for it then I do I cannot but observe the slighty dealing of Mr. B. in this point For first whereas hee alledgeth these texts as if GOD did therein compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe in the first Paul not God compares himself to a nurse in the second Moses speaks of himself as if God had put an impossible burthen on him as if he could as a nursing father bears his sucking childe carry all that people to the promised land In the third God saith he would not forget Sion who had said hee had forgotten them though a mother should forget her sucking childe and Psal. 103.13 the love of God as a father is spoken of them that fear him So that the two first texts were through heedlesness mis-alledged grosly by him the other two express Gods love onely to his obedient and seeking people mention nothing of his love to their infants 2. God doth compare his love to a Fathers or Mothers not because he is engaged to believers infants to save them nor because he hath natural affection as they have but to shew his gracious care and dealing towards his elect children 3. Gods love is no more compâ—red to a believing parents love then to an unbelievers and therefore if this prove a strong probability of the salvation of a believers infant so dying it doth prove the salvation of an unbelievers as probâ—ble 4. Gods love and care is compared to an Eagles in carrying her young ones Deut. 32.11 12. Christs to an Heâ— Matth. 23.37 According to Mr. Bs. reasoning thiâ— should prove then the strong probability of tâ—e salvation of Chickens But I am ashamed that the world should see the nakedness of these magnified reasonings though I be necessitated to uncover it The 9th from Matth. 19.14 is no more then I have alledged often for those infants and what Mr. B. here alledgeth to prove this a right of other infants is answered at large in the second part of this Review sect 17. 10. Saith he We read of some that have been sanctified from the womb and therefore were in a state of salvation and Jacob was loved before he was born and therefore before he had done good or evil was in the like state of salvation Answ. Have not I also granted this thing and that upon the same reasons Why then doth Mr. B. suggest to draw parâ— is hearts from me to him as if he said more in this then my self Yet I cannot be very confident of the reason from Jerem 1.15 to which Gal. 1. â—5 is parallel sith the sanctification was to the office of a Prophet which is appliable to infants so dying 11. We find promises of salvation to whole housholds where it is probable there were infants Act. 16.34 Answ. 1. Acts 16.31 is no probability that infants should bee meant sith in the next v. it is said he spake the word to all that were in his house which is not to be said of infants and v. 34. he rejoyced with all his house believing God 2. If they should yet this can be no more then a particular promise to him unless this were true that God will save every believer and his house And Mr. B. over lâ—sheth in saying we find promises of salvation made to whole housholds when there is no more but this one The 12th is from 1 Cor. 7.14 and it is built on Mr. Bs. interpretation of holy as if it noted a separation to God as a peculiar people But I have fully answered Mr Bs. 29th ch and have shewed his mistake in the first part of this Review sect 22 c. and need to answer no more in this place Mr. B. goes on thus It cannot be said that these promises are verified according to their sense if any mercy be given to any infant Here the persons are determined that is all the seed of the faithfull and we have large ground given probably to conclude that it is eternal mercy that is intended to all that living to age do not again reject it but that either at
though which I somewhat marvel at they follow therein the vulgar Latine For the Tigurine Divines note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek signifies the flock not the fold And Beza excepts against the vulgar for it and against the Romanists who would have that one fâ—ld to be Rome And Grotius observes that the speech is proverbial One flock one shepheard to which he makes Ezek. 37.24 to be like Now that the one flock is not the meer visible Church but the invisible it appears from many things in the Text that Christ laid down his life for them that they follow him hear his voyce his Father and he knows them distinguishingly from others who do not believe because they are not of his sheep that he gives them eternal life none can pluck them out of his Fathers hands v. 14 15 16 26 27 28 29. out of which many Protestant Divines gather absolute election particular redemption effectual conversion and perseverance against Arminians And Diodati in his annot on Joh. 10 16. hath it thus Other sheep namely the elect among the Gentiles who are to be called by the Gospel and incorporated into the Church with the elect of the Jewish nation One body 1 Cor. 12.13 one new man Ephes. 2.15 are the invisible Church as is shewed before Matth. 8.11 The Kingdome of heaven is the Kingdome of glory Matth. 21.43 The Kingdome of God is either the Gospel by a metonymy or the rule of God in their hearts which was taken from them that is that people with whose ancestors it was though not in those persons from whom it was taken The visible Church cannot be meant by the Kingdome for the fruits of the Kingdome are not the fruits of the meer visible Church they are not bare profession but real faith holiness and obedience which are fruits of the spirit not of the Church or if of any Church of the invisible not the meer visible And though all invisible members bring forth fruit yet that nation which had invisible members bringing forth fruit in a former age may in an after age not bring forth fruit and for that reason the Church invisible may be taken from them with whom it was in respect of their ancestors To what I said If the Christian Gentiles were graffed into the same visible Church with the Jews then they should have been circumcised c. contrary to the determination Acts 15. Mr. Bl replies That is of no force as though we may not be in the same Kingdome and yet under a new way of administration Law-givers on earth are sometimes pleased to change their Laws and so doth the Law-giver of Heaven or if he will limit his instance to Circumcision taking in no other Laws The same house may have a new door or porch Let Mr. T. then know that he is in the same visible Kingdome as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their posterity after the flesh in Israel were Answ. That which Mr. Bl. saith of the lameness of a Kingdome under a new way of administration of Law givers changing their laws of Gods doing so the identity of a house with a new door is all granted but doth not take away the force of my reason unless he could shew that any were graffed or to be graffed into the visible Church Jewish without Circumcision if he were a male Doth not Mr. Bl. maintain here in answer to my 4th argument that we are partakers of the same outward priviledges and ordinances with the Jews as he expounds Rom. 11.17 which opposeth his speech here of a new way Doth not Scripture term the Jewish Church or people the Circumcision because those that were in that Church if male were circumcised Was not Cornelius taken for unclean and not of that Church because uncircumcised or was he ever in the Jewish Church after his Baptism God might admit into the Jewish Church another way then by Circumcision but Mr. Bl. cannot shew he or the Jews did so We are in the same invisible Kingdome of true believers and elect persons with Abraham Isaac and Jacob but I do not yet know by any thing Mr. Bl. hath hitherto said that I am in the same visible Kingdome with Abraham Isaac and Jacob and their posterity after the flesh in Israel Every one in the visible Kingdome of Israel after the flesh did partake of the Passeover the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10 18. Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the the sacrifices partakers of the altar Which intimates that Israel after the flesh did then when he wrote eat of the sacrifices which Christians did not and therefore were not adjoyned to Israel after the flesh but in that very place v 16 17. distinguished from them I take Mr. Bls. assertion to infer Jadâ—ism and if he or any other be not satisfied by my answer to Mr. Cobbet I have more reason to impute it to their prejudice then to defect in my answer SECT LXXVI My sense of matrimonial holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions Vindic. Faed ch 39. and Mr. Sydenhams Exircit ch 7. MR. Bl. ch 39. avoucheth still his sense of federal holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 I proceed to view what he saith Sect. 1. he sets down the Apostles resolution and the reason of it rightly which because it will tend much to the clearing of the sense which I give I shall here transcribe it Let him not put her away let her not leave him unbelief breaks not the marriage bond â—enders it not a nullity Religion being not of the substance of marriage But what he saith that their scruple and ground of their fear was the condition of their issue lest that they should not be reckoned with the Saints but of the fellowship of the unclean Gentiles is fictitious For the resolution of it rightly given before by Mr. Bl. himself shews that their scruple arose not from fear of their childrens condition but the nullity of their marriage or unlawfulness of continuing in it by reason of the unbelief of the one party else the Apostle had not made his resolution apposite to the removing their scruple Yea Mr. Bls. own speech is against his own conceit when he saith Reason is strong for this for they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church state and condition being a priviledge communicable and descendable from parent to child If the parent were without and of the Gentiles the child was ever such and in case they were of the people of God their children were reckoned so in like manner Now parents being divided the one holy the other unclean they feared that the issue would follow the worser part a sâ—ain would lie upon them they would be accounted unclean with the unbelieving parent In a like case it had been so determined Ezra 10.3 For if they well knew as it is with the parent so it is with the child for Church-state they knew that the
seed we have it all in Christ and what we have in Christ we have it all as Abrahams seed and that we are baptized into Christ that is our initiation into Christ and what ever we have as Abrahams seed is sealed unto us in Baptism By which it is evident that as Circumcision was to them so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Answ. If this were granted yet Mr. Cs. purpose were not obtained that the application of the seal to infants were justified by the command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. for the reasons before given But because I conceive these assertions contain errours such as do mislead Paeâ—obaptists I shall examine Mr. Cs. allegations and together with them Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his third Conclusion and what I find material in other of my Antagonists about the point of Baptisms succeeding Circumcision Two assertions are laid down here by Mr. C. 1. That Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision 2. That it is the very same for substance to us as circumcision was to Jews before Christ. Neither of which are true or proved by any thing brought by Mr. C. or any other though this be the chief thing they alledge for infant Baptism and Mr. Church p. 50. out of Dr. Whitaker tels us all the Anabaptists will not be able to resist this argument from circumcision Let 's try the strength of it The latter position seems to be this That as circumcision was to the Jews so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed But this is not all one as to be the very same for substance To be the very same for substance is an expression that is scarce capable of good sense neither Baptism nor Circumcision in proper acception being substances or having substance except as the subject of them as all accidents have As substance is put for essence so it cannot be said they are the same for substance sith cutting is one thing washing another and other Paedobaptists usually term them different administrations Circumâ—ision the old Baptism the new I grant Circumcision was the token of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. but that it was a seal of that Covenant in the sense usually meant by Paedobaptists or that any ones Circumcision was a seal but Abrahams much less that every ones Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of grace to him and his seed is more then I find in Scripture and how often I have proved it false may be seen in many of my writings specially the 3d. part of this Review But that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed is not true For 1. Baptism seals not at all the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 nor any other of the promises made to the natural seed of Abraham 2. Nor doth it seal the spiritual promises of the comming of Christ the calling of the Gentiles as they were made to Abraham and by Circumcision assured to be accomplished For then Baptism as Circumcision was should be a shadow and type of Christ to come and should cease as it did 3. The Evangelical Covenant or the promise oâ— righâ—eousness or eternal life by faith granted to be in the latent sense comprized in that Covenant I find no where in Scripture said to be sealed by Circumcision but rather that circumcision did bind persons to the keeping of the Law for righteousness Gal. 5.2 3. nor by baptism but by consequent The Scripture rather makes it a seal if it must be so called of our promise to God then of Gods promise to us Nor is there any thing Gal. 3.27.29 to prove either of Mr. Cs. conclusions that Baptism now is the seal of the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed or that it is now in the room of Circumcision For neither is it said that what wee have as Abrahams seed is sealed to us in Baptism wee are said indeed to put on Christ by Baptism but that whether the putting on be meant of spiritual union or outward profession it is ascribed to faith v. â—6 and our Baptism rather is made our seal to Christ then Gods to us nor is there any thing spoken v. 29. of any seed of Abraham but by faith so our Baptism cannot seal that Covenant which was made to Abrahams natural seed which was the use of Circumcision and therefore that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant or in the room of Circumcision is not proved thence But let 's view what is further said for them or either of them That our Baptism succeeds in the room place and use of Circumcicision is the common speech of Paedobaptists against it 1. I argued in my Examen that Baptism was a concomitant to circumcision it was among the Jew long afore Christ came and it was by Divine appointment from the Baptism of John till Christs death now that which succeeds comes after is not concurrent To this Mr. M. replied 1. by concession and thence would gather an argument for infant Baptism which is enervated in the 2d part of this Review sect 24. 2. Saith he A Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Defence p. 171. But this is not true a Lord Major elect doth not succed till hee bee sworn in the interim he is no Lord Major in being but onely in possibility and probability which may never bee A successour hath no place while the predecessour is present Jewel Defence of the Apol. part 2. c. 3. div 5. 2. I argued that in no good sense can Baptism be said to bee in the room and place of circumcision For neither in proper acception have either room or place nor taking room and place for the subjects circumcising and ciâ—cumcised baptizing and baptized is it true parents though private persons might circumcise not so in baptism women were to be baptized not so in circumcision These things are answered by Mr. M. either with censures of me which are but vain this argâ—ing being necessary to clear truth or by reference to what he had said before which is also fully refuted in the third part of this Review sect 18. I further said If by room and place be meant the society into which the circumcised and baptised were to be initiated it is not true For Baptism initiated into the Christian circumcision into the Jewish church To this Mr. M. If you mean onely the several administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speak truth but not to the purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into the same administration of the Covenant but if you mean that the Church of the Jews and wee are not one and the
same Church you speak pure Anabaptism indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needless to annex any proofs because I think you dare not deâ—y it Answ. I do not mean onely the several administrations if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sence from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant and yet they are termed the divers administrations and the Church of Jews and Gentils by reason of them under divers administrations which kind of expressions though frequently used by Paedobaptists yet I can discern little in them but non-sence or tautologies or self-contradictings My meaning was very obvious That the Christian Church properly so called contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society and Circumcision entred into it not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs Who knowes not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible and not in the Christian and baptised disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church who remained among the disciples of Christ in his Church that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church hee would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptism was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I think no sound Divine did ever question p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian church which then began to be moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up yet all this was preparing the materials of it and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy which was then ready to be taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed is no other then his own and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture which never makes the Church christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentils to be one and the same mystical body of Christ Ephes. 3.6 Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision sith they had different institutions were for Churches as Mr. M. speaks under divers administrations whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent or Proselytism the other onely by the preaching of the Gospel and faith As Sâ—lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles nor the first Bishops because of their different institution name function and ordinaâ—ion so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision because of its different institution name office and state it hath from it Which iâ— further proved thus The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism to which Mr. M. replies Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcisâ—on â— cannot guess the Lords day succeeds the 7th day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other Answ This proves that the one is not sâ—ated on the command of the other Baptism on the command of Circumcision they having dâ—fferent commands Gen. 17.10 c. Matth. 28.19 and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising the rules of administring each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practise and no other Lastly that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end is more untrue For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism that they are rather contrary For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile To this Mr. M. answers These all refer to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish Paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but Baptism succeeds it as a seal of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Jews or rather the family of Abraham Answ. Mr. Ms. grant that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy and that it is wholly vanished and therein circumcision hath no succession doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished and have no succession For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy the initiating was into the Jewish Church or rather the family of Abraham which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abrahams house were termed the Church of the Jews and that covenant which circumcision did signifie and confirm was peculiar to the Jews although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud sea Manna water out of the Rock the Ark of Noah the Passeover the sacrifices of the Law high Priest washings c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds
Covenant without a seal it is no greater benefit to have a seal then to have a Covenant without it 4. There is a seal of the Covenant of grace which succeeds Circumcision as the substance the shadow and that is Christs Cirumcision Col. 2.11 and his bloudshedding Mat. 26.28 Heb. 9.15 c. besides the seal of Gods spirit But saith Mr. M. the thing I was to prove was that our priviledges are enlarged not extenuated which appears partly in that we have freedome in what was burdensome to them in their manner of administration which he meant of Circumcision by his alledging Act. 15.10 and thereby it is manifest that it is false which he said before that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant as a means of applying it For that speech doth imply that the Covenant of grace could not be applied without Circumcision for that which is of the substance of a thing what way it is of the substance of it is necessary to the being of that of which it is of the substance otherwise it were a common accident not of the substance of it But without Circumcision the Covenant of grace might be applied yea according to Mr. M. it is and may be better applied for otherwise our priviledges were not enlarged in being freed from it Partly saith Mr. M. because our Covenant is established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 To this I answered the Covenant which had not so good promises was the Covenant at Mount Sinai v. 9. which was not the Covenant of grace for then it should have the best promises there being no better promises then are in the Covenant of grace nor could it be broken as that was nor occasion finding fâ—ult as that did but it must needs be the Covenant of works as the Scripture doth plainly deliver Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10 12 4.24 Heb. 12.18 c. and for this I alledged some of Mr. Ms. own words in his Sermon p. 10. That the Law was added not as a part of Abrahams Covenant that in that giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise To this Mr. M. returns an answer bemoaning me as running into a needless and erroneous digression that he said indeed in his sermon that the moral Law was added 430 years after the Covenant was made with Abraham not as a part of that Covenant but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadows of rites and sacrifices c. But to say that this Covenant mentioned Heb. 8. 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 Answ. It is and I do still own it in the 43d section of this part of my Review and do requite Mr. Ms. pitty of me with the like bemoaning his ignorance and if I mistake not the Assemblies errour about this in their Confession of faith ch 7. art 5. I have looked into the Texts and I find Mr. M. mistaken in the meaning of Gal. 3.24 perhaps following the unnecessary supplement in our last English translation where is added to bring us which the Text hath not but onely the law was our boy-leader unto Christ that is until Christ as v. 23 25. shew and the meaning is plain that the Apostle compares the Law to a teacher or guide or overseeer of a child in his minority to which the Israelites were confined not in respect of its severity as Mr. M. makes it to whip them to Christ but as a teacher directing them though imperfectly by figures and types untill Christ and faith in him were revealed In like manner he mistakes when he saith God finds fault with the first Covenant the words being For complaining of them Heb. 8 8. nor complaining or finding fault with it and when it is translated v. 7. if the first Covenant had been faultless it is not intimated as if it were faulty but they were faulty as vers 8. shews and the Covenant is termed non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not from the fault of it but of them which occasioned complaints of them and therefore it were better translated without complaint or plaintless then faultless As for what Mr. M. alledgeth from Heb. 9.1 it no more proves that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Gospel grace and not of works then because the tree of life was a symbole type or shadow of Christ or our blessed estate in him therefore the Covenant made with Adam in Paradise before his fall was not a Covenant of works but of Gospel grace or Noahs Ark typified Baptism therefore the Covenant with Noah Gen. 9. was a Covenant of Evangelical grace The Covenant of grace and of works are denominated from the promise and condition not from Gods intent in some things commanded When our Lord Christ Mar. 10.19 told the young man of entring into life he propounded the Covenant of works yet he had another end therein to wit to try and discover him Though the commands about the Sacrifices High Priest c. were to typyfie Christ yet the Law as it was propounded Covenant wise is manifestly declared to be the Covenant of works Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10 12. yea Mr. Ms. own words prove it For 1. where he cites the addition of the Law Gal. 3.17 the Law is not restrained to the moral Law but contains all the commands of the Sacrifices c. as well as the moral Law which were added because of transgressions not onely to restrain them but also for the expiating of some offences against the Law so as to obtain a partial temporary forgiveness by them as is manifest from Levit. 4. c. Now the whole Law as delivered 430 years after the Covenant with Abraham is contradistinct to the Covenant confirmed before in Christ or the promises therefore as it was a Covenant Exod. 19.5 8 it was a Covenant of works 2. If it were not a part of the Covenant with Abraham it was not the Covenant of grace for such was Abrahams Covenant but according to Mr. M. the Law was no part of that Covenant Ergo. 3. That which was a Schoolmaster to whip was not the Covenant of grace for the Covenant of grace doth not terrifie or whip but such is the Law according to Mr. M. Ergo. 4. That which was impossible to bee kept was not the Covenant of grace for that is never broken but such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. 5. If
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
gives such reason of dissent as I did in my rejection of Mr. Selden's interpretation of 1 Cor. 10 1. And for the Drs. interpretation neither hath he cleared it by his shewing my mistake of his meaning For neither were the native Iews wont to be initiated by Baptism nor is my reason avoided against his interpretation For if the sense of the Dr. bee our Fathers were baptized into Moses as native Jews are wont to be initiated by baptism yet the Dr. errs from the Apostles meaning which is that our Fathers the Israelites were baptized into Moses as well not as the Jews in after time by their Baptism but as wee Christians by Christian Baptism into Christ. Whether the Jews custome was to baptize native Jews after the giving the Law hath been argued before I proceed to my main position and the Drs. answer to it I set down my position thus Nor do I think it true that the customary use of the Jews in baptizing Proselytes and their children was the pattern of Christs institution of Baptism and the Apostles and first Churches practise For according to the custome of the Jews John Baptist and Christs Apostles should have baptized no native Jews which was not so but of all nations as Christ appointed Matth. 28.19 To this the Dr. answers 1. by asserting they did baptize native Jews To this the Reply is by denial of this and reserting to the proof before 2. Saith the Dr. Nay so they might though the Iews had baptized none but Proselytes for to that it would bear just proportion that they should baptize both Iews and Gentiles in case both of them came in as Proselytes Answ. But this answer is a fallacy a little too gross to deceive any man of common understanding For if the Jews baptized no native Jews but Proselytes not to Christ but to the Jewish people and their baptism was the pattern which was the Drs. word of Christian baptism then Christ should have appointed and Iohn Baptist and the Apostles practised baptism to no Jew though a Proselyte to Christ For each thing ought to be appointed and done according to the pattern and no otherwise that which is otherwise is not according to the pattern though it bear a proportion with it My argument was not as the Dr. makes it The custome was to baptize Proselytes and not natives therefore Christ if be observed that custome was not to baptize native Iews but thus therefore if Christ had made their custome his pattern he would not have appointed them to be baptized If Moses had varied from the pattern shewed him in the Mount he had not made it his pattern so it had been in this if the Jewish baptism had been Christ and his Apostles pattern 2. I said Christ would not have avouched the baptism of Iohn to be from heaven and not from men if it had been in imitation of and conformity to the Jewish custome To this the Dr. saith But I wonder what appearance of concludency there is in that reason May not any thing be from heaven or by Gods appointment which is derived from a Jewish custome God may appoint a ceremony known among men to be used in his service Answ. I grant it but then the appointment of God is the pattern by which it is to be regulated not mens custome I do not conceive that can be said to be from heaven or God but from men which is derived from founded in and regulated by as its pattern a custome of men as the Dr. saith of the Christian baptism that it is derived from founded in and regulated by the Jewish baptism not pretended to bee an institution of God but an humane invention aâ— the pattern whence it is copied out even by Christ according to the Dr. Letter of resol qâ— 4. § 24. 3. If it had been the pattern I said it is likely some where or other some intimation would have been given as the Directory for Christians in the use of Baptism This saith the Dr. is too frivolous to require reply for besides that the negative argument were of no force if it were 〈◊〉 is pretended It already appears that there are in the Jewish writers more then intimations of this custome and some indications of it even in the Scripture it self as Joh. 3.5 10. And for any plainer affirmations what need could there be of them when both the matter it self speaketh plainly that there was no need of words to those that knew the Jewish customes as the first writers and readers of the New Testament did and when Christs sole authority and practise of his Apostles were sufficient Directory for the Christians in the use of baptism Answ. The Dr. might more truly have said this reason is too weighâ—y to be removed by his reply For 1. the thing it self is of very great moment to tender consciences who know of what moment it is that the great solemn ordinance of Baptism should not be prophaned but rightly used 2. Without a certain Directory no person can with peace seek Baptism nor Minister give it 3. The Apostle saith for want of right observing the Lords Supper and there is the like reason of Baptism Gods judgement overtook the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11.30 4. That an abuse is to be rectified by Christs appointment 1 Cor. 11.23 Though the Dr. say the Lords Supper was derived and lightly changed from the Jewish observance of the post câ—nium yet did the Apostle not make their custome the Directory to regulate it by but Christs appointment and example and therefore such a negative argument is of invincible force in this case if it be as I pretend there is no intimation given in Scripture of that custome as the Directory for Christians in the use of Baptism therefore that custome is not the pattern by which it is to be regulated For otherwise it were very tyrannous for Christ to impose a Law on mens consciences to practise a rite after a pattern altogether unknown and not so much as directed to To say the first writers and readers of the New Testament knew the Jewish customes is nothing to us unless they had told us what they were and that wee are to follow them And if they did not tell us they dealt unfaithfully in not doing that which was necessary to bee done for our information 5. The declarations in the Jewish writers cannot be our Directory unless we were directed to them as our rule or they were as the Canonical Scriptures to us 6. The Jewish writers which mention this custome are later writers then the Apostles time and therefore they could not bee the Directory except we were referred to them by prognostication 7. The Jewish writers could not be a Directory except they could be had and read by those that need information from them But how few of those millions of Christians and Preachers who have need of direction in this thing have heard much less have read the Jewish writers the
subdivision and notification of several Sects among the Jewes as there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity but use not new Baptism to discriminate them I am sure contradict the Apostle if they do Answ. How sage the Drs. observations of making Disciples as all one with receiving to discipleship of baptizing after the Jewish pattern c. are is seen before This observation is not denied by the Dr. nor any thing said by him to evacuate the use I intended to make of it to shew that to be a disciple doth not noâ—e the comming to God to enjoy benefits as the Dr. made the notion of a Proselyte to import for then persons should be termed disciples of the Priests which is not so but to learn and so the disciples of Pharisees were those who learned their opinions That which the Dr. saith is not true that by Baptism persons were admitted to discipleship nor that disciples of the Pharisees and Sadduces were but a subdivision under Disciples of God or Christ for their disciples were no disciples of God or Christ nor pertinent to the avoiding the use of my observation 'T is true there are different denominations of Christians the more the pity which divide unity and of them I know none so great as that of the Prelatists who will neither hear the Preacher who preacheth the faith of Christ nor joyn in prayer unless the Common Prayer Book be used nor own them as Presbyters who were not ordained by a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter nor joyn with that society as a Church lawfully constituted where there is not Episcopal government which I take to be a manifestly unjust schism and recusancy I know none that use new Baptism but Paedobaptists who therein contradict Christs institution and the Apostles practise Pistobaptists or baptizers of Believers of age upon their profession of faith use the old Baptism which Christ appointed and the Apostles practised not to discriminate them from others but to do their duty and to supply a defect in infant sprinkling The Dr. saith His second observation is that the Holy Ghost doth not at any time call Christians Christs Proselytes but his Disciples that saith he we might not confound the notions of these termes But I answer 1. That those Texts that express the Christians entring into discipleship by comming unto him of which there are good store do in effect call them Proselytes for a Proselyte is a Greek noun derived immediately from the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come unto Answ. 1. I think this not true sith the texts which express the comming to Christ do mean by it believing in him as Joh. 6.35 shews but that is not in effect to call them Proselytes in the Drs. sense nor is the notion of a commer unto and a disciple all one sith a person may come to a person yea to learn and never yet be his disciple And secondly saith the Dr. that if this word whether in it self or in the Verb from whence it â—omes had never been used in the N. T. yet would it not thence follow that we might not confound the notions of Proselytes and Disciples Ans. Nor do I make it any demonstrative argument but probable as it is probable that the Holy Ghost calls not the Christian society the Synagogue nor the preachers of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priests that we may not confound them I have often given a firm reason why infants capable of coming to Christ blessed by him and affirmed to be qualified for the Kingdom of heaven should be denied water to be baptized even this that neither Christ appointed it nor the Apostles baptized them though he did the other to them The Christian Church or Minister might not deny baptism to infants if they were qualified as Cornelius and the Gentiles that came with him were Acts 10.46 47. 11.18 What I said of infants being unqualified for Baptism till by hearing they own Christ as their Master is fully proved in the â—d part of this Review sect 5 c. and it is therefore too too boldly said by the Dr. that it is a begging of the question without the least tender of proof Whether or in what manner the little ones mentioned Deut. 29.10 did enter into Covenant is so fully discussed before Sect. 44 45 61 66 67. chiefly this last that I need here add no more Either in one of those Sections or some where before in this part of the Review I have proved from the Text and Commentators that those that were not with them that day v. 15. were unborn chiefly in that v. 2. Moses called unto all Israel and they are said v. 10. all to stand there that day and therefore I might more justly wonder though it be no wonder that the Dr. thus abuseth me that hee should have the face to say I impose on the Reader He tels me there is no mention of any act of the Fathers engaging them under a curse or oath but onely of Gods oath which he maketh to them v. 12. But he might have seen v. 14. these words Neither do I make with you onely this Covenant and this Oath but with him also that is not here with us thâ—â— day which I know not how it should be meant of any other then the unborn for none but they of Israel were then absent and entering into an oath and curse as they did Nehem. 10.29 And for what hee adds If they had thus adjured or laid oath or curse upon their children yet would this make no difference betwixt their and our entring into Covenant we by the oath of Baptism which iâ— laid on the child by him to be performed when he comes to ability unless he will forfeit all the benefits of his Baptism do in like manner adjure our infants though while they remain such they hear it as little as the Jewish infants did But sure there is a great difference between the solemn adjuration of Moses and all Israel binding their posterity and recorded in the book of the Law and the obscure charge of an ignorant officiating Priest to three Gossips whereof some are so ignorant that they know not what the Christian faith is at a Font which hee terms the oath of Baptism which is seldome either heeded or remembred by any present And whereas he saith my rejecting his inference that by parity of reason infants may be entred into discipleship and baptized to be a denying the conclusion when the premises cannot be denied It is not true for the consequence is plainly denied and the reason is given of that denial and each branch proved in the Book before sect 5 c. And therefore I shall say no more to this section it being pity to use the Drs. words to lose time on such trifling conceits empty of all proof as this Dr. hath dictated for infant Baptism He said better Pract. cat l. 5. § 1. The Apostles
16.15 v. 32 33. shew that by the house are meant persons of age and by so expounding we diminish not Gods word nor make exception that God hath not made nor imply a contradiction nor incur a curse as Mr Cr. after his vein of pratling writes All that Mr. Cr. saith in opposition to what I said of baptizing believers in the first ages continued without any infant Baptism proves not my words an untruth nor a frontless assertion and is answered before sect 88 89 9â—â—n which and sect 90 91. all that he brings to evince my 7th and 8th untruth as he terms my words is examined I justly account infant Baptism a Popish abuse it being derived from these principles unwritten tradition and necessiâ—y of it to save an infant dying which are judged Popish errours And for answer to what Mr. Cr. saith of my 9th untruth as he terms it I refer the Reader to the 9th Section of my Praecursor not refelled by Mr. Baxter in his Praefestinantis morator Sect. 7. Mr. Cr. excepts against me for saying 1. That the Epistlers assignation of the causes of Anabaptism are vain 2. That Anabaptism is true Baptism 3. That the true cause is the light shining from Scriptures and other Authors 4. That this light was not discovered formerly as now What he saith against the first is but a repeating of the reasons without any confirmation but some light Poetical pedaâ—tiâ—ue expressionâ— which deserve onely neglect Against the â—d he gives his reasons against reiteration of Baptism which are nothing â—o me who asserted not thâ—â— baptizing twice was true Baptism but baptizing â—f persons of age professing â—aith though in infancy imagined to have been baptized is true Baptism Yet do I see no force in the reasons he gives For 1. in the institution of Baptism Mat. 28.19 the precept is to the baptizer and I presume he doth not think the baptizer is not to reiterate his act of baptizing yea doubtless he is to baptize as oft as there are Disciples made by him And as for the act of the baptized which is implied it is true neither is it determined to be once or twice and may therefore seem to be left to liberty That he allegeth Whatsoever is not of faith is sin is clean mistaken by him the meaning â—eing onely what a man doth with a doubâ—ing conscience is sin to him so by this reason rebaptization is a sin only to him that doubts of it And when â—e saith Whatsoever is not grounded on the Scripture is will worship I presume he means it of that which is used as worship and determined to be but once But then the question is only begg'd not proved that Christ hath determined Baptism to be but once In that which he saith of Act. 19.3 which is an instance of being twice baptized I find nothing brought by Mr. Cr. to avoid the force of it For to be baptized into Johns Baptism can be no other then to be baptized with water according to the proâ—ession of Johns Disciples and this was true Baptism from Heaven not differing in the nature of it from Christs as say Protestant Divines and it is certain that to be baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus iâ— to be baptized with water into the profession of him as Act 2. â—8 41. 10.48 the giving the Holy Ghost is distinctly expressed v. 6. to have been by laying on of hands and this was on the same persons v. 6. who were â—aid to hear and to be baptised v. 5. and these were not all the people mentioned v 4. buâ— twelve onely v. 7. and therefore it is far more probable and in mine apprehension certain as the Ancients did conceive that those twelve were baptized with water twice once according to the profeâ—â—â—on Johns Disciples made at Baptism and the other according to the Christian. Nor am I moved by the observation of Marnixius â—pâ—roved by Beza in hiâ— annot in locum and followed by many others That the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must necessarily answer each other and therefore â—he words v 4 5. be Pauls For 1. the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put oft and the matter requires it should be so conceived here either as an expletive that is without force to which in the vulgar translaâ—ion nothing answers as it is Act 3.21 22 c. oâ— an adverb of affirmation or if it be a conjunction diâ—cretive that which answers to it is not that v. 5. there being no good sense to say John verily baptised with the Baptism of repentâ—nce saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after that is on Christ Jesus but they hearing this c. there being no apt discretion made in such speech if the particles be discretive the other part is concealed and should be to thiâ— purpose But the Baptism we use is into the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit or into the name of the Lord Jesus already come And for this reasâ—n the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be expounded as our interpreters when or as a meer expletive as in the vulgar 2. The words Act. 19.5 do give an obvious plain sense on the other side as the words of Luke thus When the twelve mentioned v. 7. heard this of Paul that it was Christ â—esus to come after John on whom John would have his Disciples to believe when he baptized them with the Baptism of repentance then they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus with express profession of him Nor is it true that there is express Scripture Ephes. 4 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism against the iteration of the same Baptism For as one Faith notes nâ—t one act of believing but one kind of faith from the unity of the object bâ—lieved which may be and is one faith though an hundred times iterated so one Baptism notes not one act of baptizing but one kind of Baptism distinct from Pharisaical Baptism into the observance of the Law fâ—r righteousness termed one by the profession of the same Doctrine or Lord though it be an hundred times iterated The same man baptized an hundred times and an hundred men once onely baptized each of them have one Baptism in the â—postles sense if they be baptized with the same profession and the same person though but once baptized yet if with another profession hath not that one Baptism there meant One Baptism is not as much as once baptized and no more but Baptism into one profession and no other The 2d argument is of no force Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration or new birth and as Austin hath it we are caâ—nally and naturally born but once so we are spiritually and supernaturally new born but once Faith though it admit of gradations begins but once Baptism that matriculates us into Christs School is to be performed but once Answ. The Scripture no
be laid aside when an argument is drawn from them as here from the word Sacraâ—ent He adds Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the original Answ. It is but never in the use in which the term Sacrament is used as now it is defined 2. I alleged that there is no common nature of Sacraments not as Mr. Cr. of a Sacrament express'd in Scripture This he saves is untrue in the sequel For what consequence There is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more then in this There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture therefore faith is not an infused grace Answ. It was not my sequel but this therefore the term Sacrament may be laid aside and no good argument is from the definition of a Sacrament to prove Baptism to be a relation The term grace or grace of God I do much question whether any where in Scripture it be applied to inherent quaâ—ities in us or good acts proceeding from us and I conceive that the use of it in that manner hath occasioned or strengthened the errour of justification by inherent righteousness because we are said to be justified by grace and do wish that when approvers of Preachers are directed to examine persons of the grace of God in them the thing had been otherwise expressed and that such an expression as the gift by grace or the like were used yet I deny not there is in Scripture a common nature of those gifts by grace in us which accompany salvation and that faith is a gift by grace infused inspired or wrought by the spirit of God Mr. Cr. saith further untrue in it self for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together a common nature of Sacraments compared together And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture Rom. 4.11 a seal of the righteousness of faith This is the judgement of the Ancients and the most of the Divines of the reformed Churches Answ. That neither the text Rom. 4.11 nor the Ancients do so define a Sacrament is shewed before and however the Divines of the Reformed Churches do define thence a Sacrament as the seal of the Covenant yet not as there it is expressed a seal of the righteousness of faith But of this I have said enough before sect 31. What I said of Austins definition of a Sacrament that it is a visible signe of invisible grace as imperfect which I proved by instances was without a miscellany of absurdities â—f the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove were a signe or seal of Christs office of Mediatorship and not of his righteousness of faith yet it was a visible signe of his holy qualifications Luk. 4.18 Joh. 3.44 and so of invisible grace and consequently a Sacrament by Austins definition Christs washing his Disciples feet shewed his love and humility ergo by Austins definition must be also a Sacrament and holding up the hands in prayer shews faith in God kissing the Bible in swearing shews appealing to God as Judge or hope in his word which are invisible graces according to Austin and according to his definition Sacraments And though it be added in the Common Prayer book Catechism ordained by Christ yet it is not so in Austins definition used by Mr. Cr. in the dispute and if it had holding up the hands in prayer had been a Sacrament being apâ—ointed 1 Tim. 2.8 And for the addition in the Catechism as a means to receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof I know no Scripture that ever made Ciâ—cumcision the Passeover the Lords Supper or Baptism meanes to receive invisible grace and how faâ— and in what manner it assures I have before sect 31. and elsewhere shewed Enough of Mr. Crs. vain praâ—â—le in this section Sect. 3. Mr. Cr. quarrels with my reconciliation of my own words denying all invisible Churchmembers were to be baptized but affirming it of viâ—ible He tels me 1. This distinction is not fitly applied for the proposition was meant of visible Churchmembeâ—ship But 1. however it were meaâ—t the expression was God appointed infants Churchmembers under the Gospel and this might be understood of invisible as well as visible Churchmembership and therefore it was fitly applied to take away the ambiguity of the expression 2. It was fitly applied also to â—lâ—er my meaniâ—g and to free my words from contradiction 2. He tels me my proposition is not true for all visible Churchmembers are not to be baptized then all baâ—tized before they being visible members were to be baptized again But what is this but wrangling sith the proposition was his own and I granted it with that limitation in his own sense of them that were not yet baptized He tels me of the state of the question between us which is impertinent to the present business of cleering my words He adds Invisible and visible members differs as Genus and species all invisible members are visible but not all visible members invisible the invisible being extracted out of the visible now if all invisible members be also visible it will inevitably follow they may be baptized whether visible by profession or by prerogative and promise of parents or sureties of infants But what a dotage is this Doth visible Churchmember praedicari de pluribus specie differentibus in quid If it be asked what is an invisible Churchmember will any that is in his wits say hee is a visible Churchmember Is not this a contradiction to say all invisible members are visible How is it proved that any are visible members of the Christian Church but by profession of faith The like dotage is in what he saith after that there is an intrinsecal connexion of thâ—se termes actually to receive into Covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel that they are as essentially coincident as to bee a man and a reasonable creature which makes this proposition to be aeterâ—ae veritatis those whom God did actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel For is the one to be defined by the other Do not these terms express existences restrained to hic and nunc for sure actual receiving and appointing are singular acts in tiâ—e not essences If these speeches of Mr. Cr. be according to Metaphysical and â—ogical principles I am yet to seek in them as having not heard or read of such principles before And if God did promise before the Law foreâ—ell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel or appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel without faith or profession of â—aith then infidels are actually in Covenant under the Gospel and so justified then is Mr. Baxters dispute against Antinomians about the condition of the Covenant and justification false and if they be Churchmembers without faith or profession of faith and to
that was by preaching as is plain concerning John Matth. 3.1 2 5 6. and concerning the Apostles Mat. 10.5 6 7. Ergo Whence 3. I further aâ—gued that way the Apostles were to Disciple all nations by which they were to disciple the lost sheep of the house of Israel but that was by preaching Ergo discipling supposeth precedent instruction To this saith the Dr. I answer that the account last given is fully satisfactory to this excâ—pâ—ion also For supposing the Apostles to publish wheresoever they came the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the good news that was come into the world by Christ and the hearers not onely to come in themselâ—es but to bring â—heir whole families and so their infant children with them there is no difficulty to imagine that they had thus made proclamation received all and made all disciples young and old that either came or were brought and so it being the instruâ—ent to draw the parents themselves and to move them to bring their children to discipleship it is still very visible how children should be discipled and conseâ—uently baptized by them Baptism being the constant ceremony of discipling And though I am not able to affirm how it was actually in Johns Baptism yet this I may say that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus it very possibly might be both in Johns and the Apoâ—â—les baptizing Answ. It is so far from being satisfactory that there is neither pertinency nor truth in this answer For the Dr. answers as if the thing I proved were not that making disciples presupposeth instruction because it is by preaching but that iâ—fants might be made disciples though making disciples bâ— by preaching which is indeed not to answer to the argument but to a consectary deducible from the conclusion of it which though it were not inferâ—ed nor consequent yet the conclusion might be true that discipling presupposeth some precedent instruction and is not wholly subsequent to it Nor is it true For 1. supposing the Apostles should do as he speaks and the hearers come in as hee imagines yet there is difficulty to imagine thaâ— they that had thus made proclamation received all and made all disciples young and old that either came or were broâ—ght unâ—o them sâ—ecially considering how John received nâ—ne wee read of but such as confessed â—heir sins and the whole people that were baptized of him justified God Luk 7.9 believed him Matth. 21.32 oâ—hers not and the Apostles are said to make disciples afore they baptized Joâ— 4.1 and aâ—oâ—e they bapâ—ized required repentance Act. 2.38 those who were baptized gladly received the word v. 41.2 It beeing granted that they made disciples by preaching preaching being the instrumâ—nt to draw the parents themselves and to move them to bring their children to discipleship yet it is not very visible how children should bee discipled For 〈◊〉 â—ffection or conceit might mâ—ve them to do that upon preaching which yet might not take effect nor be received by the Apostles 4. Nor is Baptism consequent on such a discipleship by offer or vow of pâ—rentâ— witâ—out profession of the party to be bapâ—ized there being no institution for it which is the onely rule about bapâ—izing 5. Neither iâ— it â—rue that Baptism is the constant ceremony oâ— discipling though it be granted to be the ceremony of disciples a person is first a disciple afore baptized Joh. 4 1. they first made disciples then baptized them 6. It is nâ—t â—rue that as far as can be discerned or inferred from the phrase in either place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might not very possibly be both in Johns and in the Apostles baptizing as the Dr. imaginâ— sith if there be degrees of possibility it is not very possible they should make any othâ—r disciples and baptize them then such as the Evangelists story relates they did But the Dr. tels us 1. For John 't is true indeed that his Baptism attended his preaching yet doth it not thence necessarily follow that none were baptised by him but those who particularly heard and obeyed his preaching For 1. why might not those that heard it divulge it to others and bring them before they heard him to desire to bee baptised and upon their confessing their sins and professing amendment hee baptise them Answ. Not likely before he had preached somewhat to them however if his preaching were brought to them by others they were not baptized afore instruction 2. Why might not those that heard it or heard of it give that heed to it as to bring all that were dear to them of what age soever by that means to secure them from the wrath to come when Noah preacht repentance to the old world and upon the decree of sending the flood upon the world of the ungodly called all to come into the Ark to him to escape the deluge suppose others besides Noahs family hâ—d hearkened to his preaching or suppose hee and his sons had had infant children can we imagine they would have lefâ— their infâ—nâ—s to that certain ruine and not have taken them into the Ark with them And Johns baptism was answerable to that Ark in respect of that approaching ruine on the Jews stiled the kingdome of heaven v 1. and that evidenced to be a bloudy kingdome explicated by casting into the fire v. 10. And can we imagine the Jews that believed John and came to his Baptism did not bring thâ—se childrâ—n with them to save them from the predicted evils and then I profess not to see any reason to render it incredible that John Baptist should thus receive and baptize those infants though the Scripture affirmiâ—g nothing of it and tradition as far as I know as little I shall neithâ—r affirm nor believe any thing This only is certain that among the jews of that time infant children were known to be capable of entring into covenant with God after this manner and of being partakers of the benefit of the Covenant by that means And one thing more I may add that Christ himself who was by his sinlesness as unâ—ualified for the repentance which John preacht as the infants were by their incapacities did yet come and was received to Johns Baptism v. 13. and then in case infants were brought why might not they be received also Answ. Because it was not appointed to them And this is a reason which the Dr. may see if he will to render it incredible that John should receive and baptize infants though infants of Proselytes born afore their Proselytism were by Jews baptized who baptized upon a far different reason to wit the pollution through idols which did adhere to the Gentiles nativity to wash away that and to engage them to the observance of Moses Law for righteousneâ—s whereas John Baptist baptized with the baptism of repentance for remission of sins even native Jews directing them
to the Lamb of God who was to take away the sin of the world and that he might be known was to be baptized of him We can therefore easily imagine that the Jews that believed â—ohn and came to his Baptism did not bring infant children with them to save them from predicted evils because wee reade that they tâ—at were baptized of him confessed their sins Matth. 3.5.6 justified God Luk 7.29 Nor was Baptism appointed to them as to Proselytes infants nor do wee reade that John Baptist gave any inkling of his minde to have infants brought And it iâ— a signe to me that the Dr. is confident that hee can leade men in a string who adventures to â—uggest such things as he confesseth the Scripture affirms nothing of it and tradition as little as far as he knows and neither affirms nor beleives any thing in it and onely upon a supposition that infanâ— câ—ildren would have been brought 〈◊〉 Noahs Ark if men had beleived Noah and Johns Baptism was as Noahs Ark stiled the Kingdome of heaven whereas Johns and Christs Baptism are not made answerable to Noahs Ark in respect of the bare outward baptism nor is it stiled the Kingdome of heaven but the answer or interrogation of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 3.21 and the preaching beleiving of the Gospel throughout the world Mar. 1.14 15. which they who were baptized were to entertain and not infants and therefore not to be baptized till they did And wee may with better reason then the Dr. gives of his fancy conceive Gods providence rather ordered there should be no infants in Noahs Ark that we might not fancy infants baptism thence then that we should as this Dr. or doatard supposeth Yet again saith he Then 2. for as much as concerned the Apostles Maâ— 10. Fâ—rst 't is there evident that they were sent to the lost sheep indefinitely and sure that phrase comprehends the lambs also the infant children being lost in Adam as well as the grown men by the addition of their actual to original sin And then why should we doubt but the Apostles mission extended to them also Answ. Because we reade of no such thing done or appointed to be done nor do we know that baptism was appointed to bee a remedy of original sin though some of the Ancients talk so besides the Scripture The Dr. adds And 2. for their preaching it is just as as Johns was to warn them to beware of the imminent destruction that vindicative act of God kingdome v. 7. that all that shâ—uld give ear and heed them might hasten to get out of that danger by reformation and new life and the ruine being impendent to the young as well as old even the whole nation why should not the infant children be rescued from that by their Parents care in bringing them to baptism and timely ingaging them to flye from the wrath to come as soon as they should come to understanding injoying in the mean time the benefit of others charity Answ. It was fit they should enjoy the benefit of others charity in their Prayers and supply of â—uch things as were meet for them of which sort the Apostâ—es Baptism was not nor did they understand it was Christs minde that they were senâ— to baptize them for then they had baptized them and not rebuked those that brought them to Christ Matth. 19.13 Nor by bringing them to Baptism were children rescued from the wrath to come but by reformation and new life Thirdly saith he after their preaching though there be no mention of baâ—tizing and so it was not fit to be produced to our present bâ—siness yet other things are appointed to be done wherein infants were concerned as well as others as healing of diseases c. and if being incapable of receiving benefit from preaching should be deemed an obstacle to their being baptized why should it not to their receiving cures Answ. Because that they might be baptized it was necessary they should be made disciples by preaching not so that they might be cured of diseases Nay I may add saith the Dr. How should the dead in that place who sure were as uncapable of understanding as the tenderest infants be capable of being raised by those Apostles which yet is there affirmed of them v. 8. Answ. And I may add that after this rate of reason if mere capacity of outward Baptism and the charge of Christ to the Apostles to do acts of power on any thing without making it a disciple by preaching to it as the Dr. here fancieth of infants fit it for Baptism then the dead are to be baptized which was practised of old and the giving them the Eucharist as appears by the prohibition of it in the third Synod of Carthage Canon 6. and Balsamous note thereon But the Dr. it seems thought it â—t in this reply to me to write what came next to hand whether it were fit to be produced to the present business oâ— not of which sort also is that which he talks in answer to my third reason of preaching to the nations and receiving all that come in to the discipleship whether on their own legs or in others arms whole families at once the parents and upon their undertaking their infant children also which perhaps the Dr. might write early in the morning or late at night between sleeping and waking it is so like a dream The Dr. goes on thus His fourth proof is taken from the use and notation of the word which is so to teach as that they learn and so saith he is used Matth 13.52 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred instructed by our last translators and can no otherwise be rendred then made a disciple by teaching so Acts 14.21 it is said Haviâ—g preached the Gospel to that City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having taught or made many disciples For the notation of the word we have formerly said sufficient that iâ— signifies to receive ad discipulatum as into a School of spiritual inâ—truction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a disciple and such he is made 〈◊〉 by any motive or means either comes or iâ— brought into the school this indeed in order to teaching in the Master and to learning in the Scholler and the one so to teach as that the other learn but this subâ—equâ—nt to his being made a disciple the youth wee know enters into the School is admitted into the Colledge and University before â—e learns a word there the instruction or learning is still lookt upon as futurâ— at his entring into discipleship Answ. How vainly doth the Dr. talk of his former sufficient saying when he neither formerly nor now giveâ— one instance in the New Testament or any other Author wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much to receive ad discipulatum nor any Translator or Lexicographer that so renders it Matth. 28.19 or elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disciple Matth. 28.19 is confest
be baptized and the truth of Mr. Crs. proposition those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive inâ—o Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel have no dependence upon â—aith or profession of faith then Mr. Baxters 20 arguments in his 2d dispute of right to Sacraments against Mr. Blake are falâ—e so that I need no more but to leave Mr. Cr. to be chastized by his magnified Doctor Mr. Baxter about this point and so enough of this section Sect. 4. He terms this an untruth that a person may bee in Covenant who iâ— not yet born or conceived as my iâ—stance of Isaac implies and saith It may bee confuted insito argumento by an argument inbred in the terms for he implies and that right that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant but none who is unborn and unconceived as Isaac Gen. 17.22 is a person But this is false he may be a person though not in present but future existence Those Ephesians who were elâ—cted before the Foundation of the world Eph. 1.4 were persons when elected for they were singular men though not then in actual being but future Mr. Crs. reasoning in this is like the reasoning of Adam Medlicot my neighbour in his book stiled Comfortable doctrine for Adams off-spring p. 99 Who will not have any particularly elected before the foundation of the world because then they were not any where men and p. 96. that none is absolutely elected till he believe because not in Christ and if not in Christ not in election and one is elected before another because in Christ before another And in his Honey found in the Lions Carkass p. 102. Although the purpose of election and reprobation was fully in God before time yet there could be no absolute or real election or reprobation of men and women until they had a real and absolute beeing Surely infants are in Covenant no otherwiâ—e then by Gods promise or mans vow or some such act in their behalf and this may be afore they are in being and consequently they may be in Covenant afore they are in actual being If I do not mistake Mr. Cr. both here Sect. 5. and in the 3d. Part Sect. 9. makes those with whom the Covenant was made Deut. 29.10 to have been in Covenant but doubtless the Covenant there was made with the posterity yet unbegotten v. 14 15. for no other can bee meant by him that was not with them that day all that were born or begotten then of the Congregation of Israel whether by nature or Proselytism being present as the words v. 10 11. shew and the end of the Covenant being to prevent the Apostasie of their posterity v. 18. therefore the unbegoâ—ten were in Covenant Nor is it a good argument A man is in Covenant ergo he is any more then a man is elected therefore he is these termes being termini diminuentes as Logicians speak and the verb est is in these speeches not noting the present existence of the subject of these propositions but of the act of the person who elects or covenants A child unbegotten may be said to be in a copy or a deed and so in covenant in respect of the assuring an estate to him whâ—n hee shall be existent But Mr. Cr. tels me 2ly It is a false suggestion that to have a Covenant made to one is to be in Covenant if by having the covenant made to for the phrase is somewhat strange â—e meant as he can mean nothing else a promise from God to be and be in covenant for a promise may be made to or of one long before he hath any being nor executed or performed till long after his being Then to be elected and â—o be in covenant would be both one then Mary Magdalen and Paul while a persecutor were in covenant nay from eternity to be in covenant would precede outward anâ— inward calling conversion profession and prerogative of birth then which nothing can be more ridiculous Answ. It is so far from being ridiculous that to me it is very plain to be in covenant precedes calling and to be in covenant is to have a covenant made to one and that a person is said to be in covenant with God by Gods promise to be his God though the man be not existent This is in my apprehension that which Paedobaptists mean by being in covenant for they usually say infants are in covenant which sure they mean of Gods promise to them for they prove it from Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 Nor can they mean it of any other being in covenant sith there is no act of any infant or any other for him that can denominate him in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel but Gods promise which is long before the being of those to or for whom it is made Tit. 1.2 Gal. 3.16 17. And thus two Kingdomes are said to be in league and covenant and they that are born many yeers after may be said to be in covenant by vertue thereof This being in covenant may be though the things covenanted be not executed or performed till long after the being in covenant as persons first enter into covenant and then perform And yet to be in covenant and to be elected would not be both one though attributed to the same persons siâ—h there is a different formal conceit of them election being an immanent act covenant a transient that from eternity this in time as to be justified and sanctified are not both one though to the same persons Nor is it any absurdity to say Paul was in coveâ—ant while a persecutor nor that to be in covenant precedes conversion sith iâ— is by vertue of being in covenant that one is converted Heb. 8.10 Rom. 11.26 27. As for being in covenant with God by prerogative of birth I know not of any such in the time of the Gospel Thirtdly saith Mr. Cr. It is of the same leven of untruth that Isaac was in Covenant when he was not yet born which his own quotation Gen. 17.21 proves against him For he saith he will establish a Covenant with Isaac in the future not that he does establish a Covenant in the present Answ. Surely Isaac was a child of the promise Rom. 9.8 9. and Jacob v. 11. afore they were born and â—â—nsequently in the Covenant and when God said he would establish his Covenant with Isaac he meant no other then the Covenant made with Abraham and therefore it was made to him then and he in Covenant though confirmed and performed after Mr. Cr. saith of my speech that a person is not actually received into Covenant till he is born and by some acts of his own engâ—geth himself to be Gods That it is founded upon the basis of this mistake that every Covenant must be expresly and actually mutual between both parties and talks after his foolish fashion as if it were an argument sophistically though