Ishmaels posterity should be cut off from external right to the Covenant he being a Church member according to Mr. C's dictates Mr. C. then tels us that God saith in reference to our times he will be a God to the families throughout the earth and pag. 83. he cites for this purpose the prophecy Ierem. 31.1 but there it is the families of Israel But were it the families throughout the Earth this proves not that it is Gospel that Infants of inchurched believers have external Ecclesiastical covenant-interest If it did it may as well infer infants of inchurched believers yea servants who are part of the families of the earth to have the same interest yea all in the world if we must understand it without limitation and if with limitation then it is most rightly expounded as the Apostle doth Gal. 3.8 the promise of blessing all nations of believers v. 9. and so all the families of the earth to whom God will be God shall be only believers of all the families of the earth Gentile believers as Mr. C. truly saith without Infants As â—or what Mr. C. observes that God said to Abrahaham to be a God to him and his seed in their generations not in their regeneration it is frivolous For none of the Gentiles seed are Abrahams seed but by regeneration and so to be Abrahams seed in their generations applied to Abrahams spiritual or Church-seed among the Gentiles is all one as to be Abrahams seed by regeneration And for the prophecy of being a God to all the families of the earth it is meant not of every member of the family but the meaning is that God would not restrain his Gospel and Church to the Jews but take in any of the families of the earth who would embrace it as when it is said Mark 16.15 preach the Gospel to every creature that is to any Gentile as wel as Jews yet infants not meant This is proved from the event because parents did believe when children did hate them for it Mat. 10.35 36. and the husband was often a believâ—r the wife an infidel But saith Mr C. it was usually otherwise and God speaks of things as they usually prove extraordinary occurrences cross not such a rule To which I say if the prophecy were as Mr. C. would that it should be Gospel that God will be a God of children with parents because he will be god of all the families of the earth than it must be true of the children of all and every of the families of the earth which recieve the Gospel Nor are prophecies to be expounded at if they foretold onely contingents what may be and what may not be but what shall certainly be nor can ther be a rule much less Gospel made of that which is uncertain somtimes it is somtimes it is not a rule being as they say in logick a determinate known thing nor is it true that the occurrent of the families being divided in religion was extraordinary For our Lord Christ speaks of it rather as ordinary commonly to be expected Matth. 10.34 35 36. But Mr. C. would have iâ— a rule from Acts. 11.14 Acts. 16 31. Luke 19 9. To this may be answered 1 that three instances mak not up an induction of particulars whence a rule may be made 2. The first instance is not meant of infants for none are thâ—re said to be saved but those that heard the words which Peter spake The next includes not infants For the very next v 32. shews that by the house were meant those to whom the word of the Lord was spoken Nor is there any intimation of an infant meant Luke 19 9. And it is certain that none of the texts speaks of that which they are produced for a bare external interest for they expresly speak of salvation and therefore if they prove it to be a rule that parents and children are joint Covenanters or are taken in together they will prove they are saved together which Mr. C. I suppose will not assert But some other answers are in my Examen which I must vindicate with these I had said Examen part 78 there is a necessity to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a restrinctive particle and to expound this house Luke 19.9 of Zachâ—us his family only in reference to his person Against this Mr. C. speaks thus Nor by salvation come to his house is meant the comming of salvation to himselfe as if he and his house were all one nor do I know any parallel Scripture speaking in such language that when the scope and intent is to mention the comming of such or such a mercy to such a person that phrase is used to denote the same that such or such a mercy is come to his house what need such a circumlocution if so intended the word might more plainly have been set down this day is salvation come to this publican this person this man or the like in as much as he also is become a son of Abraham And what though the Greek word be used in Acts 2.45 and 4.35 for secundum according as yet not for quatenus or in quantum forasmuch as the text and sense thereof are cleare that it noteth proportion of such administration not meerly the cause or reason thereof Or if it be supposed to imply the cause or reason thereof its evident it noteth the proportion also they gave to every one as or according as they needed scil proportionably to their need it being regular as to give to the needy so to give them according to the measure of their present necessity But how that sense will here be fitly applicable I see not to say that salvation is come to his house or to him according as he is a Believer but rather as our translators render it it 's to be taken as a reason of the former salvation is come to this house forasmuch as he is a son of Abraham Answ. By restraining the salvation come to Zacheus his house to his person I do not make Zacheus and his house all one but salvation is come to his house that is to this place inasmuch or in that Zacheus is also become a Son of Abraham But whereas Mr. C. thinks no Scripture using such language I will use Grotius his words shewing the contrary even in Luke because they are full to answer this passage of Mr. C. Annot. in Luc. 19.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synecdoche Domus enim pro Patre familias dicitur ita supra 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domum autem ideo nominâsse videtur Christus ut ostendat relâ—tam hospitii gratiam Dixerat enim Zachaeo Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quare quae ad hunc locum afferri solent de beneficiis Dei in familiam pii Patris familias quanquam vera sunt rectè accepta tamen huc pertinere non arbitror As for what he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ— but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâ—ration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâ—eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â— Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an â—dea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâ—iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâ—sh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way â—hen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâ—ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â—2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâ—chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâ—lk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâ—fies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed â—o them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâ—lieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the â—ather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
come and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition Answer Thess things are manifestly false for though godliness have the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 yet the promises Levit. 26.6 c. are not made to every godly man that he shall ly down and none shall make him afraid that he shall chase his enemies c. but rather assurance is given that he shall be persecuted 2 Tim. 3.12 Mark 10.29 30. Nor have they promises upon the same condition for Exod. 34.24 it is promised that none should desire the Israelites Land while they did appear thrice in the year before the Lord but to us there is not that promise nor upon that condition But saith he earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully heavenly things more generally and sparingly than they are now to us and on the contrary spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us than to them and earthly promises more generally and sparingly Answ. This is not all the difference for I have shewed that to us an earthly rest is not promised at all but the contrary assured to us to wit suffering persecution Mr. M. adds And that these temporal benefits which you mention viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed the bitth of Isaac and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace they were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us These things I not onely asserted â—ut proved in my Sermon If you mean no more than this that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ and were subservient to it or were types and shadows of it you mean no more than what we all grant who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it than there is in that made with us and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration Answer I deny not but that the possession of Canaan birth of Isaac multiplying Abrahams seed were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed by elect Jews and Gentiles according to the mystical hiddenâ—sense of the words nor do I deny that they were subservient to the promise of Christ whether it be to be said they flowed from the promise of Christ or tended to the fore-signifying of Christ to come the grace of the Gospel and the heavenly inheritance and rest is a doubt Surely they flowed from Gods special love to Israel above any other people Deut. 7.6 7 8. And I grant that Circumcision ratified spiritual blessings chiefly that is as the chief thing promised yet in the sense in which I think Gameron meant it Thesi 78. de triplici foedere primarily that is according to the first and manifest sense of the words it sealed earthly promises peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason to wit the peculiar promises to Abrahams natural posterity nor do I see cause to mislike Grotius his speech Annot. in Luc. 1.59 Infantium autem circumcisio ostendebat foedus esse gentilium And this mixture of the Covenant with Abraham to wit that it contained not onely promises common to all believers but also promises so peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity that all of them were not according to the Law to be made good to any Gentile though a Proselyte circumcised namely the inheritance of the Land of Canaan of which none but the natural progeny of Israel were to be inheritours is so manifest that the denial of it I can hardly impute to any thing but dulness or meer pertinacy Yet why these promises so peculiar to them should be denied to be of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham I see no reason they being integral parts Christ it is true is the substance of the things promised as they were Types yet the things promised in respect of their natural being had a substance besides and in relation to the Covenant were as much the substance or substantial parts of it as the spiritual promises yea sith those spiritual promises if I may so speak did subsist in the expressions of temporal blessings it follows in my apprehension that if the promises of the spiritual blessings were of the substance of the Covenant then surely the promises of temporal blessings which those very promises did express and under the shadow of which they were made should be much more of the substance of the Covenant Nor do I conceive any grosness in it to imagine of God that he should in a Covenant of grace founded in Christ intend in the seal of it to ratifie temporal blessings when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing onely temporal As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture nor is it very handsom sense specially according to Mr. Ms. doctrine who calls Circumcision the old administration of the Covenant and if it were an administration of the promises which were administrations of the Covenant of grace then Circumcision was an administration of an administration But Mr M. speaks to me thus I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made circumcision a seal of Canaan we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith whereby he was justified but I no where reade that it â—ealed the Land of Canaan Answer To gratifie him I tell him that I read Circumcision called a token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 which Covenant was the Covenant mentioned before in that chapter and in that v. 8. the promise of the Land of Canaan is made and Acts 7.8 Stephen calls it The Covenant of Circumcision which he shews not how it was otherwise fulfilled in that speech but by bringing them out of Egypt and placing them in Canaan in which he fulfilled his promise to Abraham vers 6 7 16. It is true the Apostle calls Abrahams Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4.11 But I finde not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams surely it cannot be said truly of any ones Circumcision but a believers As for what he saith That we have now carnal promises and therefore our covenant may be as well mixt as that with Abraham I answer it is true We have promise of the life that now is and that which is to come and so our Covenant is in a sort mixt of spiritual and temporal promises but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles not proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting in which sense I called it a mixt Covenant Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant we have outward privileges and ordinances as Baptism and the Lords Supper and that many now are members of
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
Church to be at Abrahamsâ—all â—all from Ur. 1. There is no one word of that in the text 2. Lot came out of Ur with Abraham yea and from Haran and lived with him were not Lot and his infants Churchmembers then Answ. 1. I confess a promise to Abraham but not that Abraham or his infants were visible Churchmembers by it as the soâ—e or next efficient cause 2. What word is in the text for the beginning of the Jewish people to be Gods Church at Abrahams call out of Ur is shewed above from Isai 51.1 2. Nehem. 9.7 Acts 7.1 2. 3. Lot came along with Abram to Canaan but was there parted from him and all along they were severed and therefore Lot though a righteous man yet was not of the same Church with Abrams house nor his infants if he had any visible Churchmembers because God intended not to make his house and posterity his Church visible 3. Saith Mr. B. The chief note I intend is this that there is no more said then to prove infants Churchmembers then what wee have shewed was said long before and is said after the Gentiles infants no nor so much If therefore the passage of Abraham out of Ur yea or the promise made to him in Haran Gen. 12.2 3. will prove infants Churchmembership then have we as good proof of it to the Gentile Church as to the Jews Answ. I neither make Abrahams passage out of Ur nor the promise in Haran or rather in Ur. Gen. 12.2 3. to be that which made infants visible Churchmembers in the Hebrew nation but Gods special call or taking the house of Abraham entirely to bee his people which Mr. B hath not nor can shew to have been done to any other people And here saith he I note further that in the beginning before the command for Circumcision you plainly yeild that infants Church-membership is a thing separable from Circumcision and begun not with it but before And indeed I think I have evinced that to you in my Book of Baptism Abraham himself was not made a member by Circumcision but circumcised because a member of Christs Church by faith Ishmael was a member before and so was Isaac and the infants born in Abrahams house Answ. I grant visible Churchmembership was before Circumcision in Abrahams house but not that Abraham was circumcised under this formal consideration as a member of Christs Church by faith but as one to whom it was commanded by God Mr. B. goes on Whether there were any promise or precept of this but a meer transeunt fact let the text last mentioned and the following bear witness Gen. 12.2 3. In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed and Gen. 17.7 9 10. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee and I will be their God And God said to Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generaâ—ions This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you c. to vers 15. In all this let these things be noted 1. That here is an expres promise or Covenant to Abraham and his seed after him 2. That it is not onely de praesenti but for the future called an everlasting Covenant 3. That this promise or Covenant doth manifestly imply and include infants Churchmembership as you confess 4. That yet here is not the least word that intimates an institution of it de novo but rather the contrary plainly intimated The promises before Gen. 17. are mainly about the multiplication of Abrahams seed What is that to Churchmembership except what Intimates the promised seed of which anon Hagar hath a promise also of the multiplication of Ishmaels seed And the very precept of Circumcision is onely one part of the infant members viz. the males and therefore it cannot be foundation of their Churchmembership which leaves out half the members 5. Note that the promise that God will be their God doth expresly contain the Churchmembership of the seed 6. Note that this is more then a transeunt fact Ergo being an everlasting Covenant Had it been a natural transeunt fact that had left no permanent title behind it in the obligation of the Covenant then it had been null and void as soon as spoken then the word of God is but a bare sound and of no further force 7. Note that the Apostle as is said Rom. 4.10 11 12 13. doth fully manifest to us that this promise was made to Abraham as a believer and that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith which hee had yet being uncircumcised and therefore that the chief part of the Covenant of having God for our God and his taking us as his peculiar people belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews 8. And he oft sheweth that the faithful are Abrahams seed and therefore the chief blessings of the promise belong to all the faithful But one of the blessings was that their infants should be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant Ergo the infants of the faithful who are the heirs of the same promise must be comprehended in it too Answ. 1. I deny not the promise Gen. 17.7 to include infants Church-membership but that I confess that it doth manifestly imply and include infants visible Churchmembership Mr. B. cannot shew 2. The promise that God will bee their God doth not expresly contain the visible Churchmembership of infants For God may be God to them who are not visible Churchmembers and he may not be God to them who are 3. If in the promises Gen. 12.2 3. Gen. 17.7 and the precept Gen. 17.9 10. there be no institution de novo nor foundation of infants Church-membership then in ants Churchmembership visible which was not before Abrahams dayes hath not foundation in the promises and precept but the transeunt fact I have mentioned 4. Though I conceive that a transeunt fact may create a permanent title as a gift a delivery into our hands without a promise for future may create a permanent title nor do I deny that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 did leave a permanent title behinde it yet I deny that the visible Churchmembership of infants in Abrahams house was by a title to be legally claimed or by the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as the causa procreans of it though it might bee the causa conservans of it in that it assured some of those acts whereby it was continued 5. I deny that the Apostle Rom. 4.10 11 12 13. doth at all much less fully manifest to us that the promise Gen. 17.7 was made to Abraham as a believer though I grant what Mr. B. infers from it in his 7th note The Apostle doth plainly manifest that in the Gospel sense it was made to Abraham as father of believers 6. It is denied as most certainly false that one of the blessings of the promise Gen. 17.7 to the faithful Gentiles was that their infants should
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
to be delivered by the Apostle Col. 2.17 and by the general consent of Divines Much more vain is that which he adds So as if that priviledge be denied unto infants that which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant is rejected as he saith Gen. 17. The uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant For neither if Mr. Cs. sense of the promise Gen. 22.18 Gen. 12.2 3. be rejected is there any thing which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant rejected nor had the denying of Circumcision to infants necessarily inferred the rejecting of that which was given in Abrahams Covenant nor do the words Gen. 17.14 import that by not circumcising the person omitting it had rejected that which was given in Abrahams Covenant for so Moses not circumcising his son had rejected the Covenant but the breaking the Covenant was onely meant of breaking the command of that which was the token of the Covenant Much less is this true of those that deny infant Baptism that they reject the spiritual blessings given in Abrahams Covenant Baptism being not by Christs institution a seal of Gods Covenant or promise to us unless by consequence much less the mixt Covenant of Abraham as it contained domestical benefits proper to Abrahams house much more less the new conceited promise of Mr. C. Nor was infant Baptism ever commanded by God but invented by men in a fond imitation of Jewish Circumcision and as long as we keep close to the institution Matth. 28.19 and baptize and are baptized upon believing in testimony of our union with Christ and his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 we may securely flight Mr. Cs. doom of being cut off from Gods people which after Mr. Cotton refuted by me in the second part of this Review sect 11. he hath vainly here renewed to affright silly people with Mr. C. adds That Abraham was called father of believers 1. from believing this additional promise given in order to the increase of his spiritual seed which he proves from Rom. 4.18 Gen. 15.5 2. From his receiving the seal of that promise Rom. 4.11 From which place we may observe 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith 2. That because it was a seal of that righteousness which he had before he was circumcised he therefore became the Father of all that believe whether circumcised or not Now had not this seal been given him that he might be the Father of believers his receiving it at this or that time whether before or after his believing to righteousness had made nothing for the universality of his relation as a Father of all believers Answ. I grant that Abrahams believing the promise Gen. 15.5 and his receiving Circumcision a seal of that righteousness of faith he had in uncircumcision was the reason of his title of Father of believers And I grant that Abrahams personal Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers circumcised or uncircumcised and therefore he had it afore his Circumcision that it might not be judged as proper to the circumcised But 1. I deny That the promise was Gen. 15.5 as Mr. Cs. additional promise is that Every believer should be a blessing to his family and posterity so as that God should ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents but that Abraham though then childless should have innumerable children by natural generation though he were and his wife aged and more by believing as he did 2. The Scripture doth not say that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the promise Gen. 15.5 but a seal of the rightiousness of faith he had Gen. 15.6 it was not a seal of a promise of a thing future but of a benefit obtained many years before 3 I find not any ones Circumcision but the Circumcision which Abraham had in his own person stiled the seal of the righteousness of faith nor to any but him that believes as he did 4. That his receiving the seal is not made the reason of Abrahams relation of Father of all believers but justification by faith afore he received Circumcision Nor do I find that any of Mr. Cs. assertions is proved from Rom. 4.11 18. that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or of Mr. Cs. additional promise or that the application to infants was part of the seal or that by it Mr. Cs. imagined promise was confirmed and therefore this Text is impertinently alledged also Mr. C. adds That it was not Abrahams faith onely nor his degree of faith above others which gave him that title appeareth 1. because others were as eminent believers as he before him 2. There was something given which believers had not at least in such a way had not before in reference to which he was so called therefore it was not for his faith onely nor the eminency thereof 3. There is nothing in faith or the eminency thereof that could occasion that his name to be given to him but it was in reference to something which he was to have as a Father this additional promise and the seal thereof he was the first Father that received this blessing which was a blessing upon parents and their children and because at least in a great part by vertue thereof the holy seed was to be propagated and encreased And believers are said to be his seed because that promise and Covenant made to Abraham concerning the Lords blessing and multiplying his seed is so much a cause of their being brought forth unto Christ his ordering his election so as to bestow his blessing thus by families and nations being that which makes the Kingdome of Heaven like leaven one believer ordinarily being the means of the conversion of another Answ. The title Father of believers is a relative with which Abraham was denominated from his Fatherhood as the form denominating and this form denominating was from his begetting justified believers as the foundation this begetting justified believers I know not how otherwise it should be then by his exemplary faith and Gods declaration of his justification by it which the Apostle doth plainly intimate Rom. 4.11 by expressing Abrahams children in this phrase walking in the steps of his faith The object indeed of this faith was the promise Gen. 15.5 not Mr. Cs. imagined promise to other believers and so the promise was the occasion and in some sort the cause of the title as the object may be said to be the cause of the act in somewhat an abusive expression His personal Circumcision was a sign or seal of that whence the title came the righteousness of faith and a token of that Covenant wherein God declared it Gen. 17.4 5 But Circumcision did not make him such he was such afore Circumcision was instituted Gen. 17.4 5. Nor is it said Rom. 4.11 that his receiving Circumcision was that he might be the Father of the faithfull but his having righteousness by faith before Circumcision made him the Father of
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
Church is not enough to make a visible Church member in the Christian Church which consists not of a whole nation known by circumcision genealogies outward policy national meetings family dwelling c. But of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. adds Yea say you further it will follow that there may be a vâ—sible Church which consists onely of infants of believers I answer no more now than in the time of the Iewish Church it 's possible but very imâ—roble that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behind them and it 's far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites Answer It is somewhat more possible or more probable there should be onely infants left in a Church of a house town or village than in the Church which consists of a numerous nation as the Iewish Church did nor is it unlikely â—uch things hâ—ve happened in sweeping plagues And if it be farre more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites the sâ—me with more probability may be said of a Church gathered in the Pedobâ—â—pists way in which there is of necessiâ—y so much ignorance in matters of Religion all being admitted Church-members afore they know or can know anything of Christ. Jam sumus ergo pares But if it be possible as it is granted that a Church visible of Christians may consist only of infants it wil follow that there may be a visible Church of Christians in which there is no one professor of the faith contrary ro the definiâ—ion of a visible Church That it is a company of professors of faith and they shal be visible Church-members who neither by themselves or any for them do any thing which is apparent to the understanding by the meditation of sense whereby Christianity is expressed The case is not the same of the Iewish Church and the Christian for the Christian Church is any company though but of two or three gathered together in Christs name Matth. 18.20 But the Iewish Church was the whole Congregation of Israel known otherwise as hâ—th been said than the Christian. Next Mr M. against these words of mine It is also true that we are not to account infants of believers which he omits in repetition to belong to God before God which he likewise omits in repetition in respect of election from eternity omitted by him or promise of grace in Christ omitted also of present estate of in-being in Christ or future estate by any act of Science or faith without a particular relation for there is no generall declaration of God that the infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate excepts two things 1. This makes nothing against that visible Church-membership be pleads for Answer If that visible Church-membership he pleads for arise from the covenant of grace in Christ as hitherto hath been the plea nor can they shew any other then they are not visible Church-members who have not an estate in that covenant which is the cause of it For take away the cause and â—he effect ceaseth and then the visible Church-membership of existing infants of present believers is overthrown sith the cause of it appears not And if they are not to be accounted by act of faith to belong to God in respect of promise of grace in Christ and the Minister is to dispense the seals by a judgment of faith as Mr M. holds in his Sermon pag. 47 in his Defence pag. 111. then there being no act of faith concerning existing infants of present believers they are not to be baptized 2. Saith Mr. M. I retort rhe Argument upon your self and dare boldly affirm that by this argument no visible Church or all the visible professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. wâ—thout a paricular revelation because there is no declaration of God that present visible professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this For visible professors who are grown men the same will serve for infants of believers Answ. If Mr. M. had put in these words of mine By any act or science of faith I should have granted the same might be said of visible professors grown men which I had said of infants But this no whit hurâ—s our Teneâ—t or practice who do not baptize grown persons because by no act of faith or science we know them to be in the covenant of grace in Christ but because by an act of faith we know Christ hath appointed Disciples appearing such by heir profession of faith to be baptized by us and by an act of science or experience by sense we know them to be such whom we baptize Concerning whom though we cannot account them elect and in the covenant by an act of science or faith without a particular revelation yet we may by an act of certain knowledge mixt of science and prudence from sense of their visible profession know them to be serious sober understanding and free professors of Christianity and by an act of faith from Christs institution of bapttizing professing disciples know we ought to baptize them and upon their profession out of charity which believeth all things hopeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 judge them by an act of opinion elect and in the covenant of grace in Christ. None of all which can be said of existing infants of present believrs and therfore we ought to pass no judgement on them in this thing but suspend our judgmenâ—t and act of baptizing concerning our selves with that comfortable hope which we have from indefinite promises Next Mr M. takes upon him to excuse some speeches of Mr. Cottons against which I excepted in my Examen pag 42 4â— one was That the covenant of grace is given to every godly man in his seed Concerning which Mr M. tels me That he takes M. Cottons meaning to be that look as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein these Patriarks were of Christ in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and types their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed now as they could then and what ever inâ—onveniences or absurdity you can seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also As for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'l
promise of saving benefits is made to infants not elect 12. This is proved directly from the Apostles words Rom. 9.6 7 8. which also strengthens the former argument where he concludes that the promises of God must be understood as made to them only to whom they were performed otherwise the word of God should fall which he abhorres as blasphemy But I argue further thus To them onely is the promise of saving benefits made who are children of that promise that God would be a God to them in respect of saving benefits for to be the children of the promise there is manifestly meant of those to whom the promise of being God is meant Gen. 17.7 as is proved before Sect. 28 29. which the Apostle in that chapter understands of saving benefits which I think will not be denied if it were it might be proved from v. 8 c. But the elect onely are children of the promise this is proved before Sect. 28 29 and might be proved from v. 11. Ergo. 3. I further argue from the same place If any other than the elect infants had the promise of saving benefits made to them then all the naturall seed of Abraham for no infants besides the elect had more promises of saving benefits than they But they all had not the promise of saving benefits made to them the Apostle determines that the promise was to Ishmael not Esau but onely to Isaac and Jacob That the purpose of God according to election might stand or be of him that calleth whom he will for the seed v. 11. Therefore the promise of saving benefits is made onely to elect infants To the Allegation of this text I find something said by Mr. B. in his plain Scripture proof Part. 2. chap. 1. 1. There is no strong appearance of contradiction in this to what we have taught For I willingly acknowledge that they are not therefore the children of God because they are the seed of Abraham or others that were godly but because they are the children of the promise But Mr. B. câ—ean mistakes the Apostles speech for he conceives that all the naturall seed of Abraham were yeelded to be the children of God but not because children of the flesh buâ— because children of the promise as if he granted the thing but denied the reason whereas the Apostle denies the thing it self affirming that all the seed of Abraham were not the children of God Rom. 9.7 8 and contradisting the children of the promise to the children of the flesh which were non-sense if they were the same and no distinction or opposition between them As if a man say not all natives but free-men are Citizens he supposeth all natives are not freemen and denies all natives who are not free-men to be Citizens Mr B. adds I pray you observe 1. That which the Apostle here pleadeth is That salvation was not by the Covenant tied to all Abrahams seed To which I reply This grants what I would eviâ—ce that the promise of saving benefites was not to all Abrahams seed but only to the elect of them But yet saâ—th Mr. B. he denieth not but Church-membership did for the time past belong to the generallity of them Now it is not the certain salvation but the Church-membership of Infants that we are disputing for in regard of the individuals Answer Though it be the Church-membership of infants which Paedobaptists dispute for and not the certain salvation yet they would inferre their Church-membership from that Covenant which was a Covenant of salvation as it was Evangelicall And this Mr. B. must yeild who in the words forecited against Mr. Bl. denies an outward covenant giving right to the Seals and asserts A right to Baptism as it is a benefit given directly by God from his promise or covenant Apol. against Mr Bl. p. 80 which is no other than of saving grace by which if salvation be not tied to all Abrahams seed then that covenant is not the ground of their Church-membership and right to the initiall seal and consequently not to our infants for take away the Cause the effect is removed so this text is directly against infant-baptism and Church-membership Mr. B. adds 2. The Apostle disputeth not against the salvation or Church-membership of every one of Abrahams seed for many of his seed were after this saved but against the salvation of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim But now Anabaptists dispute against the Church-membership visible of any infants Answer If the Church-membership visible of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim of Abraham be asserted as it is by Mr. B. from that covenant which the Apostle denies to belong to the whole seed or posterity conjunctim which Mr B. grants he disputeth for the Anabaptists against the imagined visible Church-membership of all infants of true believers 3. Saith Mr. B. That which the Apostle mainly drives at is that men are not therefore saved because they are Abrahams carnall seed and consequently not because they are the carnall seed of any other And I say so too with all my heart But the Apostle doth not say or mean that Abrahams seed should not be saved for they shall again be called and so all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11 But onely that they are saved not because they are his seed buâ— because they are children of the promise And so say we That the seed of the faithfull are Church-members and Disciples and subjects of Christ not properly or directly because they are their seed for so they are no better than others but because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed and having promised that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed and that he will be mercifull to them and will take thm to be a people to him and he will be to them a God and he hath pronounced them holy Isaac was Abrahams seed and Jacob his and yet not saved because his seed directly and properly yet remotely they were but because children of the promise Answer Mr. B. in his passâ—ge shewes he neither understood the Apostles scope nor answer but according to his overly manner of handling Texts perverts both I grant that from the Apostles words it followeth That men are not therefore saved because they are Abrahams seed and consequently not because they are the carnall seed of any other But it is manifest and acknowledged by all Interpreters almost I mâ—et with that the Apostles scope is to answer an objection as the words v. 6. shew That if the Jewes were rejected the word of God to Israel and Abrahams seed falls which shews that the objectors did not conceive God by covenant tied to save all Abrahams seed and Israel because he had by covenant tied himself to be a God to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 and therefore Paul did not rightly suggest Rom. 9 1 2 3. as if they should be rejected The clearing
all believers and God to them a justifying and saving God in Christ Mr. B's words in his Friendly accommodation pag. 361. And for that which you urge Ero Deus tui seminis I doubt you will not prove that it reacheth so far as you speak It sufficeth that God will be to them a God of mercy and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum and Mr. C's own exposition I will be a God to some in respect of external interest shew that to be a God to some doth not necessarily infer they shall be regenerate and so the covenant of saving grace in Christ be gathered thence And therefore I deny that Deut. 30.6.11 12 13 14. compared wiâ—h Rom. 10 6 7 8. do evidently or obscurely prove that the Covenant-interest external as he cals it of inchurched stipulating parents children is Gospel or that the Apostles preached this doctrine or that believers are to eye the covenant in such a latitude as to their children with them by faith or that the essentials of the Covenant of grace in the latitude of the extent thereof to covenant parents with their children held forth in the old Testament was delivered and held forth as valid to the faith of the Saints in the new and after Christs incarnation Nor doth Peter propound the word of true faith in such a latitude as with reference to their children in Mr. C's sence Acts. 2.38 39. And though Paul hold forth Rom. 5.14 15. the abounding of Christs grace to them that are Christs in the gift of righteousness yet that any such thing as external Ecclesiastical covenant interest to the natural seed of believers is held forth Rom. 5.14 15. is Mr. C's palpable dotage And how Acts. 2.38 39. Rom. 11.16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 7 14. are mistaken is shewed in the first part of this Review and in this third part But Mr. C. faâ—ls to disputing thus That which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace that is Gospel but this is of that in nature ergo The major needs no proof the former text also clearing the same the major de jure is evident they ought to believe the whole Covenant made with them as is evident faith must be as large as the object the Covenant is the word of faith And so he proceedes in more words Whereunto I answer I grant his major but Mr. C. seems not to heed his own Syllogism For he tels us the minor de jure is evident they ought to believe and by which words he seems to have concieved that this was the minor that they ought to believe the whâ—le Covenant whereas his minor to be proved was this the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace But Mr. C. as a man weary of disputing fals to his dictating way again after his confused manner leaving his reader to aim at what he would prove and how That which he should prove is that the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the covenant of grace surely if they ought to believe it he should produce some promise or declaration that avowes it as a constant and certain thing But instead thereof he fals to Gen. 17.7 and tels us God in making a Covenant in a Church reference especially as was that with Abraham Gen. 17.7 he taketh in their seed or children as joint covenanters but what he means by Gods making a covenant in a Church reference or in which words he takes believers seed as joint covenanters with their parents or in which words the external Ecclesiastical interest of every believers natural child may be proved he shews not nor can shew there being no mans seed but Abrahams there mentioned He goes on thus Hence the phrase of seed in their generations taking in parents generating and children begotten as those in and by whom Churches are like to be continued Answ. It is true it is said Gen. 17.9 to Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations and this Covenant is v. 10. every man-child among you shal be circumcised But that this phrase seed after Abraham in their generations should infer that God taketh in believeng parents generating and children begotten even of the Gentiles in the Covenant of grace at least in respect of external ecclesiastical interest is yet to me a riddle I know no more to be inferred thence but this that not only Abraham but also the Israelites his posterity were bound to circumcise their males in their generations But we have more of this stuffe Whence saith he God when to speak in reference to the Church-seed as well as to the choise elect-seed of Isaac's line in which the visible and not meerly the invisible Church was to be continued he saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael Ishmael was Abrahams seed too and therefore externally in the Covenant and therefore sealed but God knowing that Ishmael would reject this he warneth Abraham of it a little before that it might not trouble him afterwards It is not to be with him in his generations for that cause Gen. 17.8 compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12 13. but with Isaac in his generations God not opposing therein Isaac to his Church-seed who by rejecting the Covenant will and did love he and his to be cast out Answ. Mr. C. in this passage speaks so obscurely that it is hard to say what he drives at and I may take up the saying reed me a riddle what 's this He makes a difference between Gods speech of Ishmael and Isaac that God saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not wiâ—h Ishmael it was not to be with him in his generations who was to be cast out all which I grant true and thence infer that God never made his Covenant with to or for Ishmael and yet he was to be circumcised and therefore the initial seal as it is called was given to him to whom the Covenant belonged not But Mr. C. using this blind index whence leaves us to ghess what he drives at whence importes it is from somewhat before that God said this of Ishmael but that before was that God takes in parents generating and children begotten But me thinks it is from the contrary as the Apostle conceived Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. that God speaks this of Ishmael who was Abrahams seed and yet not taken into the Covenant who yet should be taken in if yet Mr. C's principles were good that the Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed in their generations And how Mr. C. reckons Ishmaels as not Abrahams Church-seed I know not nor do I understand how
quatenùs he may know that Scapula puts quatenùs for the first signification of it What I said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not only a causal particle but also a restrictive is not denied by Mr. C. But he thinks it is not good sense to say according as he is a believer but rather it is to be taken as a reason of the former I confess it would not be good sense to say according that is after the proportion that he is a believer but thus it is good sense to make it to note the reason with restriction and so our Translators do when they render it for so much And this is confirmed in that if it be expounded that salvation did come to his house that is his wife children servants for this only reason or cause because he was a Son of Abraham in that he was a believer it may be gathered thence that a mans whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing To this Mr. C. saith No but as Acts 16.31 upon his believing they shall come in the Gospel-way in the Covenant road and ordinary means of salvation But that this is a false Exposition both places shew That Luke 19.9 must needs be meant otherwise than of the means of salvation with which Zachâ—us might not have been saved For besides that to his being a Son of Abraham not a Son of Abrahams Covenant as Mr. C. speaks though that be true also but a follower of Abrahams Faith salvation is certainly annexed nor had it been so joyous if he had not meant salvation it self it is put out of all doubt that he means salvation it self by verse 10. where he gives this reason why he said salvation was come to him though some murmured at his going in to him for saith he the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost therefore he had both sought and did save Zachaeus who was lost And for the other place it is as frivolous to expound Acts 16.31 of the means of salvation For 1. Pauls Answer is of that of which the Jaylour asked him else he had deluded him by his Answer but the Question was not What may I do to be put in the road ordinary means of salvation the Gospel way But What may I do to escape the wrath due to me 2. That salvation is meant which was consequent on his believing but the ordinary means of salvation was not consequent but antecedent that which followed on his believing in Christ was the certainty of salvation Yea to interpret thus Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved that is thou shalt hear the Word be Baptized c. is so frigid and sapless and interpretation as no considerate man sure no Interpreter besides Mr. C. that I know did ever give a sense of it But Mr. C. tells me Nor is this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self unusuall in Scripture The salvation which Christ and his Apostles preached and those Heb. 2.3 neglected was not barely salvation it self but the promises holding the same forth this was that mercy and riches and salvation also which came to the Gentiles as rejected by the Jewes Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 verses compared So Esay 1 6 8 Gods salvation is his promise or covenant on which their salvation did depend Calvin in locum 2 Sam. 23.5 David speaking of his house or posterity which albeit it were not so orient then yet God had made a covenant with him scil in reference to his house ordered in all things and sure And this scil this covenant with me and my house is all my salvation and all my desire albeit he maketh my house not to grow or flourish in such a sort this covenant then was his salvation objectivè causaliter or instrumentaliter Answ. If this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self were usuall in Scripture yet it could not be the sense Luke 19.9 or Acts 16.31 whether we understand it of the outward means of salvation the Word and Sacraments or of the promise of salvation but must be understood of saving by justification as Tit. 3.5 6 7. For neither is the outward means of salvation nor the promise of salvation consequent upon being a son of Abraham and believing as salvation is in those places 2. Yet in none of the places alleged by Mr C. is salvation put for being in the Gospel way the ordinary means of salvation competent to infants And for the covenant or promise of salvation it self he dares not avoch it to be Gospel that all the infants of inchurched believers have interest in it and therefore if salvation Luke 19.9 were put for the covenant or promise of salvation yet it would not prove that it belongs to every son of Abrahams whole house but Mr C. must limit it to the elect as I do Yet let us consider his Texts that it may appear with how little heed he brings Texts as if he never examined their pertinency but heaped them together whether to the purpose or not They are said to neglect salvation Heb. 2.3 Ergo salvation is taken for the outward means of salvation competent to infants or the covenant of salvation Nay rather salvation is taken for salvation as it was preached and offered not for the means of salvation competent to infants nor for the promise of salvation but for salvation it self neglected in that they did not take hold of it by believing and obeying the doctrine of the Gospel Acts 28.28 salvation is said to be sent to the Gentiles and that they would not hear it But salvation there is the doctrine of salvation not competent to infants who could not hear it Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 is not meant either of the bare outward means of salvation or the covenant of salvation only much less the outward means competent to infants Esâ—y 51.6 8 the term Salvation is not taken for the bare outward means of salvation competent to infants of inchurched believers If Salvation 2 Sam. 23.5 did note outward means of salvation because it is said This covenant is all my salvation desire should note outward means of desire because it is said This covenant is all my desire I grant the convenant is termed his salvation Causaliter or Instrumentaliter and his desire objestivè The covenant everlasting in all things ordered and sure was made with David in reference to his house not in respect of outward covenant interest to the infants of his house it 's a wonder to me that such a man as Mr C. should â—o dote especially after the publishing of Mr Cottons book of the Covenant on that Text but in respect of the great promise of raising Christ out of his loins Acts 2.30 or as it is Luke 1.69 Raising up a Horn of salvation for his people in the house of his servant David and this that is
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
of yâ—ur one syllable such is discerned by trying it by a whole volume I doubt you will make what your list of it However if you should mean that such precepts there are as have for their subject the avouching God to be their God the entring into Covenant Circumcision of infants but not their Churchmembership then 1. I have proved the contrary to the negative before 2. and more shall do anon 3. and it 's a palpable contradiction to the precedent affirmative But if you mean that Churchmembership of infants as well as others is the subject or part of the subject of those promises or precepts and yet that infants were not made or confirmed thereby it is the contrary that I am asserting and I have no further need to prove then by shewing the contradiction of your opinion to it self For an actual Covenant or promise that doth not give right to the benefit promised according to itâ—s tenour and terms is like a cause that hath no effect a father that did never generate and it 's all one as to say A gift or Covenant which is no gift or Covenant seeing the name is denied when the thing named and defined is granted So a precept or law to enter infants solemnly into Churchmembership which yet obligeth none so to enter them is as gross a contradiction as to say the Sun hath not heat or light and yet is truly a Sun Answ. I grant his assertion that there is no precept of God which doth not oblige to duty nor donation which doth not confer the benefit though sundry things which have the title of Gods lawes oblige not to duty and an actual promise doth not put the thing promised in present being as the next cause but the thing promised is thereby onely made future yea a promise that it shall be doth suppose it not to be and that there is something else the next and immediate cause of its actual being The imagined contradiction in my later to my former Letter is before cleared not to be so Sect. 53. Though I have said enough before in this and other fore going Sections yet to take away all colour of charging me with ambiguity 1. I acknowledge that the Covenant at Mount Sinai and the Covenant Deut. 29. did declare the people of the Jews to be Gods people or his visible Church in that the Covenant was mutual and open between them and God 2. That they were Gods visible Church not barely by Gods promise to them to be their God but by their promise to God Gods call of them made them his Church their promise to God with oâ—her acts made them visibly so 3. The promises of God Gen. 17. did not of themselves make the house of Abraham Gods visible Church 4. The call of God and such acts as whereby he separated them from others to bee his which were many made the house of Abraham Gods Church 5. The infants were members of that Church in that they were part of that peopâ—e 6. Such things as whereby they were visibly of that people their birth cohabitation c. did make them visible Churchmembers 7. Circumcision was one sign not by itsâ—lf but with other things whereby the male infants and adult were known to be of Gods visible Church 8. No promise of God nor duty of parents did make the infants actually visible Churchmembers as the next cause in act either formal or efficient If Mr. B. or any Reader will heed these passages with what goes before hee may easily discern my minde and acquit me from self-contradiction if not I think it in vain for me to use more words I pass on to that which follows SECT LVI That the People and thereby the Infants of the Hebrews were made visible Churchmembers by a transeunt fact is made good against Mr Bs. exceptions I Come next saith Mr. B. to the 6th Qu. Whether indeed there be any transeunt fact which without the causation of any promise or precept did make the Israelites infants Churchmembers This you affirm if you would be understood whether this your ground of infants Churchmembership or mine be righter I hope will be no hard matter for another man of common capacity to discern By a transeunt fact thus set as contradistinct to a law precept or promise either you mean the act of legislation and promise making or some other merely physical act If the former it is too ridiculous to be used in a serious business For you should not put things in competition excluding the one where they both must necessarily concur the one standing in a subordination to the other Was there ever a Law or Covenant made in the world any other way â—hen by a transeunt fact Sure all legislation is by some signification of the Soveraigns will And the making of that sign is a transeunt fact If it be by voice is not that transient If by writing is not the act transeunt If by creation it self the act is transeunt though the effect bee permament And certainly if legislation or promising be your transeunt fact you do very absurdly put it in opposition to a law or promise it being the making of such a law And the legislation doth no way oblige the subject but by the law so made nor doth the making of a promise grant or covenant confer right to the benefit which is the subject of of it any otherwise then as it is the making of that grant which shall so conferre it As the making of a knife doth not cut but the knife made and so of other instruments So that if the law oblige not or the grant confer not certainly the legislation or promise-making cannot do it I cannot therefore imagine that this is your sense without charging you with too great absurdity As if you should say It is not the will of the testator i. e. his testament that entiâ—leth the legatary to the legacy but it is the rranseunt fact of the testator in making that will or it is not the Soveraigns commission that authorizeth a Judge souldier c. but it is the transeunt fact of writing or making that commission It is not the sign that signifieth but the transeunt fact of making that sign Were not this a contemptible arguing To charge you with this were to make you tantùm non ununreasonable And yet I know not what to say to you that is how to understand you For if you mean a mere physical transient fact which is no such legislation or promise-making then it is far more absurd then the former For if it be not a signe of Gods will obliging to duty or conferring benefit then can it not so oblige to duty nor confer benefits It is no other transeunt fact but legislation that can oblige a subject to duty nor any other transeunt fact but promise or other donation that can convey right to a benefit or oblige the promiser A moral or civil effect must bee produced
And it seems then that Ishmael was born a Churchmember many years before Circumcision Answ. I grant all this 6. Saith he If this be your meaning I pray you be so just and impartial as to accept of the proof which I shall give you of infants Churchmembership before Abrahams days if I make it appear to be as strong as this call of Abraham from Ur. Answ. I shall 7. Saith he If you should mean that some one of these comprehended acts should of it self make any infants Churchmembers then it must be any one for you no more assign it to one of them then to another onely say chiefly the bringing them from Aegypt But surely some of these acts particularly â—annot do it As the leading to Padan Aram the removal to Canaan to Aegypt placing preserving therâ— setling their Army c. Did any one of these make infants to become Churchmembers Answ. No But I did assign it to one of them more then to another to wit the beginning to Abrams call the accomplishing to the bringing of them out of Aegypt to God Exod. 19.4 8. Saith he Nay suppose you mean that all these acts must concur to make them members and so that they were no members till many hundred years after the institution of Circumcision yet could not your Doctrine hold good For some of these acts are of an alien nature and no more apt to cause infant Churchmembership then a bull to generate a bird What aptitude hath the setling of an Army to be any part of the causation of infants Church-membership None I think at least if it be such an Army as ours For surely the setling of ours caused no such thing as you well know What aptitude hath the leading to Padan Aram or removal to Aegypt to make infants Churchmembers Nay how strange is it that the removing of Churchmembers and such as had been infant Churchmembers as Ishmael Keturahs children Esau must cause infant Churchmembership Sure it was no cause of their own Keturahs children were Churchmembers in infancy I enquire of you by what act they were made such You say by Gods fact of taking the whole people of the Jews for his people whereof the act of removing Keturahs children was a part Very good It seems then that removing from the Congregation of Israel a people of the Jews is a taking of the removed to be of that people or else it is not onely the taking that people but also the removal from that people that maketh Churchmembers even the removed as well as the taken both which are alike absurd Answ. 1. I mean not as Mr. B. supposeth I might 2. The setling of the Army had remotely causation of infants Churchmembership for by it the Israelites were a well formed Congregation Church or Commonwealth and by which the infants were a part which is their Church-membership 3. I know that our Army hath done so much for the setling of the Church as that the Antiprelatists congregations had been either none or much oppressed iâ— they had not broken the force of the opposite party Nor dare I be so unthankfull to God or them as not to acknowledge the great mercy and benefit we at this day enjoy thereby however Mr. B. fret at our liberty and jibe at the instruments 4. The leading to Padan Aram removal to Aegypt were acts of providence wherby Jacobs house were encreased and preserved which I conceive were some of those acts whereby he made them a people to himself 5. Ishmaels Keturahs children's Esau's removal were some acts whereby the congregation of Israel became Gods severed or a peculiar people 6. Keturahs children were visible Churchmembers while they were part of Abrahams house called after the people of the Jews by Gods taking of the people of the Jews and consequently them as a part and yet the removal of them was after one act whereby the people of the Jews were made to God a severed people from them and consequently their infants Churchmembers Distinguish the times and the different state of things and intentions of God in his providences and these seeming incoherences will be found consistent 9. Saith he And I pray you tell me yet a little better how an act can make a man a Churchmember that was one long before that was done You cannot here say that it was before in esse morali and had a moral causation How then could your chiefest act the bringing out of Aegypt make those infants Churchmembers that were born in Aegypt and were Churchmembers before Or how could it be any part of the cause Did the bringing out of Aegypt concur to make Moses a Churchmember when he was in the basket on the waters And when you answer this you may do well to go a little fâ—râ—her and tell me how such an act concurreth to make him an infant Church-member that was dead an hunded or two hundred years before that act was done For example how did the setling of the Israelites Army or inheritance or the Covenant on Mount Sinai make Ishmael or Esau or Isaac or Jacob Churchmembers Answ. The infants of Israel were Churchmembers in that they were a part of the congregation or people af Israel which was a fluent body and was taken to be Gods Church by a succession of acts whereof some were causes which began some continued some compleated and the several acts made the Churchmembers of that age yet all by vertue of the first call of Abraham whereby God declared his intention to make his house a Nation and his Church first more obscurely then more clearly The bringing out of Aegypt tended to make the Israelites a severed people and consequently all that were Churchmembers were by that act such the setling of the Army inheritance Covenant at Mount Sinai tended to make them a well formed people and to the accomplishment of the taking the Jews to be Gods people and consequently the infanâ—s to be Churchmembers which came after them Which if so understood there is nothing in my conceit which infers the making that a cause which is after the effect 10. Saith Mr. B. I desire you also to tell me by the next what be the nerves and ligaments that tie all these acts of 430 years at least together so as to make them one fact And whether I may not as groundedly make a fact sufficient for this purpose of the acts of an hundred or two hundred years onely and whether you may not as well make all the acts from Abrahams call till Christ to be one fact and assign it to this office Answ. 1. These acts are knit together into one fact by the unity of end designed and work accomplished as the many acts of several ages did make one fact of which the Poet speaks Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem to raise the Roman Empire 2. You might if God had so contrived it and brought the thing to pass in that time which he did in a longer 3. I
Abraham and Sarah the rock whence they were hewen and the hole of the pit whence they were digged Abraham their father and Sarah that bare them and mentioning Gods calling him alone blessing him and increasing him as the cause of it which doth prove that it was by the transeunt fact which I described not by Mr. Bs promise and precept that they were Churchmembers and this as a new thing God having chosen no other people of the earth as he did the Jews Deut. 7.6 And therefore I deny Mr. Bs. minor and conclude that visible Church-membership of infants was onely in the nation of the Hebrews not by a promise to be a God to believers and their seed and a precept to parents to dedicate them to God and list them in Christs Army but by the transeunt fact of calling Abraham blessing multiplying him bringing them out of Aegypt to himself which was to be demonstrated Lâ—tâ—s yet view Mr Bs. confirmations whether they be any better then his primitive establishments SECT LIX The sayings of Adam Eve Noah concerning Cain Seth Shem the term sons of God Gen. 6.2 prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed NOw for the Texts saith he that further intimate such a foregoing establishment 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living For it is to be noted what Bp Usher saith Annal vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum post semen promissum mulieri Evae nomen a marito est impositum Gen. 3.20 quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ipsius Messiam promissum quomodo post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita 1 Pet. 3.6 Gal. 4.31 He put this name on her after the promise because she was to be the mother of all the living not onely that live the life of nature but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed So that as she was the root of our nature we are her natural seed and as she was a believer and we the seed of her a believer so is she the mother of a holy seed and we that are her seed are holy as a people visibly dedicated to God Answ. Though the exposition were allowed and the inference thereon that we that are her seed that is by faith in the Messiah are holy yet it follows not that we are so as a people visibly dedicated to God much less that our infants are so without their own faith by vertue of their parents dedication And therefore this Text according to Mr. Bs. exposition which yet may be questioned yeelds no confirmation of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed 2. Saith he When Cain was born his mother called him possession because she had obtained a man of the Lord that is saith Ainsworth with his favour and of his good will and so a son of promise and of the Church And therefore it is to be noted that when Cain had sinned by killing his brother God did curse him and cast him out of his presence Gen. 4.14 16. So that he was excommunicate and separated from the Church of God saith Ainsworth that is from the place of Gods word and worship which in likelihood was held by Adam the father who being a prophet had taught his children how to sacrifice and serve the Lord. So on the contrary to come into Gods presence or before him 1 Chron. 16.29 is explained in Psal. 96 8. to be the comming into his Courts Very many learned men give the same exposiâ—ion of it Now if Cain were now excommunicate then was he before of the Church nay it 's certain by his sacrificing and other proof however this Text be interpreted But no man can give the least reason from Scripture to make it so probable 〈◊〉 he entred into the Church at any other time as we give of his entrance at his nativity Answ. Eve doth not say that she possessed a son of God member of the Church from the Lord but a man by vertue of the power given to the parents for procreation Gen. 1.28 notwithstanding the curse Gen. 3.16 which was from the Lord Psal 127.3 Gen. 30.2 that is by his providence and in some respect with his favour and good will considering her desert and danger it was that she possessed him when both their lives were in so great hazard That Cain was a Churchmember visible from his infancy hath no probability there being no hint of it in that Text or any other The proofs that infant visible Church-membership was onely in the Hebrew Nation have beene shewed before Also saith Mr. B. When Eve bare Seth she so named him as a son of mercy in faith as appointed her by the Lord to be in Abels room faithfull as Abel and the father of our Lord afteâ— the flesh as Ainsworth on Gen. 4.25 And is there no intimation in this that Seth was an infant member of the visible Church I confess he that shall excommunicate this appointed seed or saith that Seth was without the Church in his infancy doth speak in my ears so improbably and so unlike the Scripture that I am very confident I shall never believe him Answ. Nor should I meaning as Mr. Ainsworth seed that is another son that as Abrahams seed was called in Isaac Ishmael being excluded Gen. 21.12 so Eves seed should be in Seth thaâ— is the elect seed and so he a member of the invisible Church in infancy and yet there 's no inâ—imation that â—e was an infant member of the visible Church from which Ishmael was not excluded In which though I pâ—ace not Seth yet I do not thereby excommunicate Seth or say that he was without the Church in his infancy Mr. B. adds Note also that as God had thus cast out Cain and supplied Abels room by Seth and had given each of them posterity so we find him in a special manner registring the successors of the righteous and putting two titles on these two distinct generations calling some the sons of God and others the daughters of men Gen. 6.2 Supposing that you reject the old conceits that these sons of God were Angels that fell in love with women the current ordinary exposition I think will stand that these were the progeny of Seth and other members of the Church who are called the sons of God and that it was the progeny of Cain and other wicked ones that are called the daughters of men Where note that they are not themselves denominated wicked but the children of men as being a generation separated from the Church from the birth And the other are not themselves affirmed to be truly godly ones but sonâ— of God as being the seed of the Saints not cast out but members of the Church or the sons of those who were devoted to God and so devoâ—ed to him themselves a separated generation belonging to
be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant yea the Apostle concludes and proves Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. That all the posterity of Abraham Isaac and Jacob were not comprehended in that promise and therefore the visible Churchmembership Christian of infants of Gentile believers câ—n have no shew of proof from the promise Gen. 17.7 and precept v. 9.10 9. Saith Mr. B. I think it is not to bee made light of as to this maâ—ter that in the great promise Gen. 12.3 the blessing from Abraham in Christ is promised to all the families or tribes on earth all the families of the earth shall be blessed as the Heb. Samar Arabic or all the kindreds as the vulgar Lat. and Chald. paraph. or all the tribes as the Sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And doubtless it is by Christ that this blessing is promised and so a Gospel blessing Ergo the Syriac adds and in thy seed and the Arab. hath by thee And the Apostle fully testifieth that So that as tribes kindreds families do most certainly comprehend the infants and as it was to such families that the promise was made before Christ as to the Jewish Church so is it expresly to such families or tribes that the promise is made as to the Gentiles since Christ. Answ. The blessing Gen. 12.3 is not visible Churchmembership which may be without justification but justification as the Apostle expresly expounds it Gal. 3.8 which may be without visible Church-membership Nations there doth not comprehend every member of a nation nor every one of a tribe or kindred as it is Acts 3.25 but the elect and believers of each nation tribe or kindred as the Apostle doth both v. 7. 9. shew terming them that are blessed those that are of faith Therefore though the Scripture be not to be made light of yet Mr. Bs. inference from thence is most vain the promise being not of visible Churchmembership nor to nations families kindreds entirely nor to infants of unbelievers or believers as such but to so many of all nations kindreds and families as are believers or elect Whereby Mr. B. may see how infants can be excluded these families and this promise without apparent violence to the Text. 10. Saith he Note that as infant Churchmembership is here clearly implied in infant Circumcision so they are two distinct things and as the sign is here commanded de novo so the thing signified I mean the duty of engaging and devoting to God as their God in Covenant is commanded with it though not de novo as a thing now beginning as the sign did So that here is in Circumcision not onely a command to do the circumcising outward act but also to do it as a sign of the Covenant and so withal for the parents to engage their children to God in Covenant as their God and devote them to him as his separated peculiar people So that here are two distinct duties concurrent â—he one external newly instituted the other internal not newly instituted And therefore the former may cease and yet the later stand and it 's no proof that the later Covenant engagement of infants to God is ceased because the sign of Circumcision is ceased no more then it proves that such Covenant engagement did then begin when Circumcision did begin or that women were not Churchmembers separated engaged dedicated to God in infancy because they were not circumcised And no more then you can prove that all Israel was unchurched in the wilderness when they were uncircumcised for 40 years So that here you have a a command for entring infants as Churchmembers And so you see both promise and precept in Gen. 12.3 Gen. 17. Answ. I do indeed but not such as Mr. B. should produce a promise of infants visible Churchmembership and a precept of their entring unrepealed there being no such promise of believers infants visible Churchmembership or precept of admission as visible Churchmembers besides Circumcision which Mr. B. will not sure say is unrepealed As for his discourse of a duty of engaging separating to God and dedicating which is internal and not instituted de novo it is neither in Gen. 12. nor Gen. 17. nor if it were is it any thing to the purpose For neither doth such an internal duty make or admit or enter an infant into the visible Church either Jewish or Christian. According to Mr. B. himself infants are visible Churchmembers afore it yea without it nor is the admission or entering into the Church visible by it but by an outward sign as he himself determines part 1. ch 4. of Baptism And this sure is now Baptism which Mr. B. I presume will not now allow to parents for then they should be Ministers of the Seals which he counts one of my six errours I never denied an internal duty of faith prayer vowing c. for the engaging and dedicating infants to God prayer for them is practised by me in publick but I deny that this makes them visible Churchmembers or admissable by Baptism He adds And when I consider the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah I think it far more probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy then that she was entred afterwards at age or that she was a heathen or infidel when Isaac married her Answ. What in the parents breeding and manners of Rebeâ—kah Mr. B. observes which should make it in any degree probable that she was a Churchmember from her infancy I know not There are such things related Gen. 31. of Laban her brother and Rachel his daughters Idols as me thinks should move Mr. B. to conceive that either in that house there was no Church of God or at best a very impure one though it is likely their idolatry and wickedness was not so great as that of the the Canaanites which made them more desirable and eligible wives for Isaac and Jacob then the daughters of the Canaanites whom Esau chose Mr. B. adds And as here are before mentioned standing Covenants so it is to be noted how God intimateth the extent of the main blessing of them to be further then to Abrahams natural seed not onely in the express promise of the blessing to all the nations or families on earth of which before but in the assigned reason of the blessing which is common to Abraham with other true believers For Gen. 22.16 17 18. it 's thus alledged because thou hast done this thing c. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice And Gen. 26.3 4 5. the Covenant is renewed with Isaac and the same reason assigned because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge my commandments my statutes and my laws How mans obedience is said to be a cause of Gods blessing I am not determining but taking the words as I find them in general I may conclude that they are here given as a cause or reason of it some
juice effectively Abraham exemplarily the Church doth it onely as a vessel receiving it as the stock receives it first then the branch the veins receive the bloud then the other parts of the body And if Mr. Bls. major be understoood of any other giving juice it is denied if of this the minor 3. Saith he If saving faith ingraff the branch into the Church invisible then the Church invisible is the proper object of such faith but the Church is no such object of faith but Christ. Answ. 1. The same argument holds thus If profession of faith ingraff into the Church visible then the Church visible is the proper object of such profession But the Church visible is no such object but Christ therefore there is no ingraffing by profession of faith into the Church visible contrary to Mr. Bls. tenet 2. To say the Church invisible is the object of faith is no more then to say to believe the Holy Catholick Church is an Article of the Creed and this I think Mr. Bl. counts no absurdity 3. The consequence of the major proposition is denied Faiâ—h that saves hath the object Christ and as it respects Christ doth unite or ingraff us to him as to our head and to the invisible Church as his body 4. Saith he That supposed ingraffing into the invisible Church is either known to the body invisible or unwitting if known then it is not invisible They have no light to discern an invisible work if unknown then there could not be such a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles nor complaint of breaking off of the Jewes all being done by an invisible translation and so the subject of the question is taken away Answ. It was known to some of the invisible to others not though it were known yet it might be invisible they had light to discern an invisible work Though the work were unknown to some yet there might be a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles and complaint of breaking off the Jews as there was Acts 11. though all were done by an invisible translation So that there is no truth or strength in this rope of sand Mr. Bl. makes and the subject of the question still remains There is as much futility in the rest of his dictates Scheibler saith in his Topicks A not-being cannot be a part dividing yet he saiâ—h in case any defend that to be which yet is not in controversies such a division is to be supposed But how vainly Mr. Bl. hath disputed against an ingraffing into the invisible Church may be discerned and thereby how frivolously 〈◊〉 compares it to a mountain of ayr And what he saith that the access of the Gentiles in the Acts was an ingraffing into the Church visible may be granted and it may be true that it was into the invisible Church also One new man Ephes. 2.15 is true onely of the invisible Church for the Gentiles were never one visible Church with the Jews except some few proselytes of them That the visible Church communicates sap and juyce which is the fatness of the Olive in ordinances and that saith dogmatical looks upon the Church meaning the visible as the partial object are diâ—tates which I need not refute sith there is no proof brought for them As I conceiâ—e he means them they are false so much for the vindication of my third argument My fourth argument is from v. 17. thus That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and â—atness of the Olive tree But such is onely by giving faith according to election Ergo. I proved the minor by shewing that Abraham is there the root as the Father of the faithfull and the fatness of the Olive not priviledges of outward ordinances but righteousness Mr. Sydenham answers it by referring to Mr. Bl. and censuring my answer to him as a poor evasion which I shall free from this censure in my reply to Mr. Bl. Yet Mr. S. scribles somewhat besides which I shall reply to He begins with questions 1. â—ere not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root Answ. No. And were they all elected and partakers of saving graces or outward priviledges onely Answ. None of the branches broken off were elected or partakers of saving graces though some were of outward priviledges And why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to pâ—rtake of the fatness of the root onely in outward priviledges seeing it was so with the natural branches and they all grow on the same root Answ. The natural branches as natural did not grow on the same root with the ingraffed Abraham was not a natural Father to the ingraffed branches they descended not from him by natural generation nor did the natural branches which were broken off grow on the same spiritual root with the ingraffed Abraham was indeed the Father of the faithfull Gentiles and they his seed spiritually but so he was not â—o the Jews broken off nor they ever in their own persons in the Olive tree as it notes the Church of true believers or in Abraham the root as is meant Rom. 11.17 nor were ever partakers of the fatness of it but the Gentiles were nor did the Jews fall from election and saving graces which they had in their own persons but which they had in course been partakers of if they had believed which I have cleared more fully in my answer to Mr. Cobbet in the first part of this Review sect 10. He tels me further It 's improper to call a root an exemplary cause there is no harmony between them and example conveyed nothing here is a conveyance of fatness Answ. It is improper to term an exemplary cause a root for it is a metaphor but it is no more improper then to term an exemplary cause a Father as the Apostle doth Abraham the Father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. when yet the Text makes him only such by his exemplary believing and if there were harmony between a Father and â—n exemplary cause though Abraham conveyed not faith or righteousness but as an example there is harmony between a root and an exemplary cause though it convey nothing but as an example Nor is it unsuitable to good language to say the ingraffed branches are partakers of the fatness or fulness of Abraham as an example That fatness the Jews had from Abraham which is meant Rom. 11.17 they had not from him as a natural father nor did God make the Evangelical Covenant with him and his natural seed nor do the ingraffed branches ever become natuâ—al branches though they partake of Evangelical benefits as well as the believing Jews who were natural branches What Mr. S. adds in answer to my objection that if it were meant of outward priviledges it were false for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham that Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old
I grant but deny what he adds and still stands by vertue of the Covenant to believers and their children For neither is there such a Covenant and if there were yet Abraham could be a root onely to his natural seed not to Gentiles by vertue of that Covenant And what he adds that though old Testament ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church-state yet the root is not taken away but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off letting pass the vanity of the speeches that our ingraffing gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges which they had not by our ingraffing but their own propagation from the root and that the Jews had the priviledges till they were broken off whereas the persons broken off never had the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 all this answer avoids not the objection but plaiâ—ly grants the argument For if the Old Testament ordinances and the Jewish Churchstate were taken away which all that are against a national Church-frame must aver then if by fatness be meant outward ordinances and Churchstate the Gentiles cannot be said to partake of them nor they be meant by the fatness Rom. 11.17 Let 's examine what Mr. Bl. saith to this argument 1. He denies that he ever said every believing parent is the root a root he makes them not the root But by his leave I charge him with nothing but what doth plainly follow from his words For that is the root according to him which communicates Covenant holiness and Church-state and of whom it is verified if the root be holy so are the branches But this is said by him in his Vindic. Faed p. 277. and elsewhere of every believing parent therefore if Mr. Bl. avouch his own arguings he makes every believing parent the root Rom. 11.16 17. What Mr. Bl. speaks that other parents are roots to their posterity is granted and needed not to be proved by Mr. Blâ—ut â—ut that they being holy persons are holy roots communicating Covenant holiness to their children is not prâ—ved by Mr. Bl. That the Covenant or promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 15.5 17 4 7. did assure and â—o constitute Abraham to be the root of the Church of true believers is not denied nor that Circumcision did seal to him the righteousness of faith as a believer and the father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. But the form denominating him Father of believers or root of the Olive is propagating them by his exemplary faith Nor was David by his Covenant or Jesse or any other believing parent a root or father in the sense Rom. 4.11 11.16 17. Though they were natural roots to their posterity and builders of the house of Israel and the Fathers 1 Cor. 10.1 by natural generation yet none are said to build as Abraham from whom the fatness Rom. 11.17 is derived and not from any other intermediate father For Abraham had been father though he had had no child by natural generation Mat. 3.9 descending from him Nor can it be tâ—ue that he is termed the root by reason of natural generation For then the Gentiles had not been branâ—hes and children and â—ll the branches had been natural contrary to v. 21 24. To this saith Mr. Bl. He makes them wild onely at their first ingraffing and so was all Terahs race wild likewise till that change of faith wrought in Abrahams call and the Covenant God entred with him we now are natural as they were and cannot be called wild but in our first original Answ. They that were ingraffed were still branches of the wild Olive and so are we that are believers of the Gentiles for that title is by nature and natural descent Rom. 11.24 which is not changed by grace though the fruit and sap be changed that is the qualities and actions by ingraffing We that are believers of the Gentiles are not the branches according to nature for that is plainly meant of the Jews onely Rom. 11.24 when it is said they that are according to nature shall be graffed in their own Olive Which shews that the term they that are according to nature iâ— proper to the Jews But if every believing parent should be the root Rom. 11.16 17. then every Gentile believers child should be a natural branch contrary to v. 24. for they are all besides nature and no believing Gentile nor his child is now or hath been a natural branch in the sense the Apostle means Rom. 11.24 But Mr. Bls. chief objection is this If the ingraffing be by a saving faith onely to derive saving graces personalâ—y inherent as a fruit of election from Abraham then it must needs be that we are elect in Abraham Abraham may say without me ye can do nothing and he that believeth in me out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water And we may say the life that we live in the flesh we live by faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham be the root noâ— onely respective to a conditional Covenant but to the graces under condition covenanted Answ. 1. This objection may be thus retorted If the ingraffing be by a faith of profession onely to derive onely outward ordinances outward priviledges Covenant holiness visible Churchmembership as a fruit of the Covenant from Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root then we are iâ— Covenant in Abraham Isaac and Jacob They may say without us ye cannot be visible Churchmembers c. he that professeth faith in us shall have outward Church priviledges the priviledges we have in the visible Church we have by profession of faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be the root respective to the Covenant and Covenant holiness as Mr. Bl. asserts when Mr. Bl. hath freed himself from these absurdities I shall have somewhat more to answer him 2. In the mean time my answer in my Apology is that the absurdities follow not on my opinion who make not Abraham a rooâ— as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing in which sense he is stiled the father of believers Rom. 4 11 12. To this Mr. Bl. in his flirting fashion replies thus A root not by communication but example an ingraffing not to have any thing communicated from the root but to imitate it is such a Catachresis as may well make all Rhetorick â—shamed of it and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of non sense I am to seek what sense is A root is too low in the earth to have its examples followed and a syens sucks in juyce but knowes not how to imitate Answ. 1. Mr. Bl. grosly abuseth me by insinuating as if I mentioned a root not by communication but example
formerly in that people So that Mr. Bl. hitherto hath mâ—de no answer to my arguments but talkâ—d at randome quite besides the matter urged in them My 5th argument was If the breaking off the Jews were by blinding then the ingraffing was by giving faith but the former is true v. 25. Ergo the later To this Mr. S. saith There is not the sâ—me reason seeing â—e takes iâ— of giving saving faith their blinding was judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel the giving of faith is not on such terms neither is saving faith so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding to Gods final rejection Answ. He saiâ—h there is not the same reason but shews not why if the breaking off be by blinding the ingraffing should not be by giving a saving faith Sure according to all the Logick I ever learned it is as clear an aâ—gument as can be in this case that where opposite effects are put the one effect being from one cause the other should be from the opposite cause T is true I take the inlightning opposite to blinding to be the giving saving faith yet do not think the blinding v. 25. to have bin judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel but as it is v. 32. the vety shutting up in unbelief the antecedent to unbelief consequent on reprobation opposite to election as v. 7 8 9 10. do plainly shew not consequent to unbelief What he means by the giving of faith is not on such terms I cannot readily divine the speech seems to me to be either non-sense there being no terms forementioned that I can perceive to which it may be referred or else it is impertinent to the answering the objection and so as that which follows For though the giving of saving faith be not on such terms as Mr. S. means or that it be not so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding is to Gods final rejection doth it follow that if the breaking off be by blinding v. 25. the ingraffing is not by giving faith v. 24 But Mr. S. adds 2. Blindness came but in part on Israel it fell onely on the meer visible members not the invisible and elect therefore the ingraffiâ—g must be onely of visible members into the visible Church v. 7. The election hath obtained it but the rest were blinded Answ. There is no shew of consequence that I know in it that if blindness fall not on the elect therefore ingraffing is not of the elect onely the argument is plain on the contrary even from vers 7. alledged by him the rest to wit the non-elect were blinded therefore the ingraffed who obtained were onely the elect and their obtaining the ingraffing was by such enlightening as wrought saving faith in them Mr. Bl grants the conclusion that the ingraffing is by giving faith but a faith of profession into a Churchstate as he answered to the 3 d. arg To which I reply 1. If it were giving of such a faith yet infants would be excluded sith they are not so ingraffed 2. The ingraffing notes more then admission by an outward ordinance 3. I proved from the Text v. 7 8 10. that the blinding was of those who are not elect and therefore the inlightening by which the election obtains or the Gentiles are ingraffed is that as Dr. Ames saith Antisynod animadv in art 1. c. 16. whereby they obtain faith and salvation from election And I used these words If the blinding be the effect of reprobation and the breaking off be by blinding then the ingraffing is by inliâ—htening and that inlightening is according to election and so is all one with giving of faith by which I mean justifying or saving faith At this passage Mr. Bl. lays about him thus Here is Divinity which calls for patience in a degree above all that is Christian which one of the Contraremonstants worthy the name of an adversary of the Arminians hath taught this Doctrine It is that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them but that which they unanimously do disclaim I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sin but never that it was the cause and that sin is a consequent of it but never an effect Reprobation is the act of God and in case it be the cause of blindness then God is the cause So that the Contraremonstranâ—s have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them that none of their adversaries though they have turned every stone to it could never prove by them Answ. 1. I did onely use this expression if the blinding be the effect of reprobation which causeth all this insulting which doth not positively assert it onely Mr. Bl. gathers it from the assumption which he supposeth I would have put which is not very candid dealing 2. The assumption he sets down thus then his assumption can be no other but that blindness is the effect of reprobation But herein he doth grosly abuse me For I did not say if blindness be the effect of reprobation but if blinding be the effect of reprobation between which there is a great difference For blindness is mans sin but blinding is Gods act ascribed to God v. 8. when it is said God hath given them a spirit of slumber eys that they should not see And Job 12.40 He hath blinded their eys and hardened their heart And this act being no other then the certain permission of sin is commonly made by Protestants an effect and means executing the decree of reprobation which is no other then blinding Potav synt l. 4. c. 10. Reprobation is effectus est permissio lapsus Ames med Theol. l. 1. c. 25. § Tertius reprobationis actus est intentio dirigendi media illa quibus justitia possit in reprobas manifestari Media hujus generis maxime propria sunt permissio peccati derelictio in peccato Rom. 9 18. 2 Thes. 2.11 12. Calvin Instit. l. 3. c. 23. § 1. unde from Rom. 9.18 sequitur absconditum Dei consilium obdu ationis esse causam Yea § 4. he saith Cujus rei defectionis Angelorum causa non potest alia adduci quam reprobatio quae in arcano Dei consilio abscondita est Vide Andr. Rivet sum contro trâ—ct 4. q. 6 7. And Piscat observ 9. e Rom. 9.10 11 12 13. Erram igitur qui putant praedestinationem pendere a praevisis operibus vel a praevisa fide vel incredulitate Imo haec omnia praedestinationis effecta sunt quomodo igitur possunt statui praedestinationis causae So that if I had taught as Mr. Bl. misreports me that Gods reprobation causeth blindness yet I had Authours worthy the name of adversaries to the Arminians so saying Nor have I done any such high dis service to the anti-Arminians as in the Table at the â—nd of his Book he chargeth me with
3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel he might have interpreted as indeed I meant the term effect not strictly or rigourously as Scheibler speaks but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun though it be rather a consequent then an effect after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book Review part 1. sect 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word effect be left out and let the word consequent be put in my argumen hath the same force and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a meer wrangling exception Let 's view what he saith in answer thereto He saith Mr. T. lays all upon God Gods reprobation causes blindness and their breaking off is by blinding here is no hand but Gods in their destruction And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied so that blindness is no effect of reprobation breaking off being not by blinding what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced And Mr. T. should not be ignorant that election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare otherwise as election leads to salvation without any merit of works so reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin which Contraremonstrants unanimously deny though Mr. T. here will have them to affirm having before quoted v. 8. 10. of this chapter he saith from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation and then explains himself what this absolute reprobation in his sense is in the words spoken to And then in opposition to me cites Gomarus denying absolute reprobation in my sense that God absolutely reprobates any man to destruction without subordinate means to wit sin that God doth not effect sin or decree to effect it And Dr. Prideaux that sin follows not on reprobation as an efficient but deficient is a consequent not effect of reprobation And Mr. Ball that Gods decree is not the cause of mans sin Answ. In all this there 's not a word that takes away the force of the argument if that word effect had been left out as it was left out in the first framing of it and consequent had been put in though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used or as it was in the first framing neither used He accuseth me of blasphemy here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation that I lay all upon God no hand but Gods in mens destruction that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8 10. in this sense of all which charges there is not one true so that here is nothing but a fardel oâ— manifest calumnies And as for what he alledgeth that breaking off is not by blinding because blindness was their guilt and casting off their just sentence and the guilt and punishment are not one it doth no whit infringe my argument For these may well stand together that Gods reprobation is executed by blinding and yet blindness their guilt and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence as on the other side election is the cause of Gods enlightening whereby the ingraffed branches believe and through faiâ—h they are by Gods act of grace ingraffed into the invisible Church of true believers And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin Which kind of absolute repâ—obation I never asserted nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants who onely make reprobation absolute in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other but his own will Rom. 9.11 12 13 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of Gods act I never said blindness is the effect of Gods reprobation as Mr. Bl. misreports me nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient but I said blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense as effect is taken for a consequent and that it was by blinding which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alledged by Mr. Bl. And if Gods severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitely no more then what Christ threatned Matth. 21.43 yet my argument holds good For the taking away of Gods Kingdome is not onely the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore and so the breaking off was by blinding and the ingraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election which was to be proved My 6th arg was If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from iniquity taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith But the former is true v. 26 27. Ergo the later Mr. S. saith To which I give a fair answer that doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall bee abundance of more glory brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new heavens and the new earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. litterally And so shall all Israel bee saved But get 1. they shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shal be ingraffed as they were broken off now they were broken off as a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this that the fulness of salvation and the vertues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Answ. 'T is a fair answer but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument there being neither of the premises denied but the minor granted expresly that the vertues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them which if true then none are ingraffed but elect persons and their ingraffing into the invisible Church now the ingraffing of the Gentiles was the same with the re-ingraffing of the Jews if then the Jews re ingraffing were into the invisible Church according to election so is
may be said oâ— Mr. Bl. answering me afore he had studied my writings he hath said enough to shew his folly and to work his shame My candour p. 23. is ordinary where there is the like cause I conceive the election of bodies societies or nations in the sense I have often given may bee as well into the invisible Church of true believers as into the visible Church of true professors and that the election of the Gentiles by which they were ingraffed was into the invisible Church of true believers Of Calvins and Bâ—cers words I shall say no more having not â—he books Mr. Bl. p. 314. adds Mr. G. syllogistically concluding that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy outward Church priviledges Mr. T. sect 4. replies that it is not either formally or equivalently the thing to be proved which is that the Christian Jews and their seed were in infancy to be baptised But by his favour he that concludes the whole concludes the parts of the whole Outward Church-priviledges is the whole baptism is a part of the whole concluding Church priviledges he concludes baptism as hee that can conclude Mr. T. is at Lempster or Sudbury concludes also that his head and shoulders are And if any priviledge bee concluded then baptism is concluded which is the leading one among Church-priviledges Answ. Omitting Mr. Bls. snarling at my dwellings in Lemster and Ledbury for so hee means I observe how well he pleads for Mr. G. who would have him conclude that the seed of Christians by a pure Gospel Covenant should enjoy in infancy outward Church-priviledges as a whole and consequently Baptism as a part Which if it were Mr. Gs. arguing hee should by the same reason have concluded their enjoying the Lords Supper and Church office Nor is the other plea much better For some priviledge may be concluded as laying on hands for a sign of prayer as Christ did and yet not baptism For though baptism be the leading priviledge after a person is brought to the faith yet afore a person is a believer if there be any leading Church-priviledg competent to infants it must be laying on of hands the Scripture giving no hint of any other The distinction I give in the first part of my Review sect 4. p. 28. is handsome being set down as it is by me there though Mr. Bl. carp at it for those priviledges which Mr. G. termes Gospel priviledges and I term so in answer to him as keeping his term I may say of them if they may be so called and not rather legal Mr. Bs. words the breaking off from the Church is an unavoidable consequence of the revoking of the gift of Churchmembership and the repealing of the ordinance therfore where there is no breaking off from the Church there is no such revoking or repealing do justifie the title of the 6th sect of the first part of my Review That the breaking off Rom. 11.17 was not by repeal of an ordinance concerning infants visible Churchmembership as Mr. B. conceive which Mr. Bl. opposeth with me And his first reason the deserving cause of that breaking off is unbelief now unbelief is not in infants much less proper to infants serves to prove that the infants of unbelievers are not broken off for unbelief is not in them and that infants of believers are not graffed in For as the deserving cause of breaking off iâ— unbelief which is not in infants so the means of graffing in by the rule of opposites is faith which is not in infants And when in his 2d reason he saith this breaking off was of the general body of the Church of the Jews that is the major part Now infants were not the generality they made not up the major part of that body this serves to answer what Mr. Bl. before p. 307. and elsewhere would infer that if the Gentiles or the body of them be elect then all must be so whereas the body according to himself may stand for the major part or generality which he denies infants to be and therefore the body and genâ—rality may be ingraffed and not infants Mr. Bls. exceptions against my distinctions of breaking off because breaking off implied a former union are vain for there may be a breaking off from that union which they had not in their own persons specially when the breaking off is of a people nor is it usual to term thâ—se acts privations of habits which take not away habits that were but might have been as when we are said to be redeemed delivered from hell to be cast out into outer darkness Matth. 8.12 though never in heaven But were not this right but non-sense yet Mr. â—ls exceptions against the distinctions is frivolous For in those distinctions I do not set down the wayes of breaking off that were actually but such as are imaginable which is necessary when we go about to argue by a disjunctive syllogism as all Logicians know Yet what Mr. Bl. saith excommunication is not the breaking off meant Rom. 11.17 20. For that is the act of the Church on some particular member But this here is the act of God which is by taking away the Kingdome by removing their Candlestick departing with his presence is right if understood of the subtracting of the presence of his spirit as well as his word Which is to be conceived for the word was offered and preached to them when they were broken off and therefore they were not broken off barely by subtracting that Besides the ingraffing is not by bare outward ordinances for they were vouchsafed even to the broken off and consequently the fâ—tness of the Olive is not the bare priviledge of outward Ordinances And if it be not the Churches act but Gods by which there is ingraffing then infants are not ingraffed who have no act of God to ingraff them but onely that of the Church or administratour of Baptism Mr. Bls. talk of the Ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership begun in the great Charter of heaven and continued is but vapouring Mr. Bl. mis recites Mr. Bs antecedent which was not as hee repeats it That the Jews were cast off for unbelief but that none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief which I denied and Mr. Bls. exceptions is frivolous But the text assignes unbelief Mr. T. assignes no other cause then that must stand To which I reply and so it doth by my answer and yet I do assign another cause Gods act of executing his decree of reprobation To what I said that the unbelief being positive Rom. 10.21 if none were broken off but unbelievers here meant no infants no not of infidels that never heard of Christ were broken off he saith we easily yeild his conclusion if he frame it in a syllogism that the infants of infidels that never heard of Christ were never broken off They could never be broken off that were never taken in A branch of a bramble was never broken off
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
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
iâ— his also but still baptism or to remove all pâ—â—sible mistake baptizing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 28.19 is an act of the Baptizer onely and so the Ceremony of receiving into Discipleship whomsoever they thus duely baptize I hope I need say no more of this Answ. I said not baptizing but Baptism the Ceremony not â—s the Dr. misâ—recites my words oâ— receivers into Discipleship but of receiving into discipleship is as truely the aâ—â— of the baptized thereby pâ—ofessing or avouching hâ—s discipleship as of the Baptizer and therefore the baptized is not meerly passive in it nor an infant doth undeâ—go it And I prove it thus 1. Baptism is a duty of the baptizâ—d as well as of the baptizer as may bee proved from Acts 2.38 where the Apostle exhorts them to repent and bee baptized every one of them in the Name of Christ Jesus for the remission of sins Now that which a man is exhorted to as his duty is his own act Ergo. Iâ— any say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the passive voice hee may understand that Luk. 11.38 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it bee the same sense and voice yet notes the action of the baptized 2. It is manifest also from the command to Paul Acts. 22.16 that baptism is the act of the baptized For first it is a thing commanded to bee done by him 2. It is in the middle voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which though I deny not to have a passive signification yet here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot have any other then active signification because of the accusative cause following so neither can the other both being injoyned as duties and the washing away sins being not meant of forgiveness of them but turning from them baptism being the signe of his repentance and both being to be joyned together Acts 2.38 and therefore Baptism being called Markâ— 4 Acts 19.4 3. Baptiâ—ing into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost notes the aâ—â— of tâ—e baptized as well as the baptizer and thiâ— is fully taught by Dr. Hammond himself practic cat lib. 6. sect 2. where he saith â— â— baptize thee into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost â— being prâ—scribed by Christ to his Disciples must indispensably be used and the meaning of them is double 1. On the Ministers part that what he doth hee doth noâ— of himselâ— but in the Name or power of or by Commission from the blessed Trinity which by the way I am sure none can 〈…〉 â—pparent 〈…〉 when they baptize infants much less when â—hey onely sprinkle them 2. And more especially in respect of the peâ—son baptized 1. That he acknowledges these three aâ—d by desiring baptism makes profession of that acknowledgment which is in effect the sum of the whole â—reed 2. That as he acknowledges these three so he delivers himself to them as to the three principles or authors of faith or Christian religion and acknowledges no other as such as to be baptised in the name of Paul signifieâ— to say I am of Paul i. e. toâ—â—â—has â—â—â—has and all other to receive for infallible truth whatsoever is taught by any of these and noâ—hing else 3. That he delivers himself up to be ruled as an obedient servant by the directions of this great master a willing Disciple of this blessed Trinity and so the Greek phrase â— into the name doth import and these thâ—ee acts of the baptised together make up his part by way of condition required of him to make him caâ—able of that grace which the Minister from God thus conveys upon and ensures unto him Besides which it notes the calling on the Name of the Father by the Son through the hâ—ly Spirit as Acts 22 1â— shews where Paul is bid to be baptized or baptize himself calling on the name of the Lord when baptized and this I have proved to be meant 〈◊〉 Luk. 3.21 and other 〈◊〉 Review part 2. sect 5. p. 8â— â—0 9â— So that baptism 〈◊〉 as well or rather more the ceâ—emony of thâ— baptized 〈◊〉 â—â— the baptizer Which might be proved from thoâ—e texts which speak 〈◊〉 the use of it as Rom. 6.3 4. Col. 2 1â— Gal. 3 26 27. 1 Cor. 12. â—3 in all which and sundry more the act of the baâ—tâ—zed is noted who dâ—th thereby signifie his baptism into â—hrists death being 〈◊〉 by baâ—tism into death and his rising to newness of life putting on Christ â—oyning into one body c. which I have cleered more fully in the same pâ—ace pag 6 97 8 â—9 And this the Dr saith 〈…〉 iâ— more especially meant by baâ—tising into the Name of the Father Son and Holy spirit 〈…〉 their act as wâ—ll as the administrators 4. Iâ— baptism were not as truely the act of the baptized as the baptizer tâ—en it should be tâ—uâ— baptism if the baptizer did dâ—p withâ—ut an concuâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of the bapâ—ized yea â—hough he weâ—e forced to it and against his will put undeâ— water and this were warrantably done by the baptizer For he should do what â—s prescribed But this is absurd neither School men nor any other allow such baptism vide Th. Aquin. sum part 3. qu. 68. art 7 10. The Spaniards driving the Indians into the water forcibly for baptism and their going in thus under water is excepted against as neither rightly done nor true baptism Therefore certainly baptizing prescribed Mat. 28.19 doth comprehend not onely the act of the administratour but also the act of the baptized in yeilding to it and concurring with it When Peter Acts 10.48 commanded Cornelius and those with him to be baptised in the name of the Lord there were three acts concurrent 1. The Apostles command by way of authority appointing it to be done 2. Oâ— the administratour by way of Ministry 3. Of the baptized by way of submission and putting himself under water Yet hee is noâ— thereby a meer Sebaptist as iâ— is reported some heretofore have been but is partly passive in consent and sâ—bmission to what the baptizer doth and partly aâ—tive in concurring with him So that my speech is cleered from being gross as â—â— Dr. would Dr. H. adds His second branch of exception is to those words of mine Wherein I say thaâ— the making or receiving Disciples supposeth not any precedent instruâ—tion but looks wholly on it as subsequent Against this I gave reasons of dissent thus 1. That which is exprest in Matthew by Go ye therefore and make Disciples all Nations is in Mark Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel â—o every living creature which sâ—ews how they should disciple all nations now they who are made Disciples by preaching the Gospel are made disciples by precedent instruction Ergo the making or receiving disciples Matth. 28.19 supposeth precedent instruction But to this saith the Dr. I answer 1. That the words in Mark are no otherwise parallel to those in Matthew then as an Epitome is
simply everlasting Mr. Cr. adds But the truth is it is not onely meant of the natural seed but of the spiritual seed of Abraham both whereof successively and in part if not altogether concomitantly for there were always Proselytes iâ— is everlasting or to the end of the world Answ. If Mr. Cr. meâ—n that to the natural seed who are also the spiritual seed the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is simply everlasting I grant it but this doth no way advantage Mr. Cr. For then it will onely follow that to such infants as are not onely the natural seed of Abraham or a believer but also are themselves believers God hath promised they shall be in Covenant under the Gospel which would not be true of all the infants of believers or any but the elect If he mean it as it is there meant as appears by the next words v. 8. being understood of the natural seed of Abraham of the nation or people of Israel and not of a remnant of them it can be true onely of a limited everlastingness and not at all of the Gentile believers infants and so is not at all for Mr. Crs. purpose But he tels me It follows not unless the same word in adjoyning verses must necessarily signifie the same thing which if so an argument might be drawn against the Infiniteness and Eternity of the Deity from these words God of Gods and Lord of Lords Gods and Lords in the latter signifies creatures therefore in the former but how inconsequently in both a child may judge Answ. My arguing needs not proceed thus but is good against Mr. Cr. thus The term everlasting signifies a limited everlastingness afore the Gospel v. 8. therefore it may be so meant v. 7. and if meant of the body of the Israelitish people who were the natural seed of Abraham it must be so meant otherwise it were not true And for his instance I think the arguâ—ent not good as he makes it yet it follows the term God doth not necessarily of it self infer infiniteness and eternity but when it is applâ—ed to the most High God the Creatour who is the God of Gods because it is sometimes spoken of Creatures But Mr. Cr. tels me That v. 8. can be true onely in one of these senses that they had title to all the Land of Canaan though not actual possession of it or that it was a type of the everlasting spiritual Canaan in which senses from Abraham they possessed it or that the plenary and full possession of the whole begins at the conversion of the Jews and shall last from thence to the end of the world without interruption because neither Abraham nor his seed had actual possession of all the Land of Canaan none of these will support Mr. T. his declining cause Answ. That the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 must be meant of that part of the earth so called is manifest from the expression wherein thou art a stranger or the land of thy sojournings and might be if need were proved by multitudes of other Scriptures And that the seed of Abraham is that which is natural and afore their later conversion is apparent from v. 9 10. where the seed to whom the land of Canaan is promised are enjoyned to be circumcised and the term possession v. 8. cannot be meant of a mere title for that 's implied in the words will give but the possessiâ—n is distinct from it and consequent upon it therefore I choose rather to untie Mr. Crs. knot by expounding it thus I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession but not altogether thou shalt possess a part in thy time as a pledge of the whole as his burying place was and thy seed in Joshua's and Davids time shall possess the whole and this shall be not onely a place to sojourn in but a possession for them to dwell in and that everlasting that is fâ—r many agâ—s as Phineâ—as his Priesthood is termed everlasting Numb 25.13 so long as they shall keep my Covenant and observe my statutes Now this will serve thus far to support my cause which is still standing and not declining to shew that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it is made to the natural seed of Abraham is termed everlasting that is for a limited time afore the Gospel which sense also the terms for ever and everlasting have Exod. 12.14 21.6 Numb 25.13 c and so the major Proposition of Mr. Cr. justly denied He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel Sect. 5. Mr. Cr. endeavours to draw Gal. 3.8 to his purpose to prove a continuance of the Gospel Covenant to the end of the world to Abraham and his seed by paraphrasing it thus That the Scripture foretold that God would justifie the Heathen through faith that is the partition Walâ— should be pulled down and the Heathen nations should profess faith as visible members whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible But besides his inept expression of heathen nations which is all one with nations nations he abuseth the text by paraphrasing through faith thus that the nations should profess faith as visible members when it should be shall be true believers as Abraham was and would justifie the nations by whereof some should be actually justified whereas the text mentions no other then should be justified and v. 9. terms them they that are of the faith who are blessed with Faithfull Abraham and onely meant by the nations v. 8. Mr. Cr. tels me 1. That I injuriously mis-report his allegation as that he urged this argument drawn from Gal. 3.8 to prove that Abrahams natural seed were promised to be in Covenant under the Gospel whereas he urged it to prove the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to have been a Gospel Covenant made with Abraham and his seed that is proprofessors and believers whether carnally descended from him or no. But sure he that reads his first argument in his Sermon p. 88 89. and his Defence p. 256. where his words are the minor I prove from Gen. 17.7 where the infants of believing parents are implied it being a Covenant not only established with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generatâ—ons for an everlasting Covenant by vertue of which Isaac and all succeeding male infants were circumcised now sure these were Abrahams natural seed and here the Covenant is everlasting and therefore according to Mr. Crs. reasoning to extend to the end of the world and the infants of believing parents who are their natural seed are he saith implied which can be no otherwise then as Abraham is imagined to be taken for each believer and the believers natural seed proportionably correspondent to Abrahams natural seed by prerogative of birth as he there speaks and then adds In Gal. 3.8 there is implied Abrahams seed in that it was a