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
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
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
An unmoved position That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church that is faith Hudson vindic ch 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian and a member of Christs visible Kingdom because â—he form viz. visible believing common to all Christians and all members is found in him And this may be proved out of Scripture which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of faâ—th in respect of which they are termed believers 1 Tim. 2.12 Acts 4.32 5.14 c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another of the parent church c. It is a meer novel device of Papists who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds and Paedobaptists who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties the Church their owners the nation believing their parents next or remote faith Which is a gross and absurd conceit For that in profession alone makes visible believers which makes in reality true believers But that 's a mans own faith Hab. 2.4 not anothers therefore a mans own and not anothers profession of faith makes a visible believer Again the form denominating must be inherent or in or belong to the person denominated so as that there is some union of iâ— to him but there is no inherence or union of anothers faith to an infant Ergo. Naturally there is none nor legally if there be â—et him that can shew by what grant of God it is Infants may have civil right to their parents goods a natural interest in their mothers milk parents and masters may have power over the bodies labour c. of their children and servants they have no power to convey Faith or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent But this conceit is so ridiculous that I need spend no more words to refute iâ— I subsume Infants make no profession of faith they are onely passive and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christiâ—ns as experience shews yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry and as they are able oppose it Ergo. To this faith Mr. M. I answer even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members though they were visible members of the Jewish Church But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can that the same thing to wit natural birth and Jewish descent and dwelling which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church doth denominate a christian visible church-member And till he do this the force of the argument remains 5. I argue If infants bee visible Christian church-members then there may be a visible Church christian which consists onely of infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive though not organical But this is absurd Ergo Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member To this Mr. M saith I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behinde them Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abrahams or Israels house which they might be though but infants But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ which infants cannot do and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may bee onely of infants of believers whereof not one is a believer by profesâ—ion not so of ths Jewish church 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose though it never were or should bee so in the event sith the absurdity followes upon that grant as well as the actual event 6. I argue If infants be visible Christian church-members then there is some cause thereof But there is none Ergo. The major is of it self evident every thing that is hath some cause by which it is The minor is proved thus If infants be visible-Christian church members by some cause then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some onely But of neither Ergo. I presume it will be said of some sith they account it a priviledge of believers infants But to the conttary there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members Mr. B. plain Script c. part 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause not so much as instrumental properly of the childes holiness by which he means visible Church-membership but he makes it a condition which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non of childrens holiness I answer saith he fully If this be the question what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness It is the actual believing of the parent For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings it is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing or of actual faith it were vain to say that the promise to our infants is oneâ—y to faith in the habit The habit is for the act yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act therefore it is both faith in the habit or potentia proxima and in the act that is necessary But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed either in actu procreandi vel tempore nativitatis vel baptismatis It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly or else he hath no habit of faith and hath not fallen away from Christ but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer and then the said act will follow in season and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth It is not therefore the meer bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift but the former act and present disposition Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onely cause efficient Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds
or which is all one any medium to prove his Conclusion by but only repeating the Conclusion in different phrases and those some of them new minted gibberish or non-sense sometimes the Major sometimes the Minor sometimes both However sith it is my task I shall view what he saith Page 92. he saith thus Which is apparent in the very first institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore and this is my Covenant which ye shall keep every man-child among you shall be circumcised and afterward in the fourteenth the seal is by a metonymia called the Covenant for that it is apparent not only that God commanded them who were in covenant to be circumcised but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant or in token of the Covenant between God and them and he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant So that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in Covenant I therefore concluded that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal supposing still they were capable of it So that to lay circumcision upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together for the command is the cause of the existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it Answ. Here is all Mr. Ms. strength to prove his Major that it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time and so forward should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant which he after alters thus Such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal But there is nothing but confusedness and impertinency in all this passage 1. He tells us There is the institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. which he must understand of an initial seal in general or indefinite or else it reacheth not to baptism and so it is impertinently alleged But it is palpably false that there is in those words any other initial seal instituted then circumcision and I dare boldly say it is a meer dotage to maintain that in those words there is any rule about baptism or any other ordinance of God then circumcision The very words are thou shalt keep my Covenant and this covenant is demonstrated to be male-circumcision and no other of which the time and part are precisely set down 2. He should prove that all that were in covenant had title to the initial seal or right but his Conclusion is of their duty not of their title Now it cannot be said to be infants duty the command was not given to them nor doth Mr. M. I think assert it as their duty but as their privilege and yet all that the text inferreth or Mr. M. concludes from it concerns the connexion between the duty of circumcising which belongs not to infants and the covenant not between the Privilege of circumcision passively taken which belongs to infants and the Covenant which is another impertinency 3. Be it granted that the proposition to be proved is of duty in parents or Ministers yet he is necessitated to grant the command was the cause of the existence of the duty and more plainly page 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God which if true there 's no duty without the command whatever interest there might be in the Covenant and therefore the proposition is true all that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal if it be commanded not otherwise and so neither infant-circumcision nor infant-baptism can be proved from the bare interest in the covenant without a particular command for each of them 4. He saith the Covenant of grace was the motive page 182. the Covenant of grace or their Church-state was the motive to it and the thing it related to But he tells us not to whom it was a motive A motive is an impulsive cause whereby a person is perswaded or induced to do a thing But it was not the motive to infants for they conceived not of it His words the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant do intimate that he means the covenant was the motive to God to give the command But what it makes to his purpose I do not conceive For though that were the motive to God yet Gods motive is not the rule of the duty but his command to us nor the evidence of our privilege but his declaration of his Will But be it a motive to Abraham yet it was but a motive for the more full engagement of him to that which without that motive he had been to do by reason of the Command nor any further evidence of privilege then was imported by other Declaration of Gods will 5. Though Circumcision did relate to the Covenant and it was received as an evidence of the Covenant yet this proves not that it was received by each person because he was in covenant nor that the being in Covenant was the rule of the using that rite that they which were in Covenant should have it and they that were not in Covenant should not have it which is the thing to be proved but is certainly false as I have by many instances shewed 6. If all this were granted yet that this rule did reach further then the use of circumcision is not proved here and what is brought elsewhere shall be shewed in it's place to be much short of proving any such general rule about an initial seal as is here by Mr. M. averred But let us see what his proof amounts to about circumcision 1. He urgeth That circumcision is called a token of the Covenant But this proves no more then this that the use of Circumcision was to be a sign God made such a Covenant and would fulfill it not that every one that was in Covenant was to be circumcised or that every one that was to be circumcised was in covenant 2. That it is termed the Covenant But this proves no more than the former sith it is acknowledged to be so called only by a metonymia of putting the thing signifyed for the sign 3. The particle therfore is thus urged God not only commanded them who were in covenant 〈◊〉 b◠circumcised but that they should therfore be circumcised because of the covenant or in token of the Covenant between God them But 1. The particle therfore though it be in our last translation yet in the Hebrew it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may be rendered And thou
Directory saith they are foederally holy before baptism It remains then that it is by Gods promise Now surely Gods promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 which is usually made the promise whereby infants of believers are in covenant was many thousand years since 430. years before the law Gal. 3.16.17 Therefore even according to the usual language of Paedobaptists infants of believers are in Covenant afore they are born which Mr. Bl. had no cause to carp at as he doth but that it is almost all his art especially when I had to prevent it so distinctly added to shew my meaning have the promise of grace made to them If Mr. Bl. have any other way whereby infants are in the covenant as the parents vow or profession or suretie for them according to it I suppose infants may be said to be in covenant afore they are born sith such vows profession and promises may be made for them afore they are born Let 's consider what M. B saith He tels us he reads not of a covenant actually made with any unborn And as I conceive by his Appendix to his Vindic. foederis as an addition to his first chapter his reason is because he conceives that it is of the general nature of a covenant properly so called that there be a mutual contract and agreement which I shall examine when I consider Mr. Cobbers part 1. c. 3. sect 9. of his Iust Vindic. For present if this be true neither can a Covenant be actually made with an infant born sith an infant born can no more contract or agree or consent then one unborn Nevertheless I conceive there is a covenant actually made with persons unborn Gen. 9.12 where God saith This is the token of the Covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you for perpetual generations which doth express a covenant actually made with every living creature of all flesh for perpetual generations therefore for thousands of persons unborn Yea where he saith he readeth of a Covenant entered into with those that were not present Deut. 29.15 he reads of a covenant made with persons unborn as Piscator Ainsworth Iackson Grotius the New Annot. The notes out of the Arch-bishop of Yorks Library c. do conceive and reason proves it sith that covenant was made only with Israel not with any other people then existent but there was none of all Israel then born which was not there that day as appears from v. 10. therfore those that were not there with them that day can be no other then persons unborn and so Mr. Blake saith not true that he hath not read of a covenant actually made with any unborn But were it granted that by them that were not present were meant persons existent then there is no reason why a covenant may not as well be said to be actually made with the unborn as with the absent who do not express any actual consent or agreement Surely if it be true that the Covenant of grace was made with Christ afore the world for all the elect or in the beginning of time Gen. 3.15 or at his death or resurrection as many Divines speak and sundry texts seem to intimate Gal. 3.16 1 Cor. 11.25 Tit. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.9 Joh. 6.38 39 40. Iohn 10.15 17 18 29 30. Iob. 17.9 10 20 24. Isa. 53.11 12. Psal. 2.7 8. Heb. 1.5 6. Heb. 10.7 15 16. Heb. 8.6 Heb. 13.20 it must of necessity be made with many persons unborn But Mr. Blake adds Mr. Tombs seems here to make the Covenant and election to be one and the same as by this passage so by that which follows but these Scripture still distinguishes To which I say it is true that I make the elect and those that are in the Covenant of grace one and the same but neither in that passage or any other do I make the covenant and election to be one and the same as Mr. Blake mistakes me He saith further We find promises and prophecies as to the taking into Covenant in time to come Ezek. 20.37 but not any such respective to election To which I say the prophecy of taking into Covenant Ierem. 31.33 34. is respective to election or else God promises to write his Laws in their hearts and not to remember their sins who are not elect He goes on All the promises of call of the Gentiles is to bring them into the privileges of glory formerly proper to the Jews To be in covenant was their great privilege And this is not conferred on the Gentiles before all time but done in time Isaiah 42.6 when he brings them light then he brings them into Covenant To which I say The Jews privileges were some of them as those Rom. 9.4 5. such as God never promised to the Gentiles to bring them to he never promised to make any entire nation little ones servants c. to be his visible Church But God promised to the Gentiles the saving privileges of justification adoption regeneration eternal life Ephes. 3.5 6. and this was onely to true believers or elect persons verse 11 12. And these were in Covenant in respect of Gods act of promise before they were in being in which sense alone infants may be said to be in the covenant of grace but in respect of the conferring of the things promised and the possession of them by faith so neither they then were in Covenant Ephes. 2.12 nor are infants now He adds That text Rom. 11.26 27 is too notoriously abused a prophecy of their future call into covenant is made a proof that they are already in covenant upon that account we may make the resurrection if not past as the antient Hereticks Hymenâ—us and Phileâ—us affirmed 2 Tim. 2.18 yet at least present There is like promise of the resurrection of the dead as there is of the call of the Jews into Covenant and resembled to the resurrection as Ezek. 37. so also Rom. 11.15 If by vertue of the text alleged they be already in covenant by virtue of like Texts the dead are already raised Answ. Had Mr. Bl. either heeded my words or been willing to give them any fair interpretation he had forborn this censure in which he doth too notoriously abuse me I said the Jews Rom. 11.26 27. not yet born or not yet called are in the Covenant have the promise of grace made to them which later words I put in on purpose to shew in what sense I said they were in covenant to wit in that they had the promise of grace made to them in which sense I took the Paedobaptists to mean that infants are in the covenant of grace nor do I yet know how they can mean otherwise and this is proved plainly from Rom. 11.26 27. That God hath promised to save all Israel to turn away ungodliness from Iacob and saith this is his covenant unto them when he shall take away their sins I say not they are in
than a malignant spirit towards me he would have judged that not to side with Jesuits but to keep my Oath which I took in the solemn Covenant I did oppose infant-baptism in maintaining of which he and the rest of the Paedobaptists have broken the covenant whereby they bound themselves to reform the worship of God after the Word of God And for what he chargeth me with that I borrow my weapons from the Jesuits though my denial is enough to acquit me from it there being none but knows my actions better than my self and with men not malevolent to me I think my words at least deserve as much credit concerning my own actions as Mr. Blakes yet as I said so I repeat it it appears to be a loud calumâ—y in that all along in my Examen and now in my other writings almost in every point I produce Protestants of good note concurring with me not onely in the point about the extent of the covenant Examen sect 4. part 3. and the holiness of children 1 Cor. 7.14 Exam. part 3. sect 8. Exerc. sect 5. Review part 1. sect 22. but also about the institution Mat. 28.19 Review part 2. sect 5. even in this point of the mixture of the covenant in the Section next before this Yea the Principle upon which I found all my dispute is that which Mr. Cotton in his Preface to his Dialogue for infant-baptism confesseth to be a main principle of purity and reformation And though Protestant writers do many of them oppose my conclusion yet they do agree with me in the premisses on which I build it to wit that Baptism is to be after the institution and that neither the institution nor practice in the New Testament was of Paedobaptism and all Paedobaptists whether Presbyterians or Independents who do hold that infâ—nts belong to the visible Church as the posterity of Abraham to the Jewish Church â—o injuriously keep them whose Baptism they avouch to be good and to be viâ—â—ble Church-members from the Lords Supper for want of knowlâ—dg as for what he tells me He can trace me out of some Jesuit in what I deâ—â—â—er â—bout the Covenant and Seal though I do not yet believe it yet there is no reason therefore to reject it as Doctor 〈◊〉 saith truly Bishop Morton in his Apology hath produced Popish writers and many of them Jesuits who deliver the same things which the Protestants do yet this is so fâ—r from discrediting their cause that it is justly counted a good plea for them and why should not the like plea be good on my behalf sith Jesuits are Adversaries to me as well as others But enough if not too much in answer to these calumnies sufficiently answered before Postscript Sect. 13. Mr. Blake proceeds thus Secondly if Circumcision have respect to those promises that were no Gospel-mercies but civil domestical restrained to Jews and not appertaining to Christians How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion it might have made a civil distinction and the want of it have been an evidence against other Nations that they had been none of the multiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh and that their interest had not been in Canaan But how could it have concluded them to have been without Christ strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision Ephes. 2.11 12. cannot be imagined Ans. 1. Circumcision did not make such a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion as that every circumcised person was of the Jewish Religion for if the posterity of Ishmael and Esau were not circumcised as Mahometans at this day which some Historians say of them at least for a time that they were yet Ahab and other worshiperps of Baal were of the posterity of Jacob and the Samaritans as Mr. Mede in his Discourse on John 4.23 were circumcised yet were not of the Jewsh Religion or at least there was a distinction in Religion between them John 4.22 Noâ— every one that worshipped the same God with the Jews was circumcised Cornelius and many other Proselytes of the gate owned the God and spiritual worship and moral Law of the Jews though they were not circumcised as Mr. Mede proves in his Discourse on Acts 17.4 nor doth the Apostle Ephes. 2.11 12. determine upon their uncircumcision that is conclude them without hope without God barely from their uncircumcision as if he held all uncircumcised were without hope without God but he onely sets those things down as concurrent not one the certain cause or sign of the other 2. Circumcision did distinguish between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion not because it sealed Gospel-mercies nor because it sealed promises of civil or domestick benefits but because it bound to the observance of the Law of Moses in respect of the observation of which the distinction in Religion was known by Circumcision not by its sealing the covenant-promises either Evangelical or civil and domestick 3. If the distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion were made by Circumcision as sealing the covenant Gen. 17. it might have made a religious distinction by my Tenet who hold it signed the spiritual promises though not them onely as wel as by Mr. Blakes The next thing which Mr. Blake urgeth against me from Jerem. 4.4 Rom. 2.28 Deut. 10.16 Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 44.9 is that Circumcision had relation to promises spiritual which is not denied nor any thing against the mixture I hold in the covenant nor to evacuate any inference I make from it In like manner the fourth tends to prove that Circumcision did not respect alone the civil interest of the Jews which I grant But the fifth thing urged by Mr. Blake needs some examination Fifthly saith he How is it that the Apostle giving a definition of Circumcision refers it to nothing rational civil or domestick but onely to that which is purely spiritual speaking of Abraham he saith he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised The righteousness of faith is a promise purely Evangelical Rom. 3.22 3.30 10.3 Phil. 3.8 and this Circumcision sealed the self-same thing that our Sacraments seal Answer The Apostle doth not give a definition of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 12. For 1. that which is to be defined is say Logicians a common term but Circumcision Rom. 4.11 is not a common term but a singular or individual to wit that which Abraham had in his own person it is that which he received and the time is noted to be after he had righteousness by faith which he had yet being uncircumcised for a singular privilege to be the father of believers Ergo 2. There is no genus nor difference of Circumcision from other things therefore no definition No genus for the term seal cannot be the genus it being a meer Metaphor and so
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
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
by a moral or civil action and not by a mere physical action which is unfit to produce such an alien effect and can go no higher then itâ—s own kinde What sense therefore I should put on your words without making them appear unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse I cannot tell For to say It is not a law but legislation is all one as to say It is not the fundamentum but the laying of that foundation that causeth the relation or from which it doth result And to say it is an alien physical act which hath no such thing as right for us subject or terminus is to confound physick and morals and to speak the grossest absurdities as to say that the transient fact of eating drinking going building c. do adopt such an one to be your heir I must needs think therefore till you have better cleared your self that you have here quit your self as ill and forsaken and delivered up your Cause as palpably as ever I knew man do without an express confession that it is naught When men must bee taught by this obtuse subtilty to prove that infants Churchmembership needed no revocation forsooth because their Churchmembership was not caused by a law precept promise or covenant but by a transeunt fact then which as you leave it the world hath scarce heard a more incoherent dream But I pray you remember in your reply that you being the affirmer of this must prove it Which I shall expect when you can prove that you can generate a man by spitting or blowing your nose or by plowing and sowing can produce Kings and Emperours Answ. I make not the Jews infants visible Churchmembers by bare legislation or promise-making but by the transeunt fact described in my Letters which was without promise or precept that is promise of it on condition of the parents faith or precept of accepting that offered mercy entering into Covenant and re-ingaging them to God which are the promise and precept Mr. B derives their visible Church-membership from Infants were visible Churchmembers among the Jewes in that they were visibly a part of that people who were Gods Church So that to visible Churchmembership was requisite 1. that God should make that people hâ—s Church this he did by the transeunt fact described 2. That the infants should be visibly a part of that people this he did by their bringing into the world ranking them among his people so as that they were discernable by their birth nursing circumcision habitation genealogy and such other signes to bee part of that Church Their visible Churchmembership imports a state of visibility in the relations 1. of a part to the whole 2. of a people that are Gods that is 1. separated from other people 2. called and taken or brought to God These things are done by various acts which I conceive I did fitly call a transeunt fact A physical and moral cause are thus described by Scheibler Metaphys lib. 1. c. 22. tit 13. Topic. c. 3. tit 14. Stierius part Gen Metaph. c. 12. A Physical or natural Cause is that which truly flows into the effect and nextly reacheth it by its activity A Moral Cause is that which doth not flow into the effect so as to reach to it yet so behaves himself that the effect may be imputed to him to praise or dispraise reward or punishment Such are causes applying the agent to the patient counselling commanding perswading exhorting instigating meriting permitting when they might and should binder c. Visible Churchmembership is not as Mr. B. conceives it formally a right to a benefit or a benefit though it may be so consecutively or they may follow on it But it is a complex term noting a state with a douâ—le relation and imports a natural effect or term of action as well if not more then a moral and is from physical as well as moral causes and in infants visible Churchmembership I judge it altogether an effect of a physical cause as not knowing any moral action of God or man that makes them such though to the visible Churchmembership of the people or body of which they are a part acts physical and moral do concur which I shall clear in answering Mr. Bs. exceptions to my last Letter to him As for his outcries of grossest absurdities incoherent dreams unreasonable even much below the rates of ordinary rational peoples discourse contemptible arguing obtuse subtility contradictions palpable forsaking and delivering up my Cause generating a man by spitting or blowing my nose with the rest of his Canine Scoptical Rhetorick I pass by it as being of ill savour hoping Mr. B. will in time come to better consideration of his writings and either shew me my errour or discern his own Mr. B. goes on thus In consideration of the 7th Qu. I shall consider the nature and effect of the transient fact which you here describe And first of the reason of that name You say that you call it transeunt because done in time and so not eternal and past and so not in congruous sense repealeable as a law ordinance statute decree which determines such a thing shall be for the future And do you think this the common sense of the word or a fit reason of your application of it to the thing in hand Answ. I do 1. Saith Mr. B. I think your intellection and volition are immanent acts and yet not eternal Answ. Yet all Gods immanent acts of whom I spake are eternal We use saith he to contradistinguish transient acts from immanent and that because they do transire in subjectum extraneum Answ. So do I. But it seems you take them here as distinct from permanent Answ. Yea and immanent too But use your sence as long as we understand it Answ. With your good leave then I may use this term if you understand it if not I must alter it 2. Saith Mr. B. If it be onely past actions which you call transeunt it seems your long fact which was so many hundred years in doing was no transeunt fact till the end of all those years and so did not by your own doctrine make any Churchmembers till the end of those years Answ. It doth but seem so the truth is in this long fact each particular act was a transeunt fact in each year and in each age and space of time in which those acts were done Churchmembers were made by one or more of those and other acts used by God to that end and yet the transeunt fact not so fully accomplished but that there was an addition till that people came to thei◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature in which respect I comprehended all those many acts which I set down under the name of a transeunt fact which I hope when he understands it Mr. B. will give me leave to do 3. Saith he But Sir the question is not Whether it were a transeunt fact
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
may further them Of which though much may be said I shall say no more because I will not stand on things so much questioned Answ. I might then well have omitted this as of no validity but to shew the multiplicity of Paedobaptists errours He gâ—es on thus I come next to prove from other parts of Scripture That the fundamental promise of Grace is thus to â—e interpreted as including infants 1. If the same Covenant of grace when it is more fully and clearly opened do expresly comprehend infants as to be Churchmembers then is this fundamental promise so to be understood or then doth this also comprehend them But the antecedent is certain therefore so is the consequent The antecedent I prove from the Covenant of grace made to Abraham the father of the faithful which comprehended infants for Churchmembers The Covenant made with Abraham comprehending infants was the same with this in Gen. 3. but in some things clearlier opened Which is proved thus Both these were the Covenant of grace and free justification by faith in the Redeemer therefore they were the same For there is but one such If Abraham had some special promises additional to the main Covenant that makes not the Covenant of free justification by faith to be divers That this in Gen. 3. is the promise or Covenant of grace and free justification is not denied that I know of That the promise to Abraham was the same is evident from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal was the Covenant of free justification by faith Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of Faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of believers c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law buâ— through the righteousness of faith Now it 's certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed did comprehend infants The consequence of the mâ—jor then iâ— evident that the same promise expressed more concisely is to bee expounded by the same expressed more fully And it 's acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees Answ. That the fundamental promise of grace Gen. 3.15 did include infants was never denied by me and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it This I deny that it includes all infants or all infants of believers and that any infant is made a visible Churchmember by that promise as the next cause or the sole efficient which is Mr. Bs. term neither of these is proved by him I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical grace though mixt as I have often shewed and that it did include infants and that they were Churchmembers to wit of the invisible Church of the elect I mean so many as the Covenant of Evangelical grace was made to I grant also that Abrahams infants in his house were visible Churchmembers but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical but by vertue of the transeunt fact before asserted by me and if in any respect by vertue of the Covenant it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather thâ—n Evangelical So that although I deny that from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. it is proved that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen 17. and that the promises Gen. 17.4.5 6 8. were additional to the main Covenant and not as well the main Covenant as v. 7 yet I grant Mr. Bs. conclusions which he here infers that the promises Gen. 3.15 17.7 did comprehend infants that there is but one Covenant of free justification by faith in both places that the one may explain the other that infants were from the beginning Churchmembers that is members of the invisible Church of the â—lect But this I deny that this is true of all or perhaâ—s onely of the infants of believers or that because they are of the invisible therefore they are members of the visible Church there being more required to make visible Church-members then election the Covenant of grace and parents faith But Mr. B. adds â— That the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Churchmember that had infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose infants also were not Churchmembers Except onely the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism unto Christ. And whether their infants be Churchmembers I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one infant of a Churchmember in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Churchmember except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Answ. Mr. B. undertakes to prove Gods constant administration but instead of proving sends me a challenge and hoâ—ly urgeth me to answer it which course indeed is ridiculous to the intelligent yet subdolous as taking much with shallow heads who know not the laws of Dispute as if he got the better of me if I did not answer it But let such know 1 That it is Mr. Bs. part now to prove mine onely to answer 2. That if I could not answer either through defâ—ct of reading memory histories in such matters or such like cause yet this is no proof of Mr. Bs. assertion 3. That I have no reason to answer Mr. Bs. questions and challenges but his arguments 1. Because I find a meer captious spirit in him seeking advantage to himself from my words which he very seldome doth rightly represent to the Reader when he wants proof of his assertions as appears most evidently in this his answer to my Letter in which he hath gathered almost half his answer besides the business propounded from my writing to him 2. That the understandings of men even of Scholiers and Learned men are so superficial or so partial that without ever examining yea or reading my writings upon Mr. Bs. exclamations and vile suggestions of me and mine answers they do most unrighteously and like men that seek not the truth conclude on his side scorn and speak evil of me and the cause I assert which is indeed the cause of Christ of which I have much experience 4. Nevertheless I answer his challenge categorically thus 1. No infant born of a Churchmember was a visible Churchmember in the Christian Church or any other besides that of the Nation of the Hebrews as I have proved before
without fear of forfeiting my Christianity And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer Christ did come to make Jew believers children in some respect that is of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable or under persecution and so in a worse condition and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness but a Saviour of them this worse condition working for their eternal good Nor is it any absurdity to say he that would not accuse the adulterous woman would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraignty as a Rector not of punitive justice as a Judge But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also and to his proof I give the same answer which he thus exagitates Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say before many thousand witnesses I think and that is this He saith plainly That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now then in it then Which â— thought a Christian could scarse have believed 1. Are all those glorious things spoken of the City of God and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth which if there had been many more witnesses I should stiâ—l avouch as part of my faith and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chriâ—â—ian and not a Jew hee should believe it too For were not the Jews infanâ—s by their visible Churchmembership bound to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law was not thiâ— an heavie and intollerable yoke Iâ— it not a mercy to be freed from it What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infanâ—s of believing Jews now lose by not being Christian visible Churchmembers I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing which doth not aâ— well come to an infant of a believer unbaptizâ—d or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized or admitted or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine which is not by his own Dare he say that the promises of saviâ—g grace or protection or other blessings are not belonging to them because unbaptized not admitted visible Churchmembers If he dare not let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian and tragically to represent it as cruel and uncomfortable to parents and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth but like an Oratour raise passion without judgement and endâ—avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious which course will at last redound to his shame if it do not pierce his conscieâ—ce I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates that it is now better to be out of any Church then it but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now then to be in it then meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then And for that passage that glorious things are spoken of the City of God to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged For that speech is meant of Jerusalem or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob Psal. 87.1 2 3. not of all the Jewish Church and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25 Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children which proves my position Mr. B. adds 2. Then the Gentiles Pagans infants now are happier then the Jews were then for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church Answ. It follows not from my position which was of Christian believers infants with those promises and probabilities they have and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have are happier then the Jews were then But saith he I were best to argue it a little further 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himself to be their God and taketh them to be his peculiar people then to be out of that Covenant then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then then to be out of that and this too But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God then out of it Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither The antecedent is undeniable The consequence is clear in these two conclusions 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God This I proved Deut. 29.11 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text you may see in the end 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance or mercy answerable If there be let some body shew it which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership Answ. If the Covenant be meant as I have proved before sect 64. it is of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Canaan if they kept the law of Moses then the antecedent is not undeniable but it is most true that the condition of believers and their children now with the exhibition of Christ the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him is betâ—er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it But the consequence was also denied because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace neither of his conclusions are true nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11 12. For if it were true that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God which they might do and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God siâ—h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant but to them that keep it yea if it were that they were in that covenant yet that covenant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws it being made conditionally and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church or to none but those who are believers who were not all the inchurched Jews Nor is the second conclusion true there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who
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
the practise of the Gospel worship but onely baptized And so Mr. Cs. answer is a strengthening of the argument Enough in answer to Mr. C. being unwilling to make more exceptions on passages which need correction why I have said so much the reason is given sect 77. SECT LXXXIII Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. M. in his 4th conclusion would have it IN the Defence of his 4th and 5th concl against my Examen Mr. M. saith he will contract and accordingly I shall be brief in my reply He grants the order of circumcising infants is repealed as I answered in examining his 4th concl but would have it added that by Gods order Baptism succeeds in the room of it which I have refuted Then upon my saying that Circumcision was not a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant he censures this as pure Anabaptism leaving out injuriously my limitation to all that were circumcised which if fairly added had cleared me and perhaps if the so called Anabaptists had been rightly understood they had been found as innocent as my self in this thing I see enough in Paedobaptists dealing with me to shew how great likelihood there is that the words of the Anabaptists in Germany were perverted Mr. M. p. 180 181. excepts against me for saying that Ishmael and Esau had no part in the Covenant denies that Ishmael had no part in it when he himself grants that they did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant which is all one with that which I say that the Covenant of grace was not made to them they had no part in it For sure they to whom the Covenant of grace is made and have part in it are all partakers of the spiritual graces of the Covenant or else God keeps not his promise and for this I bring Gen. 17.19 20 21. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. though I needed not having Mr. Ms. own confession and therefore it is most false he saith I bring not one shadow of a proof for what I say But Mr. M. thinks to maintain his speech that Ishmael had part in the Covenant in that he was reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant and obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it to have his heart circumcised and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed Answ. 1. It is contrary to Gen. 7.19 20 21. to say that Ishmael by Circumcision did belong to the Covenant it runs upon this palpable mistake that every one that was circumcised had thereby the Covenant sealed to him 2. Those that were uncircumcised all the people of the world were obliged to seek after the spiritual graces of the Covenant to be holy to believe yet this doth not prove they had a part in the Covenant and therefore this answer of Mr. M. is frivolous And so likewise is that which he saith in answer to my words not rightly set down my words were not right to Evangelical promises or any other benefit that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason I added and adequate why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together In which 1. he shews not whose motive it was Gods or mans If he mean it was Gods to command it it is nothing to the purpose to shew right to the Covenant of grace to have been the proper adequate reason of the persons to be circumcised if mans motive it is false whether we understand it of â—he circumcised who were infants and therefore had no motive to it but were passive onely or the circumciser for in â—brahams circumcising Ishmael Mr. M. saith I have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant and a vâ—sible â—â—anding in the Church though he who administers the seal might by revelation know the inward grace is wanting Were his answer granâ—ed yet it proves not the contrary to my speech but confirms it though this point be one of the hinges on which his first main argument turns For iâ— it be true that the adequate reason oâ— peâ—sons circumcising was not right to the Evangelical promises or other benefit in the Covenant but Gods precâ—pt onely then the pillar of Mr. Ms argument fâ—lls to the ground All that are in the covenant are to be sealed it being onely true thus All in the Covenant whom God haâ—h commanded 〈◊〉 sealed are to be sealed What he saith after that I grant what is in controversie because I grant men may have a visible membership in the Church though they be not elected or sanctified it is alike frivolous it being never in controversie but whether any may be said to be in or under the Covenant of grace or to have the Covenant of grace made to them who are non elect and never sanctified That which Mr. M. p. 182. calls a piece of odd Divinity that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised being understood as I express it of Abrahams personal Circumcision is the Apostles express Divinity Rom. 4.11 12. whose scope say New England Elders in answer to the 3d. and 4th position p. 65. rightly in that place is not to define a Sacrament nor to shew what is the proper adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith c. Nor is this any more odd Divinity then Mr. Ms. who asserts women virtually circumcised in the males That which he saith that visible professours have a visible right to the spiritual part of Circumcision I conceive false For though they had a right to Circumcision or Baptism which they might receive of men yet they had no right at all to forgiveness of sins justification adoption salvation which are onely from God and onely true believers had right to That which he saith p. 182. that Circumcision was given the Jews in reference to their Church state not in reference to their civil state is not true but said upon a mistake as if the Church state and Civil were different in the Jewish Commonwealth That which he confesseth that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God is enough to shew that interest in the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision but the command of God and therefore without shewing a command for infant Baptism this is no good argument they are in the Covenant therefore to be baptized which enervates all Mr. Ms. dispute But he adds The Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to and this fully answers the objection for it was
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.
repent and then to be baptized no rule by which the baptizer is to administer it or the baptized to claim it as his right without his personal repentance and declaration of his faith in Christ into whose name he is to be baptized He adds So Act. 10. Peter saith there is no let to their Baptism and thereof he maketh the visibility of that Covenant grace although common to reprobates also in those first times his groundwork gathering thereby that they were not as formerly prophane unclean and outlaries from the Covenant as Ephes. 2.11 12. but clean and nigh as they themselves were Ans. It is true there was no let to Cornelius his Baptism and those other who were with him yet not meerly because of their extraordinary gifts but because those gifts were manifested by their glorifying God and as may be gathered from Act. 11.17 18. their glorifying God contained expressions of faith in Christ and repentance which whosoever should do as they did it is without doubt they should be baptized But Mr. Cs. Covenant interest of infants who make no shews of faith and repentance as they did Act. 10.46 yeelds no warrant for their Baptism He goes on Washing of regeneration is not grounded on any thing in us or without us so much as on Gods grace and so Covenant favour Tit. 3.5 Answ. It is true this is the inward impulsive cause why God regenerates but Gods grace and Covenant favour is no rule to a Minister to baptize by sith it is an unknown thing which agrees not with the property of a rule Hence also saith Mr. C. by Baptism persons are not sealed into any thing in them so much as into the name of the Father Son and Spirit even into the Covenant name of grace whereby he is known and into Covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinity to which every baptized person prove he elect or reprobate yet is thus externally sealed Answ. The terming of baptizing sealing and the name of the Father Son and Spirit the Covenant name of grace are Mr. Cs. new-minted phrases if this be his meaning that every person rightly baptized whether he be elect or reprobate is sealed by God that is in Baptism assured of fellowship with the Trinity according to the new Covenant of Gospel grace I deny it if onely that he professeth his communion to be with them I grant it but this proves not that Covenant interest of infants who make no such profession intitles them to Baptism Again saith he That fellowship with Christ as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgement of verity or charity such it is all but Covenant grace and blessing Answ. Be it so yet what this is to prove such fellowship to be a rule to baptize infants I see not Of old saith Mr. C. the consequent cause of the seal was grace in them and theirs but the antecedent cause was Gods Covenant grace to them and on them Gen. 17.7 8 9. Deut. 30.6 and so now that part of Abrahams Covenant was not then appliable to infants scil walk before me c. but yet that was then appliable I will be their God I will circumcise their hearts and that sufficed them as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now Answ. What may be said to be a consequent cause I do not yet conceive the rule of Logick I have learned is that the cause is before the effect Yet what ever it be Mr. C. means though it might suffice for Circumcision it doth not for Baptism nor is that to be regulated by Analogy of Circumcision as is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 2 3. Yet again In a word the seal is a seal not of nor to the commandment but covenant this therefore is the main and principal in the application of it Answ. If Baptism be a seal it seems to me not a seal of or to the commandment or covenant but the profession of the baptized and therefore this is the main and principal in the application of it Yet more It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force in the fruit of the initiatory seal and the application of it Ephes. 5.25.26 and why shall not the external interest in the covenant have chief influence into the external interest as well of the application of the initiatory seal Answ. I understand not what fruit of the initiatory seal he means nor what is the external interest in the Covenant the word Ephes. 5.25 26. Is meant of the word preached which is not instrumental to infants for any santification or cleansing their meant The want of Gods appointment is the reason of not applying Baptism to infants Once more By external interest in the Covenant persons so interested come to have external interest at least to the final causes of Baptism as Covenant mercy and blessing the Spirit Christ resurrection c. Tit. 3 8. and 1. Cor 12.12 13. 1. Pet. 3.21 And therefore as well so farre inrighted in the initiatory seal of it whether they are adult or infants Answ. 1. External interest in the covenant external interest in the final causes of Baptism are notions I understand not 2. Covenant mercy and blessing the spirit Christs resurrection are not final cause of Baptism for then when the end of Baptism is attained they should be effects of Baptism for the end in intention is the effect in execution But this is too absurd 3. An inrighting so far in the initiatory seal which intimates a man may have an inrighting so far to such a measure and no further is another new notion I understand not 4. If Mr. Cs. antecedent had sense or truth yet the consequence is to be denied no other interest external is inrighting to Baptism but that which is according to the institution Matth. 28.19 discipleship or profession of faith To the 8th Sect. I answer by denying that the Covenant priviledge of grace Evangelical hath such distinction of principal and less principal counter parties as Mr. means C. unless he understand by Christ the principal and the elect and true believers the less principal as Gal. 3.16 and that the Covenant priviledges of grace Evangelical belong to any other then the elect yet I grant the Covenant Gen. 17. and many priviledges of Divine grace which were not Evangelical did belong to many of the Israelites who made no good use thereof The Covenant Evangelical was never sealed personally to Ishmael That which Mr. C. dictates without proof about the everlasting covenant and the initial seal in its generical nature is answered here sect 80. and the point about the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed sect 50 c. and the non-inclusion of infants Matth. 28.19 under the term nation is shewed there and in the second part of this Review sect 9. The position of Mr. Cs. sect 9. may be granted though Acts 2.38 39. make nothing for it Sect. 10. Mr. C. proves nothing but that parents were to
less reasonable account given then of putting it in the present tense in English 2. That the enallage or change of tense is frequent ch 11.24 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the present tense for the future and here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the next v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter for the present and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here not hath been but is sanctified or if in the preter tense yet that to be understood of a past thing yet continued as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 3.18 notes an act still continued in force To these two I reply briefly and first to the former the same which hee had mentioned before and excepted against as an excess in my paraphrase but both there and here without the least cause For in my paraphrase I look upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a verb of the preter tense and as such onely adapt the sense to it referring it not to future hopes but to past experiments or examples onely because examples are rhetorical syllogismes and what hath been frequently experimented may also reasonably be hoped I suppose that the Apostle so meant these examples as grounds of hoping the like for the future not making this of the future any part of the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the preter but explicating the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rational importance which is somewhat more then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Apostles speech and supposing this conclusion to lye hid under this premise as it is ordinary in all discourse to set down the â—remises distinctly leaving the conclusion by every ones reason to be drawn from thence without setting it down explicitly Answ. That the Dr. in his paraphrase qu. 4. § 31. of his letter put so much as I have noted Review part 2. sect 26. of which there is nothing in the text expressed is not justified by this plea. For what ever addition a paraphrast be allowed yet sure no paraphrast is allowed to express that which he conceives it deducible from the sense of the words in thirteen lines and the sense it self onely in three and especially when he layes that in his paraphrase as the ground of his argument for his position which hath not a word in the text to leade to that inference Sure I had great cause to except against his paraphrase which was so monstrous as to be defective in letting down what was the chief thing to be heeded in the Apostles speech to wit the relation of husband and wife and so extremely exuberant as to express that as done often which is mentioned in the singular number onely and ascribe the sanctifying to the conversation not at all expressed and put in a long inference that hath no intimation in the text and mention an act of the Church of which there is no inkling there or near it or any where else in Scripture and so many wayes corrupting the sense as I shew ubi suprà especially in the main supposing a mention made of a husband converted by the wife and yet the husband expressed by the Apostle as continuing an unbeliever and a husbands being sanctified by the wife which is ever ascribed to Gods spirit never to any Apostle to make that which is used as a reason of lawfulness as if it were a motive from an advantage to make that as a Rhetorical motive which is a Logical proof to make that which was a rare contingent event which might and it's likely did as often fail as a convincing argument to settle the conscience in the lawfulness of cohabitation with other faults as being so audacious an attempt as I think no approved writer can bee shewed to have made nor any considerate Reader will allow of Nor would it ever have come into my thoughts that so learned a man as Dr Hammond is should have vented such a conceit as this is in his Letter and Annotations did I not finde him set to maintain what the Church of England that is the Prelates held or appointed as others what the Scottish or New-English Churches approve of As for his excuse of his dealing in his paraphrase it is too narrow a plaister for such a sore For neither is any thing 1 Cor. 7.14 set down as an example to move the will the judgement being before setled nor any Rhetorical syllogism used but a Logical as the termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Rom. 11.6 1 Cor. 15.14 18 29 c. shew nor doth the Dr. prove but suppose the Apostle so meant nor doth he answer the allegations I bring to the contrary Review par 2. § 26. And his words here do imply as if this were the conclusion that it is probable and a ground of hope that the unbelieving yoke fellow will be converted by the believer cohabiting and this the premise for it hath often so come to pass whereas there is not the least intimation of that conclusion in the text and it is manifest by the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that v. 14. is a proof of the determination or conclusion v. 12 13. concerning the lawfulness of married persons living together in disparity of religion not of Dr. Hammonds imagined as tacitely implied conclusion But hee saith Wherein that I was not mistaken I had all assurance from v. 16. where the argument is prest and the conclusion inferred more explicitely For what knowest thou O wife whether thou shalt save thy husband and the like mentioned in the paraphrase from 1 Pet. 3.1 Answ. Dr. Hammond had no assurance from v. 16. that the unbelieving husband is oft converted by the wife the thing being expressed so doubtfully as an uncertain contingent though possible and so with some hope sperable Hierom. com in 1 Cor. 7.14 In dubium quidem â—osuit sed semper ambiguam melius evenire credenda sunt much less that there is a conclusion of the probability of the converting of the infidel yokeâ—fellow v. 14. deducible from the example and experiment of what was done in time past v. 16. being neither explication nor proof of what is said v. 14. but a motive to make the thing determined as lawfull v. 12 13. more swasible or a motive to what is said v. 15. that God hath called us in peace In my apprehension if v. 14. were as the Dr. meanes the unbelieving husband hath been sanctified that is converted by the wife often and therefore it is probable or there is a ground of hope or it is to be presumed it will be so for the future the Apostle had said the same v. 14. which is said v. 16. and so there would have been a meer tautology in the Apostles speeches which is not to bee conceived As for 1 Pet. 3 1. though it shew such an event possible yet not frequent nor is there in Peters words the least hint that Pauls words 1 Cor. 7.14 are
powers were to preach and baptize those that received their doctrine SECT XCVIII The testimonies of Cyprian Augustin and other Latin Fathers for Infant Baptism are shewed to have come from their mistakes and the evidences why the antiquity of Infant Baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended are vindicated I Now return to the examination of the Testimonies brought out of the rest of the Latin Fathers besides Tertullian for infant Baptism whereof Cyprian was the chief and his testimony is thus urged by Dr. Hammond Defence of infant Baptism chap. 4. sect 2. p. 99. In the midst of this third Age An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bp. of Carthage and ten years after he suffered martyrdome i. e. 158 years after the Age of the Apostles In the year 257 he sate in Councel with 66 Bishops see Justellus in his preface to the African Canons p. 21. and their Decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem which is now among his works â—amel edit p. 80. The Councel was in answer to some questions about Baptism and accordingly he there sets down his own opinion together with the Decrees of that Councel of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him And so this as it is an ancient so it is more then a single testimony that of a whole Councel added to it and yet farther to encrease the authority of it 〈◊〉 cites this Epistle more then once and sets it down almost entire 〈◊〉 a testimony of great weight against hereticks and so 't is â—â—ed by S. Hierom also l. 3. dial cont Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus whether infants might be baptized the second or third day or whether as in Circumcision the eighth day were not to be expected he answers in the name of the Councel universi judicavimus 't was the resolution or sentence of all nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denigandam that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denied to any human birth to any child though never so young by that phrase mercy and grace of God evidently meaning Baptism the right of conveying them to the baptized adding that 't is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized is given to them in a greater or less degree in respect of the age of the receivers and that God as he accepts not the person so nor the age of any confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean and that if any were to be kepâ— from Baptism it should rather be those of full age who have committed the greater sins and that seeing men when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptism how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden who being new born hath no sin upon him but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born who therefore should more easily bee admitted to pardon because they are not his own but others sins which are then remitted to him concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptism so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new-born children Thus much and more was the sentence of that ancient Father and that Councel and as the occasion of that determination was not any Antipaedobaptist doctrine there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church that we can hear of but a conceit of one that it should be deferr'd to the eigth day which was as much infancy as the first and so both parties were eâ—ually contrary to the Antiâ—aedobaptists interests the condemned as well as the Judges so that it is no new doctrine that was then decreed or peculiar to S. Cyprian who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptism appears also by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him and by the express words of St. August Ep. 28. ad Hieronym Blessed Cyprian not making any new decree but keeping the faith of the Church most firm decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops that a child new born might fitly be baptized Which shews it the resolution of that Father also that baptizing of infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time not onely the opinion but the â—aith which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles Answ. I have been willing to set down these words at large sith none urgeth this authority more fully though Mr. M. Dr. H. Mr. B c. do all alledge it and it is the chiefest of all the testimonies Augustin produced for infant Baptism and therefore was translated by me into English and printed at the end of my praecursor Concerning which act Mr. B. praefest mor. p. 401. saith thus It seems to me God ordered Mr. T. to translate Cyprians Epistle to the disgrace of his cause with the vulgar themselves For none can be so blinde as not to see in it the antiquity of infant Baptism which is all that we urge it for But if the cause I maintain be disgraced by translating that Epistle I shall take it as a sign that a spirit of dotage is faln on men so as to be enamouted on the blemishes of the ancient Sure me thinks none of the vulgar much less the learned should be so blinde as not to discern that infant Baptism was an errour which was maintained by the prime assertors upon such vain reasons as are in that Epistle which are not excused by what Mr. B. saith That the arguments are onely for confutation of the objection concerning infants uncleanness before the eighth day and not to give the grounds that warranted infant Baptism For the truth is both are done together and the best grounds they had for it are set down by them which will appear to be so frivolous by examination of them that notwithstanding all the credit Dr. Hammond endeavours to gain to it yet men of mean understandings I doubt not will by reading of it discern how ill that Councel did in that determination Nor doth it any whit beâ—ter the matter to say that it was not Cyprian alone but also a whole Councel of 66 Bishops which did thus agree with him For in like manner did the same Cyprian with a more famous Councel See Epist. to Jubaia ponep Quir. Janu. Steph. at the same place determine the rebaptizing of the baptized by Hereticks with better shew of Scripture and reason then in his Epistle to Fidus and alledged Apostolical authority as much as in this and yet he is deserted therein not onely by the Bishops of Rome that were then but also by Augustin and the African and other Churches Besides his maintaining the perfusion of the Clinici in his Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Epist. 7. his maintaining the necessity of water with the wine in the Lords Supper as